[ Page 1509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. Mr. Nicolson –– 1509

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Mrs. Wallace –– 1509

Agricultural Credit Act reimbursements. Mrs. Wallace –– 1510

Como Lake Private Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1510

Rent controls. Mr. Barnes –– 1511

Surgery cancellations in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 1512

Video display terminals. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 1513

Budget debate.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1513

Mr. Hall –– 1514

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1519

Mr. Passarell –– 1519

Mr. Brummet –– 1521

Mr. Leggatt –– 1522

Mr. Lockstead –– 1526

Mr. Cocke –– 1528

Mrs. Wallace –– 1532

Presenting reports

Report of Special Committee on Selection.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1533

Mr. Howard –– 1533

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1534

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1534

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask the House to welcome guests to our Legislative Assembly: a number of students from Cambie Junior High School in Richmond, accompanied by Mr. Dan Carswell. I'd like to welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to ask the House to join me in welcoming, on a visit to Victoria and this Legislature, my parents, Fritz and Nora Gabelmann, from Osoyoos.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. George Smith and his wife Ann. Mr. Smith is president of the Comox constituency for our party as well as regional director for region 1. With them are his brother Ed and his wife from North Battleford, I believe.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a group of about 30 students from Nanaimo District Senior Secondary, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach and led by their teachers, Miss Cooper and Mr. Little. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask this House to welcome today Lorne McCuish, the Member of Parliament for Prince George–Bulkley Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today is a delegation from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, including their president, Mr. Knoerr, from Smithers; Mr. Jack Reams from the Fraser Valley, a swine breeder there; Harold Allison of the cattlemen; and Mr. Austring of the blueberry growers. They're accompanied by two staff members, Mr. Wessel and Mr. Dick Stocks. I would like to say that many of the members of this House will know Mr. Stocks, and it would be of interest for them to know that Friday will be his last day of work with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I'm sure that all members of the House would join with me in not only welcoming this delegation to the precincts, but in wishing Mr. Stocks the very best in his retirement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the members' gallery this afternoon we have an outstanding British Columbian and outstanding Canadian who has had an exceptionally good record in employing people in our province and in representing the community within Vancouver in an outstanding way. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Ben Wosk.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Douglas College campus in the Royal City there is with us today a group of students who are studying welfare work. I'd like the House to acknowledge their presence.

Oral Questions

PURCELL WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is one of the largest untracked wilderness areas in the southeastern part of the province. In April 1974 it was protected under orders-in-council: one order prevented claim-staking under the Mineral Act until February 28, 1980. Has the minister taken action to have that reserve extended?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm continually surprised at the lack of knowledge about the public business of British Columbia. I was under the impression that questions which were public knowledge were not in order. But for that member's help and edification, the government has passed an order-in-council, which is fully public, extending the reserve on the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy for another year.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD
POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that Cargill, which owns Panco Poultry, is attempting to purchase Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Inasmuch as this would place 80 percent of the poultry processing in B.C. under the control of an international giant in the food industry, will the minister tell the House what action he has taken to prevent this takeover?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of Cargill's possible acquisition of Maplewood Poultry is under review in Ottawa by FIRA. I've publicly expressed my concern in regard to having approximately 80 or 85 percent of the total turkey processing being handled by one company.

MRS. WALLACE: Just to clarify, would the minister tell the House if he has intervened in this matter? Has he written or contacted the Foreign Investment Review Agency in any way, expressing his concern?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's under review by this government, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: I understand, then, that the minister has not at this point in time sent any communication to the Foreign Investment Review Agency to express his concern. Am I correct in that assumption?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again, it's under review. My staff have been in communication with Ottawa.

MRS. WALLACE: I think the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that Scott poultry, otherwise known as Pan Ready, a cooperatively and Canadian-owned poultry processing plant, is prepared to purchase Maplewood if Cargill is not successful?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's irregular to use question period to bring information to the House, but if the minister has an answer to the question, please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. The member opposite is also aware that any purchase by a foreign country of a Canadian corporation goes through the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa and they are

[ Page 1510 ]

also aware of the fact that there is a Canadian company interested in purchasing Maplewood Poultry as well.

MRS. WALLACE: Does this obvious inaction of this minister indicate that he prefers the control of Maplewood to fall into the hands of Cargill rather than into the cooperatively owned hands of a local concern?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Next question.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT
REIMBURSEMENTS

MRS. WALLACE: A further question to the minister. According to the minister's statement of March 6, the interest reimbursement under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1979, will be the difference between 9 percent and the average interest level calculated from a cross-section of loan applications. Will the minister tell the House approximately what that percentage rebate will be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this public knowledge?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to respond that the member is incorrect in her last statement with regard to Cargill, Mr. Speaker. There was a fair amount of conversation going on, and I didn't quite hear her second question. Would she like to restate it?

MR. SPEAKER: The gist of your question, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I quoted your statement relative to the Agricultural Credit Act, 1979, that the rebate would be the difference between 9 percent and the average cross-section. My question is: will you tell the House approximately what that percentage rebate will be for 1979?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, the rate for 1979, which is paid in 1980, is the difference between the average rate established — based on the applications coming in and the average bank lending rate — and 9 percent. That is the amount to be reimbursed. I cannot respond to the member approximately because the figures haven't been calculated as yet, but I can assure you that the cost to this government in regard to that interest reimbursement program for 1979 will well exceed our budget, but we made that commitment last April and we're sticking to it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in a statement the Minister of Agriculture said that the effective rate for 1980 will be 2 percent less than prime. The chartered bank prime business rate reached 15 percent in October 1979 and, of course, is going even higher. Is the minister aware that farmers' interest costs will jump by one-half from approximately 9 percent to a minimum of 13 percent, and that an increase of such proportions will have a disastrous effect upon the agricultural industry?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question really suggests its own answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am aware of the fact that this is going to have an impact on the farm community. I'm also aware of the fact that this government has gone on record in expressing concern with the federal government regarding the ever-escalating interest rates. It is a federal matter, but I will assure the member that the cost to this government for 1980 at 2 percent below prime is a better reduction to the plan that was put in place in 1974, because it will be at least a 3 percent gap, approximately, and if you look at the plan when it was in place in '74 and '75, your margins were about 1 to 1.5 percent difference. So I say we're doing a pretty good job, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated he realizes that this will have a detrimental effect on the agricultural industry. I would ask how he expects to expand agriculture, as he has indicated is his government's intention — by undermining agricultural credit? — regardless of what he says about former amounts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again for the member's edification — the amount of money that we will spend is well in excess of figures in previous years.

MRS. WALLACE: So is the interest rate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Madam Member, so is the interest rate. But you will also recognize there are other sectors of our economy in this province that don't have that relief. That is why we phase the program in from the 9 percent figure, because we can be severely criticized in the agricultural industry if that margin gets too far —between 15 percent and 9 percent somebody is going to question: "How come the farming community is not accepting some of the increase in costs like the other sectors of our economy?" We must be realistic in that program, and I think I've got the support of the farm community in recognizing that.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Apparently the Premier doesn't think that applies to the construction industry.

However, I have one final question. In view of all this, has the minister also decided to apply a similar massive increase to the interest rate for agricultural land development projects under the ALDA program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That matter hasn't been addressed as yet, Mr. Speaker. The ALDA program at the present time is at a 4 percent interest rate, but it is a small loan and it helps develop the agricultural land. If it was adjusted it would still be a very good program.

The other point I'd like to make is that there is no comparison between the $200 million construction program that created jobs, that provided housing, that assisted our forest industry, and the interest reimbursement program.

COMO LAKE PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Health, in a statement after question period, indicated that Como Lake Private Hospital — the hospital in question a few days earlier — had been quite exonerated. The former very proud Minister of Health, now Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is, I know, far more responsible for situations like this.

[ Page 1511 ]

However, checking with my sources last evening, I found 23 major complaints.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who were they?

MR. COCKE: I'm not telling you who my source is. But I will tell you this....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

MR. COCKE: I was very quiet yesterday when the minister was making his statement, yet I found 23 major criticisms. I am asking whether the minister, since that hospital has been inspected so recently, has taken any remedial action with respect to that hospital.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have chosen just two examples out of dozens and dozens of examples in the West End of Vancouver, where one tenant was paying $277 per month until March 1, 1980, at which time his rent will be increased by $203 to $480. Another tenant was paying $300 per month until March 1, 1980, at which time his rent will be increased to $480.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. BARNES: Both these tenants have no practical recourse to rent control legislation, Mr. Speaker, and in spite of the latest efforts by the staff of the rentalsman's office, rent control does not exist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that when I try to put some perspective on my question, the members opposite ask me to get to the question. I intend to and I hope they will answer it.

The lack of housing and high rents have created an emergency situation. Has the government decided to reinstitute rent controls? The question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does his government intend to reinstitute rent controls?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order as it talks about future policy of the government. Next question, please.

MR. BARNES: There is no such thing as rent controls right now.

MR. LAUK: If Mr. Speaker had listened to the question, he wouldn't be overruling it.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member for Vancouver Centre demonstrating contempt of this House? If he is, he knows very well the remedies.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Before we recognize the next questioner, I read for you the recommendations by which the question period of this House is governed. "Your committee further recommends that the following provisions be applied to the oral question period: only questions considered by Mr. Speaker to be urgent and important shall be permitted, and his decision shall be final." The report is signed by G.V. Lauk, chairman. [ Laughter. ]

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first member for Vancouver Centre questioned your decision, Mr. Speaker, because the question was put: "Has the government decided to institute...?" It didn't ask about future policy. It asked whether the government had made a decision. So I think the member wondered whether you had heard the question correctly. It was a perfectly legitimate point.

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has the government instituted new...." then the question is in order.

MR. LAUK: Point of order. The question, as I heard it, was quite clearly: "Has the government decided to reinstitute rent controls?" That question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not have the record in front of me; therefore I have to accept the words of the hon. member. I will allow the question. Would the hon. member repeat the question?

MR. BARNES: Lack of housing and high rents have created an emergency situation. Has the government decided to reinstitute rent controls?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, rent controls are still in effect.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, from visits to other honourable assemblies such as this one that traditionally have a question period, I have found all of them allow a preamble sufficient to focus the attention of the minister to whom the question is asked on the gravamen of the question itself — what it means. It is clear that in the past few days several Crown ministers have been interrupting the questioner, disenabling the question to be put across so that it would be understood, disenabling the minister to hear the question, and they have had to ask for repetitions. I would ask that all hon. members, if they respect that procedure in this House, remain silent while questions are being asked.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to give an answer to a question raised by one of the hon. members opposite.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1512 ]

SURGERY CANCELLATIONS
IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. MAIR: On March 5 last, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked a question with regard to surgery cancellations at Victoria General and Royal Jubilee hospitals. Due to the serious nature of this matter I took this question as notice and promised at the time to come back to the House with a full statement on this situation. The member expressed concern over the large number of surgery cancellations at the two Victoria hospitals and the lengthy waiting list for elective surgery, and asked what action I would be taking to alleviate this situation for the period between now and such time as the new Helmcken Road hospital is operational. The member gave the length of the waiting list as 2,000 at the present time, and the number of cancellations this year as 253.

I have not determined how bad or good these figures are in relation to other metropolitan centres of similar size. However, every single incident of cancelled elective surgery does indeed cause a great deal of anxiety for the individuals concerned. I am extremely sensitive to this situation. I want the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that this government is taking real and positive steps to reduce surgical waiting lists and the cancellation of elective surgery in Victoria's two major acute-care hospitals.

I might point out that the number of beds available on any particular day depends on a number of factors, including the number of patients discharged, the number of emergency admissions, and the condition of patients scheduled for surgery. These variables make it very difficult to avoid some cancellations, and make it very difficult indeed to predict bed availability. Health ministry staff are working with the two hospitals in an attempt to ensure the most effective utilization of existing beds.

However, Mr. Speaker, the primary cause of the problem is the number of extended- and intermediate-care patients presently occupying acute-care beds in these two facilities. While the number of these patients in the hospitals varies from month to month, at present there are approximately 200 long-term care patients occupying acute-care beds in these two hospitals. I'm advised that approximately 63 percent of the acute-care beds in these two facilities may be occupied at any given time by emergency and urgent surgery cases. The extent to which long-term care patients occupy the remaining 37 percent of the beds greatly influences, of course, the availability of elective surgery in this city.

Ministry staff are working hard to expand our Long-Term Care Program at an accelerated rate to alleviate this situation. However, it appears in some respects that the Health ministry's Long-Term Care Program has done too good a job in generating clients for its services. The success of the program, which, after all, does deal with people with health problems, has raised the difficulties to which the hon. member has referred. Despite rapid expansion of the Long-Term Care Program over the last two years, the two major Victoria hospitals still have long-term care patients that are awaiting beds in more appropriate facilities.

Over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, home support services available to eligible Victorians have increased substantially. These programs, which include homemaker services, home-care services and adult day-care service programs, are important in reducing the need for institutional care.

Extended-care and intermediate-care programs were expanded by over 400 beds in 1978 and 1979, and at least 450 new beds will come on stream in 1980. It is interesting to note that the number of surgical cancellations at the two hospitals in 1979 dropped by some 30 percent over 1978. It is believed that the 295 new extended- and intermediate-care beds introduced in 1979 caused this, and that the 450 new beds coming on stream this year will have a similar favourable impact.

To further expedite the transfer of long-term patients from acute-care hospitals, I have asked the Juan De Fuca Hospital Society to consider reopening the House of Peace building on the Priory site in Colwood. I am pleased to say that I have received their full cooperation and support. This unit, which will provide approximately 40 additional extended-care beds, will be ready for occupancy in the very near future. I'm hopeful it will be as soon as May. While work is underway for the early opening of the House of Peace, planning continues for the construction of the new extended-care beds already mentioned.

I am granting, Mr. Speaker, subject to the concurrence of the Capital Regional District Hospital and Health Planning Commission, approval in principle to the Juan De Fuca Hospital Society to plan for another 75 extended-care beds, and for the Saanich Peninsula Hospital to add a 25-bed extended unit to their present facility. In addition, consideration is being given to another 430 intermediate-care beds in this area.

These measures, Mr. Speaker, combined with modifications in the processing of applications and admission procedures, should have the dual effect of ensuring that long-term care patients receive appropriate programs and facilities, and making more acute-care hospital beds available to individuals requiring elective surgery at one of these two Victoria hospitals.

Of course, the new Helmcken Road hospital is due for completion in 1983, and I have instructed my staff to constantly monitor population data, paying particular attention to older-age groupings to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself. I hope that the review of long-term care facilities, which I mentioned in the House yesterday, will address the need for more precise forecasts of long-term care requirements.

I have indicated in the past that our Long-Term Care Program has had two effects: it brought out more clients than we had anticipated, and it attracted many candidates from elsewhere to this wonderful program. With the cooperation of all involved — which for the most part, I might say, has been magnificent — and the new beds authorized and being built, these serious problems raised by my friend opposite will soon be eliminated.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the minister's attention through you to standing order 47(3). I appreciate the minister bringing the information to the House, but 47(3) deals with such information.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling as to the tabling of documents used during debates or ministerial statements, and the response to statements that may be violating 47(3).

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, had I had notice of that question prior to it being asked, that is

[ Page 1513 ]

the length of the answer that I would have given spontaneously in the House at that time. It seemed to me appropriate to give that answer — if I had so wished — in question period today; but I chose to extend the courtesy to the members opposite of giving it after question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a ruling on the minister's courtesy or lack of it. That's for the public to judge. I'm asking you to interpret the rules of the House as they stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Standing order 47(3) suggests that if a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to answer a question which was put to me by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)?

Leave granted.

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The question arose with respect to video display terminals and cathode-ray tubes. The Workers' Compensation Board is not considering dropping from our industrial health and safety regulations those regulations dealing with ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Section 13.63 of the WCB industrial health and safety regulations covers this issue, and we have no intention of changing that regulation.

The proposed amendment to schedule B of the act — to which, Mr. Speaker, the member might have been referring, although I am not sure — is to clarify the injuries which arise from ionizing radiation and separate them from the injuries caused by non-ionizing radiation. Both kinds of injuries continue to be covered for compensation purposes when they arise out of, or in the course of, employment.

If the WCB does receive a complaint about CRTs or VDTs, we send out an industrial hygiene officer to conduct the necessary tests and, if necessary, write orders. We have had no experience with the Teleram unit, but would investigate a complaint against it, as we would any other CRT unit or any other piece of industrial equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I have some other matters of technical data, which I don't think it would be appropriate to raise in the House at this time. If the member would like a copy of the response, I'd be quite prepared to send it to him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the House should be very clear that the order to which the Leader of the Opposition referred really doesn't have anything to do with the asking of questions in oral question period, but rather the placing of questions on the order paper and how they shall be handled from that point.

I think that the House should also know that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and others have, out of courtesy to this House, not answered questions during question period, which would have required some extra time. I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, having heard the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, that the opposition doesn't wish us to carry on that practice, and that we should answer all questions during question period, regardless of when they've been asked.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that a careful reference to the standing order, which the Chair attempted to do, clarified that matter and the House appeared to be satisfied. However, there was another question regarding the tabling of documents, and I might just refer to page 421 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "A minister who summarizes a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the table." However, it is inherent in this particular statement that those matters of correspondence, or those documents which are read from in their entirety.... I think that it is acceptable practice in this House for those to be tabled. I would ask all hon. members to just review page 421 of the eighteenth edition and take it for their guidance.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday a number of items were mentioned with respect to the motion put forth by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. One of the points raised in that particular motion is references made to "embracing manufacturing and secondary industry, and to mobilize our human and natural resources." Now if there has ever been any better evidence of whether or not a government is mobilizing its forces.... The budget certainly indicates the amount of money which is being put into the private sector. Yesterday I made reference to a trade journal and I referred to four separate quotes. In summary each one of them felt encouraged by the prospects for the province in the coming year — the strength of the economy, the amount of money which was available in construction, industry and resources, including mining and forestry. I think one thing we have to keep in mind at all times is that the amount of money which is being spent is primarily labour intensified, hon. member. Most of it is. In the construction industry and in the forest industry it has great expectations.

You know normal research for the members opposite — they're constantly referring to the press. In the Vancouver Sun on February 23 it said: "There are 2,300 new mining jobs seen in the next few years. " I can tell you that wasn't the case some years ago.

One of the concerns I had with respect to the motion made by the member opposite is that they constantly look for deficits. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) told the House when he analyzed the budget in 1976: "No deficit." The same thing applied to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi): "No deficit." But it seems to me the opposition's view of deficit financing is most unusual. They believe their job while in government is to provide the deficit; when we're in government we provide the financing. We do have a surplus, and that surplus is being used. It's being sent back into the private sector.

The interesting thing about it all is that the budget refers constantly to construction, hospitals and schools. The question then comes up: why do we have that surplus? The engine in the private sector was given some fuel, jobs were created, expansion occurred and profits were made. All of this provided revenue.

[ Page 1514 ]

Tourism is substantially up. Any tour of the interior or northern part of the province will find that motels and hotels are all jammed and the restaurants are busy.

Mineral exploration is once again an industry in our province. Surely if it's an industry, we're providing jobs, and if we're providing jobs we're capitalizing on the human resources which are available.

I remember that last year the hon. Leader of the Opposition said: "As socialists we will be hard-nosed capitalists in business ventures." Hard-nosed capitalists — some nose! He drove the industry out of the province. Today it's back in and we're capitalizing on human resources. Last year he made reference as well to the fact that he was prepared to make a separate deal with any company wishing to conduct explorations and set up a full-scale mining company. He said that last year. Reference was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to coal leases — that there was no uncertainty as far as the majors were concerned in exploration and development. But I'll tell you it was done, and it was all done above board. We didn't say, as he did: "We're prepared to make a separate deal with any company wishing to conduct explorations and set up a full-scale mining company." I remember. I heard him say it.

Are we capitalizing on human resources in the forest industry? Certainly we are. Through a spirit of cooperation and encouragement we have record revenues and expenditures — substantially increased revenues to the provincial treasury without buying the industry. I like that — without buying the industry. A well-known leader of the members opposite said: "I've realized that it is possible to plan an economy without owning it." I think I'll remember that for a long time, particularly when it was made by Tommy Douglas.

Before we can deliver those products and capitalize on human resources, industrial development must be in place. When industrial development is in place, not only do we capitalize on human resources in providing employment, but it generates revenue which provides the equal distribution of wealth to cover our social obligations.

The best example of that is hospitals and highways. A social conscience is not the private preserve of the members opposite. A surplus comes about for many reasons. It does not result from a policy based on experimentation and political theorizing. It comes about by being based on sound principles, not like the members opposite who, in their planned economy, included everything in the plans except the economy.

For the past few weeks we have listened to a wide variety of subjects being discussed in both the budget debate and in the debate on the amendment as put forth by the Leader of the Opposition. I can't subscribe to that motion for one moment. I can't, because it says that we are not embracing or mobilizing our human and natural resources. The fact is, we are.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite — the socialists — do have a chance to form a government; it's just one of the risks that democracy has to take.

I speak against the motion. The budget is strong. It reflects the confidence our people have in the economy and the government they have elected.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment, which deals with three areas of concern — unemployment, inflation and interest rates — it is my opinion, notwithstanding the contribution just made by the Minister of Labour, who had a number of interesting things to say, that the government's action or lack of action, depending on which issue you are talking about, has in large measure contributed to the problem that the amendment complains about.

It should come as no surprise to anyone listening to my words representing the party on this side of the House that they go to the differences in philosophy between the government and the opposition, because the government's philosophy in these hard times is typified by the three problems that the amendment addresses. The problems are exacerbated and made worse because the government itself cannot imagine or visualize the government as a basic economic tool in the province. It just can't imagine that the government itself can be part and parcel of the leadership, the guidance, the determination or the direction of the economic machinery of this province. Instead, in dealing, for instance, with bills before us that I can only touch on lightly going past, it deals with one-time political side-show expenditures of money.

Obviously the expenditure of that money is going to do some good. Nobody is denying that for one second. But in terms of the government taking a place in the economic strategy of this province, it doesn't meet the problem. A one-shot political side-show, in itself, is not planning, not stimulating, and not leading. It's only a continuation of the kind of half-baked interference in the private sector that they represent, which typified the government from 1952 to 1972; the interference that saw the expropriation of B.C. Electric and saw the government take over the ferry system; the interference with the private sector for the wrong reasons — not to take over, direct, lead us, or stimulate us, but as a continuation of the one-shot political side-show economic measures of those piggy bank funds that you are now repeating all over again in Bills 6 and 9, or whatever numbers they are. It is the way the Social Credit Party has behaved in the province answering the private sector since the days of those takeovers that I referred to.

When the major spokesperson on finance for our side took his place to reply to the Minister of Finance the other day, he said:

"Nothing in this budget will help to solve the three main problems facing us today: record unemployment, high interest rates, and increases in the cost of living.... This budget doesn't make it any easier for the average British Columbian to buy groceries. It does not make it any easier for him to meet his mortgage payments, to buy a home. It doesn't make it any easier for him to find a job."

It is because of the truth of that statement that we have put forward an amendment dealing with those three specific issues. The major spotlighted expenditures of the government are showpieces: B.C. Place, the Annacis Bridge project for Surrey and Burnaby, the convention centres, and the port development at Prince Rupert. But as a start, as an economic document that commenced the eighth decade of this century, it isn't going to fulfil its destiny.

It is not, in my view, going to do anything at all to address those three problems. I can't think of any way in which to spend half a billion dollars that would be less relevant in meeting the serious flaws in our economy. After all, those schemes, no matter how grand they may be, no matter how much we may support each and every one of them, won't address the problems of inflation, unemployment and skyrocketing interest rates. If it isn't going to fill our pocket-

[ Page 1515 ]

books, will the budget make those few dollars last a little longer? The answer to that is no. There is no indication that the government is preparing to move ahead with the kinds of long-term employment encouragement schemes that are necessary to get British Columbia work.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who just took his place, will, with me, look in vain for those proposals specifically designed to meet today's problems. If we take the tack taken by the Minister of Labour, the member for Prince George North.... He, in effect, said: "What do you think the money in the budget is going to do if it's not going to put people to work?" In short, the minister, who should be the one who is complaining on that side more than anybody else, says: "If you throw enough money at the problem, it will go away." The problems will not go away just by throwing money at them.

The money he is telling us to adulate, the money he is recording in his speech of yesterday and today, only goes to fuel the system that we've got going now. That money, the $5.8 billion in the estimates, will only go to fuel the system already in operation, a system that is obviously in trouble.

While I think of it — and if I may have the attention of the Labour minister, who is talking to his predecessor — I attended a conference last week that dealt, in part, with the subject of apprenticeship training. That is dealing with our young people, dealing with manpower development in this province. Here's a statistic the minister may be interested in. In 1975, when we left office, there were 13,139 apprentices in the program. Five years later, five years after your government went into in operation, there are 13,799. That is some progress, Mr. Minister. That is after going to a high the year after we left office — remember it is a three-year program — of over 14,500. You're not doing very well. You're not doing very well in equipping our young people to meet the problems of unemployment.

Five years of that Social Credit planning, and what have we got? We're standing still. Everyone will tell you that things are in a mess: the Building and Construction Trades Council, the industrial unions. I see in the galleries today representatives of the industrial unions. The industrial unions will tell you that the apprenticeship program is in a mess. They all say the same thing. The bureaucracy, led by incompetent ministers in the past, has stifled....

MR. BRUMMET: Name them.

MR. HALL: I'll name them. Just wait your turn, Mr. Member for North Peace River.

The bureaucracy has stifled the changes foreseen in 1974, and the investigation, the inventory and the statistics that were gleaned, the task forces sent into operation in 1974.... Because of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education at the time — the whole system is in a mess.

The one thing I congratulate you about, and the one thing I congratulate the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) about, is that we've got two new ministers, perhaps not befuddled like their predecessors, perhaps not quite overweened with ambition, moving around the House from one side to the other as they were.... You've got an opportunity, the two of you, sitting next to each other, to sort out that apprenticeship program and deal with it in a satisfactory way, to make sure that our young people are going to the job, going for training, either in a position to receive the training or to have training from the vocational institute — for an interview or from the apprenticeship point of view.

Serious doubts exist now over the various roles played by the Ministry of Education and by the Ministry of Labour in this important program. For years, Mr. Minister — and I'm glad to have your attention — Canada has been able to "wing it" by relying on a continuous supply of trained people, skilled people, coming to Canada from Europe for high wages and a better way of life, for more freedom — freedom of movement, freedom of adventure — for all the reasons that many of our ancestors came here and I personally came here.

Mr. Speaker, in Europe the reverse is true. The European economic system is being supported by immigrants for low wages, for unskilled jobs, completely the reverse of our traditional pattern here in North America. In the last few years the economic systems on either side of the Atlantic are drawing closer together. It's not quite so attractive now for a technically skilled tradesperson in Europe to come to North America. The differential in wage rates is not so wide and so noticeable; the inducements are not so splendid. Add to this the other factors of disincentive — the unemployment situation in North America, federal policy on immigration, and disincentives that you and I could discuss in another debate. The fact of the matter is that when you add all those factors together, we're heading for a crunch, a crisis in skills. There's no doubt about it.

Yet your figures alone show no progress in five years. What are we doing about that? What are we going to tell the school-leaving class in Surrey? What am I going to tell those students at Queen Elizabeth High School and Princess Margaret High School in White Rock — that they're going to be two and three years on the unemployment rolls? "Go and work at Kentucky Fried Chicken." "Try and get a job on the ferry." No, we've got to do better than that.

There's not even an increase in budgetary terms to cover the cost of inflation; there's not even an increase in the estimates for this program that will meet the diminishing value of the dollar.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) quite correctly corrected one of our speakers when he said that you have to add to the estimates a $4.5 million special appropriation for manpower development, for opportunities. He was quite correct to point that out. I should point out, however, that it was $5 million last year. It's only $4.5 million this year; that's going the wrong way. You were half a million dollars out from your predecessor. You lost half a million dollars because there's no muscle there — half a million dollars before Treasury Board. That's not very good. Anyway, we'll give you a passing grade just for the moment until about five past three.

If we add up the minister's own figures of $21.5 million in his estimates and $4.5 million for special appropriation, we come to $26 million. That figure has got to be compared to our 1975 figure — you guys want to talk about '75 all the time; I don't know why —of $20 million for the employment program alone. That was special appropriation, not taking into account the general manpower training vote in the estimates.

What are you going to do about that, Mr. Member for Prince George? You've got to use your muscle. You've got to talk to your neighbour from Oak Bay. You've got to do

[ Page 1516 ]

something about training, about manpower, about the mismatching of skills, about bringing our young people to the workplace and having them equipped and trained and ready to learn — not to swell the unemployment rolls, as I say. That's what's happening south of the river in Richmond and Delta, in Surrey and White Rock. More important, those two new members should be tearing strips off the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because he's really the villain of the piece. He's the guy who wants to fight 1975 all over again. He's always getting up and waving his arms and making his 1975 speech. I've got his '78 report — that was after you'd been in power all that length of time. You said in your press releases that you'd turned the corner, you'd cleaned up the mess, you'd put to the sword everything that was slightly pink. Everything with my name on it or with anybody else's name on it had all been washed out.

What did they say in the 1978 report on economic development? Economic Development was the one ministry of government above all that should have been doing something. In the report tabled in the Legislature covering the '78 calendar year, the minister was unable to point to one significant accomplishment in his ministry. The minister should be thankful he doesn't operate on commission, like salesmen in the private sector.

"The department was directly responsible" — so the report claimed — "for an increase of $45 million to $50 million in manufacturing exports, an amount equivalent to the creation of almost 1,500 jobs in the province's manufacturing sector."

The clever wording will be noted:

"...equivalent to creating almost 1,500 jobs."

"The Economic Development department itself had a budget of more than $29 million, in which $9 million was spent on administration. The remaining $20 million from federal as well as provincial sources were awarded in the forms of grants and loans."

Apart from all the words that the minister used in presenting his report and making his speeches from 1975 to 1980, the bottom line is that for an expenditure of almost $30 million we produced only $15 million in direct new investment. Really, that's not a record I would want to write home about. I think that that's not the kind of performance for which the member for South Peace River should be marked A. That's a pathetic performance.

This year he's going to have $59 million to fritter away. And as I can discern it, he has no programs. Indeed, one of the main programs he has is a fifty-fifty deal with the federal government; I don't know how much credit he's taking for that. But in the nine-month statement, in trying to solve the problems of unemployment, I notice that of a $21.5 million program he'd not spent half. So you make your speech, saying: "We're going to spend a lot of money." Then you look at the estimates, and you don't spend the money. You're really trying to get it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to my theme on the amendment and why I'm supporting this direct criticism of the government. It's because they won't learn from their mistakes. They continue to withdraw vast amounts of money from the consumer spending stream. They started that way and they'll finish — and I predict they will be finished — that way. In 1976, the year to meet all the doom and gloom, the year setting the tone and the pace for this government, the following comments were made by Simon Fraser University professor of economics Dr. J. McCallum:

"The Social Credit government ignored the recommendations of their own economic policy advisers. In their first budget they withdrew over $462 million from the consumer spending stream by raising taxes, raising income tax, raising cigarette and tobacco tax, increasing medical premiums and hospital rates, increasing ICBC rates, increasing bus fares and increasing ferry rates."

The source is the B.C. Ministry of Finance budget in April 1976. There was $462 million withdrawn from the spending stream of this province. And then, I should add, a year afterwards they boasted about surpluses.

"The results of that deliberate policy of overtaxation were disastrous, for both the rates of inflation and the rate of unemployment increased."

In commenting on those tax increases, your own governmental research director for the Ministry of Finance stated that the Premier and the Minister of Finance "either don't know what they're doing or they don't care." He's gone. Not surprisingly, he bit the dust very soon after that. "It's been estimated by independent economists that this deliberate policy of overtaxation" — which is still to be found in the budget that we're debating today and why this amendment is before us — "has added 7,000 people to the unemployment rolls, increased the rate of inflation by one full percentage point and decreased economic output by $480 per family of four."

That's what you did in 1976, and you still keep making the same mistake. That's why we object to this big government increasing its expenditures faster than ever we did. How we were pilloried! How we were taken to task! An increase of a billion dollars in one year. You've increased staff to a figure never before seen, the largest figure ever. Big government. And we're not taking into consideration all the things that you've hived off into Crown corporations and quasi-public bodies hither and yon; how you've sold off, got rid of or transferred them to some other jurisdiction. So even comparing the apple on one side and the apple on the other, it's the biggest government we've ever seen in this province.

With all the things you've done in withdrawing that consumer spending power, at the same time you've not tackled the question of inflation, unemployment and spiralling interest rates. One of the reasons you don't do anything — I wish the Minister of Finance were here and I could speak to him through you, Mr. Speaker — is that the opportunities to do something don't appear every day. They only come along every now and again. It's not something you can do every day. You have to have a plan, a strategy, and when you see the opportunity you've got to move. We're proud of what we did between '72 and '75 in moving into the economy in a very real way. You should be proud too; otherwise you can't possibly applaud when you mention the word BCRIC. If we hadn't done what we did between '72 and '75, you would be applause-less whenever the Premier stood up and talked about BCRIC, which gets him so animated.

The reason you don't do anything is that you don't grasp the opportunity when it comes along. If we're to talk about unemployment and inflation, we've got to increase our control, our direction and our impact on the economy. Indeed, we would argue that we have to do that if we're to have any future at all. This morning's interest rate announcement alone would indicate the severity and the need for large-scale intervention by governments into the economic field.

So what's happening, and what are we doing about it?

[ Page 1517 ]

Most major decisions, Mr. Speaker, regarding the B.C. economy are made in New York, San Francisco and Toronto. The degree of external control is increasing dramatically. Fifty-one percent of our mining, petroleum and gas industry and 60 percent of our manufacturing is in foreign hands. External control is not in B.C.'s best interest. Ask anybody on the other side to stand up and argue with that, deny that, or tell me I'm wrong when I say that that control is not in B.C.'s best interest. For example, external control can reduce job opportunities because of the tendency of externally controlled firms to process B.C. resources outside B.C. We've seen that. There was the instantaneous investigation into the fishing industry. Remember that one? It took two seconds, even faster than Leslie Peterson's investigation into Socred finances.

Mr. Speaker, the manufactured goods from externally located parent companies — that's the control the offshore controllers exert on B.C. This government should be committed, this Legislature should be committed, to regaining control over key sectors of the B.C. economy and placing greater decision-making power in the hands of the average B.C. resident. That's what we should be doing. In mining, which includes petroleum and natural gas, 51 percent is controlled outside our borders; manufacturing is 60 percent. Takeovers! We're losing control, not gaining it. For all the brave words of the Premier extolling the tremendous inflow of capital into BCRIC, all those brave words about economic self-determination, the fact of the matter is that takeovers are increasing, from 11 in 1976 to 39 in 1978. The priority of this province's economic strategy should be to safeguard B.C.'s environment and reduce occupational health hazards and accidents as well. We don't hear that. We don't see any of that from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

The B.C. economy is developed by exporting resources such as timber and minerals to outside markets. Ideally the earnings from the sale of those resources should be reinvested back into the B.C. economy to strengthen the management of the province's resources and to build up a strong and diversified economic base. The evidence, however, suggests that B.C. has not been particularly successful in doing this. The management of resources remains pitifully inadequate, although I will agree there's been an improvement in this budget. It's the one thing I liked about the budget. There's now been some determination by the minister who sits way over in the far corner there, at first blush, to do something about maintaining our resources and looking after them. We'll have more to say about that later. But the fact of the matter is that the B.C. economy is almost as specialized today as it was 20 years ago. That's one of the things that we could do something about and that's why the minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is such a failure. That's why we continue to be at the mercy of everybody else — at the mercy of the east, the south, anywhere outside these borders. That's why BCRIC is letting that government down. Not one job created yet — just a holding company. The jury's out still, I agree.

The fact of the matter is that the money released by the purchase of the CPI holdings in M&B is now loose. It's loose money. It can go off anywhere. It could be leaving a gross deficit in the money available to help Canadian control of Canada. That's why we issued the statement we did. It would have been far better for us, in terms of remedying the economic troubles of this province, to purchase the shares in that company that are held offshore instead of just transferring one Canadian dollar for another Canadian dollar and letting the dollars that have gone to CPI perhaps go loose out of the economy. I hope they don't. I've got some faith, perhaps, in Big Julie that they won't, but who knows? They could go anywhere. By our actions, or the actions of the corporation, that's what's happened. That's why, Mr. Speaker, in 1979, in an election fought very often on a comparison of performance, and indeed dealing with the three subjects that are the essential elements of this amendment, the people of British Columbia came back. They came back to realize that the economic mumbo-jumbo of the Premier and his Minister of Finance didn't hold water. I want to say quite succinctly in straightforward, tangible terms that that's one of the reasons I'm back.

They want to talk about '75. I like to talk about '79. There are some obvious reasons for that. The one reason I'm back is because in that debate in 1979, not quite a year ago, there was a comparison of performance about inflation, about dealing with prices, about job production, about the control of the economy. Mr. Speaker, I'm back and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is back. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is here. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) is here. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in spite of your best efforts....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He's not here.

MR. HALL: He's here. Don't you believe it. Every time there's a vote Mr. Member, my friend, my seat-mate, my running-mate, the first member for Surrey, every time there's a vote he'll be here. The member for Skeena is here, despite your best efforts, through you, Mr. Speaker, to those government benches over there, that partisan government, in terms of things it should not have touched. The two members from Burrard....

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I say you're partisan in things that you should not have touched. I'll develop that for you because you didn't understand it. I'm suggesting that in spite of your best nakedly political efforts in gerrymandering the political map of this province, the members from Burrard came back here, representing different seats. That's what I'm telling you. Just as you got rid of the fellow who was here last time, we managed to get back under our own steam as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it would assist us if you would address the Chair. And hon. members, let us not interrupt the member who is speaking.

MR. HALL: I thought I was doing very well till now. Mr. Speaker, the two members who represented Vancouver-Burrard from 1975 to 1979 were returned, representing different seats, as indeed was the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). That was a comparison of performance. That was where the public looked at the differences between us. That's where the test was in 1979. There'll be another test, hopefully as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is because the public made those kinds of judgments, and because they were aware of the facts we presented during the election campaign of 1979.... Now I would like to bring them up to date. I'd like to present some

[ Page 1518 ]

more of those facts that deal with the question of inflation, of unemployment, and how this government is grappling with the economic indices of the province.

Let's start off, Mr. Speaker, in terms of real economic growth. The average rate of growth in the gross provincial product in the years that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) loves to talk about, 1972-75, was 5.6 percent. The average rate of growth of the gross provincial product under the government sitting opposite, from 1975 to 1978, was 4.6 percent — and the source for that information is the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development itself.

Turning now to the Conference Board in Canada, and asking them to give me the figures for 1979, we find the real economic growth of this province — that is, the annual rate of growth of the gross provincial product — was 3.3 percent. If we now take the years 1975-79 inclusive, the Social Credit performance is 4.3 percent, a full 1.3 percent less than the figures achieved during 1972-75.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board in Canada forecast that in 1980 the real economic growth in this province will be 2.6 percent. That's because you believe you can solve the problem by just throwing money at it. I come to that one obvious dilemma that you have with a $5.8 billion budget and no plans. You think just by spending it the problems will go away.

The second fact, Mr. Speaker: investments. The rate of investment under the New Democratic Party government for 1972-75, those years that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) loves to talk about, was 31 percent. The rate of investment in the first three years of your government was 30 percent. What do we find out now? The Employers' Council of B.C. Business Trends Survey, December 1979: 39 percent of the companies contacted are operating below capacity. That fact alone, together with the performance of the Canadian banks, is probably the most disgusting scandal in this province since Confederation. Cash is on strike, capital is on strike in this country, and our economic capacity is not being utilized.

I remember a member for the Social Credit Party sitting over there, Mr. Speaker — I think it was before your time — the member for Vancouver Centre, a well known bon vivant, Mr. Capozzi. He joined us in applauding when we said that the greatest scandal in Canada and B.C. was the behaviour of the chartered banks. I well remember that speech. It was probably the only time I ever applauded him, but he was right.

What else does the Employers' Council of B.C. tell us? Of those contacted, 64 percent expected to spend the same or less on new construction; 53 percent expected to spend the same or less on new machinery and equipment; only 23 percent in the primary sector expected to spend more. That's some performance in terms of investment. On top of that, bankruptcies to September 1979 were 545, compared to 525 for the whole of 1978.

The inflation rate. There's been some improvement in that, vis-a-vis the inflation rate for Canada as a whole. The inflation rate in this province, this piece of geography that we're here as a Legislature to look after, is 7.6 percent. In the last 12 months the price increases in Vancouver in food have been 10.6 percent; in rental accommodation, 4.2 percent, and they're going out of sight; clothing, 9.9 percent; transportation, 10.6 percent. That's how we are dealing with inflation.

We're now coming to the main point, Mr. Speaker: the unemployment rate in this province. The unemployment rate in B.C. rose from 7.1 percent to 9.6 percent from December 1979 to January 1980, 7.3 percent to 8 percent, seasonally adjusted. The number unemployed in January was 119,000, the highest in provincial history. B.C. was the only province in which actual unemployment was higher than one year ago. That increase in the unemployment rolls — and this is why I talked about the tradespeople, the apprenticeship program, the training that should be put forward by this government in the Ministries of Education and Labour — was concentrated among young male workers. Vancouver and Vancouver Island accounted for all of the deterioration, and particularly significant was the fall in primary industry employment, which went from 62,000 down to 56,000.

There has been an improvement in the last month, and I welcome it. I don't think for one second that the turning over of $8 million in mortgage money has been the cause of that unemployment, but if the government wants to take that credit, fine. I don't happen to share it, but that's fine. That's the debate that can go on.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the monthly bulletin from the B.C. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), on February 8 he said the actual unemployment rate was 8.3 percent. That's versus 9.4 percent a year ago and 9.6 percent in January 1980. We have to look into those figures. I get a little tired of looking into figures and not realizing what is represented by those figures. It's pretty good to be an MLA. We're all nicely fixed, thank you. Mr. Speaker, what this represents is that, for instance, employment in primary occupations fell from 52,000 to 50,000 in January-February 1980. We know there's no evidence at all that the government is dealing with secondary and manufacturing industries. As Tommy Douglas, who was eulogized by the Minister of Labour just a minute or two ago, said, we can't be drawers of water and hewers of wood forever.

Employment in primary occupations fell by 20 percent between July 1979 and February 1980. Employment in processing remained static, employment in construction fell from 87,000 to 73,000, and total employment figures are down. Layoffs in forestry are three times the normal level. Plywood, largely geared to the domestic market, had 30 percent laid off at the beginning of February. The IWA estimate that it will reach 40 percent. In the sawmill sector, Crown Zellerbach laid off 1,000 workers in February. Western Forest Industries laid off 250 at the same time. Those are the facts, faces, names and kind of people behind those figures.

Mr. Speaker, I've no difficulty in recognizing that other governments are involved in solving these problems. I'm not so stupid as to think that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance can go out and solve this tomorrow. But we can't detect even the understanding of their role and we can't even detect that they want to take hold of the economy and give it some leadership and direction. I've no difficulty in recognizing that there are no easy solutions. We can all brag about surpluses and the Statistics Canada lead table. I've been doing that in here on and off in these debates since 1966. Rates of spending per capita on education.... We know that. We've seen the battle of cuttings and the battle of the lead table.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 1519 ]

Where's the plan? Where's the strategy? What are you doing about manufacturing? What are you doing about secondary industry? What are you doing about our young people? Bragging about surpluses and lead tables and refighting the wars of 1975 just won't do. They won't do when I go back to Surrey and join with my seatmate (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) over there in opening libraries, in talking to school people, in dealing with overcrowding and all of the various things that he and I do — and we do it well. What do we say in answer to people who say: "Will there be a job?" "What are these kids going do?" "What about unemployment?" "How can I pay the bills this weekend?" What answers are you going to tell me to give them? Vote Social Credit? Is that it? They didn't believe you.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's good advice.

MR. HALL: They're not going to believe you, Rafe. Mr. Speaker, thank you, the green light's on.

HON. MR. MAIR: Ernie's seen the light.

MR. HALL: They're not going to believe you because of what I told you about 1979. You seem to have forgotten. Where's Mr. Kerster? Where's Mr. Veitch? Where's Loewen? Where's Mr. Bawtree?

HON. MR. MAIR: Where's Bob Williams?

MR. HALL: I presume he's in Port Moody. Is he supposed to be here? If he'd run he'd have beaten any one of you lot, I'll tell you that.

So I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment, and I think they'll screw up their courage and support it themselves.

HON. MR. MAIR: Normally I would say how pleased I am to take my place in this debate, but I've got to tell you that the debate on this amendment is a waste of my time, and most importantly, a waste of this House's time and a waste of the public's time.

MR. LEGGATT: Sit down.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you. I will, right after I take Bob Williams in Kamloops anytime he wants, my friend. When the budget was brought in by my friend, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I was, of course, called by the local press. The question they had to ask me is how come the opposition Finance critic was so weak and pathetic in his criticism of this budget. My reply to the press at that time was that this is a sign that you can read. When the criticism is pitiable — like his was — what it really does is accent and point out the strength of the budget. They had so little to criticize that their criticism was weak and pathetic and not worthy of any consideration.

The same theory holds true for this amendment. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the frailty and the shallowness and the insipidness of this motion speak volumes in support of the budget itself. The bankruptcy of substance in this amendment, its total inadequacy, I submit to you, is eloquent praise, indeed, of the budget brought down by our Minister of Finance. I have no desire to add to the opposition's agony by hitting them when they are down.

MR. PASSARELL: Standing in support of this amendment, I would like to make a comment concerning a report on the late news last night that a former member of this House criticized the MLAs for swearing. To set the record straight, I and the vast majority of the MLAs in this House do not swear when we speak. The statement itself was an insult to the Speaker, because I do not believe the Speaker would allow that type of language to continue in the House, and I found it a personal insult for him to say that MLAs swear when they are speaking.

In supporting this amendment, I would like to deal with four areas of concern: the unacceptably high unemployment rates in the north, particularly in the northern native communities; the cutbacks in the Youth Employment Program by this government; the chronic failure of the government to deal with the structural unemployment problems of the economy; and the failure of the government to do anything about northern food costs.

First the plight of the native people. The government seems to be turning its back on the native people of this province and the unemployment problems they face. I would like to read from a document, which I will table, as presented by Miss Mercy Robinson of the United Native Nations, Local 108, in Vancouver. It says on the first page:

"It is apparent and quite evident that the native Indians are a growing reality here in Vancouver, B.C. The existence of approximately 30,000 native Indians that reside in this area alone is an astounding fact. The native Indians are faced with an ongoing problem of unemployment, inadequate education, lack of proper accommodation....

"They flow from the gazetted areas of the Indian reserves, where the socio-economic standards are far below the levels of the urban areas. They come from various other sections of the province for reasons such as the possible assimilation to a better standard of living in this abundant and rich society, so they too can enjoy what the rest of society so readily enjoys. They seek equal opportunity in its employment aspect."

Mr. Speaker, there was a questionnaire given to the business community of Vancouver by the U.N.N. They received 594 responses concerning native people's unemployment in the province. Of those 594 businesses that returned the questionnaires, 147 said they would hire or train native Indians.

To continue with Miss Robinson's report, "There are no alternatives for native Indians in the urbanized setting, so the last resort is social welfare, which robs one of pride and dignity to the extent of dependency — dependency on financial assistance."

A previous government speaker mentioned the good times ahead for this province. But a publication from the Department of Labour states:

"The actual unemployment rate in B.C. rose from 7.1 percent to 9.6 percent between December '79 and January '80, with a 7.3 to 8 percent seasonal adjustment. The number of unemployed in January was 119,000, the highest in provincial history. B.C. was the only province in which actual unemployment was higher than a year ago. This decline was concentrated among young and male workers, while Vancouver and Vancouver Island accounted for all of the

[ Page 1520 ]

net decline. Particularly significant was the fall in primary industry employment, from 62,000 down to 56,000."

These figures were based on data gathered by the federal government — figures, Mr. Speaker, that do not include the native people of this province. It's a shame that when we see figures of 119,000 for unemployment, they do not include the native people in this province. I wonder why the provincial government would not be interested in the employment figures for the native people of this province. If we used the figure of 119,000 unemployed in this province from the Ministry of Labour and then added the native people who are also unemployed in this province, this figure could increase to significantly close to 200,000. In many northern native communities unemployment is close to 100 percent. I would particularly like to know what steps this government has taken to help the thousands and thousands of native people who are unemployed. From this budget it appears that nothing has been done.

The second item I'd like to talk about is the government Youth Employment Program. The Youth Employment Program under the Ministry of Labour gets less this year in real terms than it did last year. Just to keep the program's purchasing power, another $2.28 million would be required. It wasn't that long ago, only four short years, that the program had $30 million allocated to it. Over the last four years this has dwindled to $4 million. Another aspect of the Youth Employment Program that has been cut back is that every youth who gets help from the Youth Employment Program is a student. For each week they're on the program they are required to kick in $50 towards the cost of their education for the following semester. That amount of money is deducted from their provincial grant. So the government, in a sense, takes back with one hand what it gives out with the other.

The outlook for youth employment this summer is even bleaker. Not reflected in these figures is the fact that the program is now available all year round to meet the needs of students at Simon Fraser University who are on a trimester system.

The third aspect of concern is the government's chronic failure to come to terms with the structural unemployment problems in our economy. Yesterday one of the speakers for the government urged members to consider the background material published with the budget. I would like the members to consider the following, which indicates how concerned this government is about our economy and the plight of the 119,000 unemployed — excluding the unemployed native people. On page 11 of the budget it says:

"British Columbia now exports a much wider range of products. Over the past decade increased exports of coal, natural gas and fish products have decreased British Columbia's traditional dependence upon exports of forest products, while the expected weakening of lumber export is certainly worthy of serious concern, particularly to those directly affected. To a greater extent than ever before British Columbia's economy is buffered from the aspects of the United States housing cycle."

I repeat: "...the expected weakening in the lumber export is certainly worthy of serious concern, particularly to those directly affected." Imagine those people directly affected who are laid off. I would have serious concern that these people are wondering what the government's concern is about their unemployment.

An unemployment rate between 7.3 percent and 8 percent is unacceptable in this province. According to the Minister of Finance we may now have projections that this is going to continue until the year 1985. Two years ago the rate of unemployment was between 7.3 percent and 8 percent. At that time it was unacceptable to the government. They introduced a $76.1 million job-creation program. It was a program which did little to bring down that unemployment figure, since it has stayed at the same range it was at two years ago.

The hon. second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the then Minister of Finance, said that the government was going to do something about it. All their surplus was blown on 11 accelerated programs. Now, as a measure of their concern, this government is committing maybe 10 percent of its surplus to job creation in the shape of a $100 million highway extravaganza when the people of this province need decent housing, decent transit and economic planning for long-term jobs rather than this band-aid approach. Ten percent of the surplus for job creation is too little. Some northern communities are experiencing an 80 to 100 percent unemployment rate. Meanwhile the people of B.C. have been overtaxed to the tune of $400 a year. Imagine the jobs that would have been created if some of that purchasing power was put back into the hands of the people of British Columbia. Purchasing power means jobs, Mr. Speaker, and we have a government that is punishing us with overtaxation. Being overtaxed wouldn't be so bad if it was for some purpose, but there does not seem to be any.

What help does this budget provide to independent loggers in the north who must meet their high costs? It doesn't, Mr. Speaker. While there may be some 40,000 more new people in the job market this year than there were a year ago, it is quite apparent that this government is not interested in the structural problems of the economy, just so long as the Minister of Finance is able to say that British Columbia's economy is buffered from the aspects of the U.S. housing market more than ever before.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the high cost of food in the north. Explaining this to the city folks is easy — just compare the prices you paid for food five years ago with what you are paying now. Five years ago we were paying today's lower mainland prices in the north, and there remains the crying shame that when you buy a bottle of booze it's the same cost throughout the province, but you can't go and buy a litre of milk or a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread for the same price throughout this province. There is nothing in this budget to deal with the hard fact that people in the north are penalized, through food costs, for living there.

The government is fond of asking for suggestions, although it does not act on them when they're given. I'd like to throw three suggestions out to this government on what it could be doing to solve some of the problems.

First, it could cut sales tax by 50 percent for communities north of the 55th parallel. Secondly, it could cut provincial income tax by 30 percent for northern communities above the 55th parallel, and halt dam construction on the Stikine-Iskut and Liard Rivers so that the commercial fishing, trapping, logging and guiding jobs these river systems provide can be kept without these people being affected by dams that will place them as another statistic on the unemployment figures.

So, Mr. Speaker, you will understand why it is that I will support this amendment: there is nothing for native people in this budget, there is no concern shown for the problems of the north, and employment programs for our youth have been cut out.

[ Page 1521 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the former speaker made reference to the government wanting input, and then he followed it up immediately with two questions which, I believe, related to halting some dam construction which is not yet....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My point of order is that the member, unless I heard him incorrectly, was referring to two projects for which there are no plans and which are not under construction. Could we clarify this?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With all due respect, hon. minister, that is not a legitimate point of order. You might discuss that afterwards with the member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to a correction to a statement that the member made. I trust I'm in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order regarding a correction. And the correction is, hon. minister...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member suggested halting construction of the Stikine-Iskut dam. The correction is that the dam is not under construction.

MR. KING: On a point of order, a member is entitled to make a correction with respect to whether a statement is a fact or not only if a member of the House has been incorrectly quoted and wishes to get up and correct that statement, but to argue a point of fact is not a valid point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made; otherwise you would engage in cross-debate for some considerable length of time after a member has spoken. Members do have an option, at further opportunities, to make corrections.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would like to speak against the motion, which would have to be considered frivolous, if not ludicrous. It would appear that the motion was written before the budget speech was delivered, for certainly the content of the motion bears no resemblance to what actually came out in the budget speech. But then, after all, I suppose the research staff was paid to write these plans and to plan the strategy, so there was no point in letting it go at that.

One concern that I would like to share with the members of the House is that yesterday, when I was on my way in from the airport in the limousine at noon, I saw a sign being arranged in the Victoria office of the NDP. Beside the names Hanson and Barber it said: "Rummage Sale Coming up." I would hope that that isn't real.

Anyway, the motion is ludicrous in the sense that it makes reference that the budget has failed to "relieve citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living." In the budget we have a $54 million cut in taxes; we have, after last year, further cuts in sales tax; we are promoting energy conservation; we are encouraging industries. The more revenue they generate, the less individuals have to pay to keep services. The amendment also refers to mobilizing "human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry." I say it's ludicrous, because in the budget we have a stimulus to create building programs; we have hospitals, schools, post-secondary education facilities, highways, forest management, youth employment programs. That creates jobs, and certainly unemployment is down despite a net influx.

Yesterday a member — I believe it was the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) or somewhere — was talking about the net influx in 1979. Some 4,728 more families came into British Columbia than left. Despite that, we have a lower unemployment rate than throughout the nation. In the last three years 9,334....

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about? You were a schoolteacher.

MR. BRUMMET: You know, this business of a schoolteacher — I'm not going to apologize for that. I was very proud of being a schoolteacher. I was very proud of being a school principal.

MR. COCKE: Then give us some facts.

MR. BRUMMET: I am. You wouldn't understand them. Since we're on this item of my being a school principal, on Friday the mover of this motion, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, decided that he wasn't getting too much attention, so he decided to lash out at someone. He lashed out at me incorrectly for making some remark that some other member had made. When he was corrected, that did not deter that hon. Leader of the Opposition. Oh, no. He decided to say the following:

Perhaps you're new, and you're only a high school principal, and you realize that you're not...responsible for your statements to adults; but, in terms of your own students, don't you come in here and lecture us with statements that are absolutely false and only serve some kind of mixed-up political purpose.

Now I am sure that Hansard will put that in some sort of coherent phrase in the final analysis. However, let me just comment on that, since it seems to come up in this House time and again that I'm only a high school principal. I would say that's a very high calling.

It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is not here very often, because I would like to point out to him that I left my position as a high school principal quite voluntarily. As a matter of fact, when I left I got a memento. I understand that he got a little momentum when he left his previous position. As a matter of fact, I believe he failed then as Finance minister, he failed as Premier, and surely he's not going to carry on as Leader of the Opposition when he fails the next time in the next election.

However, back to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to comment very briefly on what the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said. It certainly doesn't come as a correction, but if I listened correctly, he said in his speech: "...this $100 million highway extravaganza." Now, as I recall, when he was speaking in his own words the other day he was asking for more money for the Atlin riding. Is this the same member? Or was this speech written by somebody else?

[ Page 1522 ]

I wonder how much highway development he would get if his socialist party were still in power. We know what highway development there was during the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They didn't have any money. There was none.

MR. BRUMMET: They didn't have any money. Anyway, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was talking about tax increases in the spring of '76, how increased employment has hurt the economy, etc. The economy has grown faster and bigger and ahead of any other province, with perhaps the exception of Alberta, and is still growing at a more rapid rate. When he said that it was a one-shot political side-show, was he talking about the forestry plan, was he talking about the development of mining, the highways, the railways, bridges, B.C. Place? Obviously he does not understand that these things create jobs while they're in the building stage and they create further employment when tourists come to view them and when other people travel to look at them. However, Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to make a couple of points, but as far as discussing that motion, it does not deserve a great deal of discussion. It is ludicrous and I certainly vote against it.

MR. KEMPF: I would like to ask leave of the House this afternoon to make introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery and in the precincts with us today are 44 students from Fraser Lake Secondary School in that great constituency of Omineca. With them this afternoon are Mrs. Apel, Mr. Ward and Mr. Lust. I would ask this House, because they have come nearly 700 miles to be with us this afternoon, to give them a special welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I listened with some interest to the debate this afternoon, particularly to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who made a very short contribution to the debate and indicated as he rose that he felt he was probably wasting his time, and that the House was wasting its time, dealing with the amendment presently under debate. So I thought I better have another look at the amendment to make sure I wasn't wasting my time in dealing with it. Let's see what it says: "This House regrets that in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living...."

Well, that's just part of it. Let's deal with that one. Is the Minister of Health seriously telling us that he's wasting his time in this House debating the question as to whether the government has or has not relieved the citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living? We have a national and international crisis with inflation. When you put this motion which deals with that specific question in front of the House, it is contemptuous of this House and of these proceedings for a Minister of the Crown to stand up and say: "It's not worth debating; I'm going to sit down." It's worth debating, for example, for all the old-age citizens in that particular member's riding who are largely stuck on fixed incomes and are watching those incomes erode every year. That's serious to them. It's contemptuous of this House, and therefore it's contemptuous of those senior citizens, that the Minister of Health wouldn't see fit to stand on his feet and direct his attention and his considerable ability to that particular subject.

Let's look at the rest of it: "...or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry...." By any fair assessment this government has failed to deal adequately with providing employment — perhaps just as importantly, the kind of employment that only has a future in the long term — I'll deal with that later — and that is, of course, secondary industry.

The last part of the motion is: "...and also that no provision has been offered to protect our citizens against rising interest rates." Well, Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the agony that every citizen out there suffers. Again, it's a strange decision on the part of the Minister of Health to decide to tell us that he's wasting his time debating interest rates — interest rates which may go to 20 percent, interest rates which are eroding the purchasing power of everyone in the community except the money-lenders. That used to be a party, Mr. Speaker, that spoke up about the banks, that spoke up about interest rates, that was concerned to see what those rates were and the effect they were having on the total economy. I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get that kind of debate.

Dealing with the budget itself and as to how it really reflects upon the total budget.... I'm glad to see the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) here because he made a fairly lengthy speech which dealt with the lack of constructive comments surrounding the government's budget. I'm glad to see he's in the chamber. He was concerned that this side of the House was just a bunch of nay-sayers, that we're all destructive and we don't think in constructive terms.

Well, let's have a look at this allegedly constructive government that is doing all its economic planning. First of all, let's look at the document submitted with the other budget documents, "The Medium-Term Economic Outlook and Fiscal Analysis." I welcome something in this document. It says on the first page: "A crucial component of budget policy as it relates to both revenue and expenditure is that it should be established within a broader context than just one year." This is the first time this government has seen fit to endeavour to plan beyond a year-to-year basis, and for that I think they are entitled to some congratulations. It's taken them 23 years to finally figure out that you don't plan a budget or attempt to stream an economy on a year-to-year basis; you look farther down the line. But apparently they have begun — if you read this as the need for a medium-term perspective.

If you look at their capacity to plan, they made an error. They made a budgeting error of $500 million. You can call it a surplus if you want, but it's not a surplus; it's clearly a budgeting error, which will be compounded next year and the year after and the year after. How far out are the books going to be if we continue to use what is essentially very sloppy bookkeeping? If you examine the size of the budget, the government is 10 percent out in terms of its estimates. Ten percent is a very major amount in any kind of business. How long, for example, would a company doing business keep a comptroller who was 10 percent out in his estimates when they found out he'd underestimated his revenues by $500 million? The budget, of course, does disclose that there's

[ Page 1523 ]

another $500 million in there, which is the windfall from resource revenue. But we're dealing here with $500 million that's a mistake. Whether it's on the plus side of the ledger or the minus side of the ledger, it's a mistake, and it indicates bad planning. That's the key to this thing: it indicates that in spite of all the talk about economic strategy and all the talk about planning.... If you can't guess your budget more accurately than that, you'd better fire the people who are giving you the figures, because you're $500 million out.

I remember when I was in Ottawa, the Minister of Human Resources was $100 million out. Do you remember that shocking $100 million? At that time my Liberal friends in that particular House were screaming: "That's a terrible case of mismanagement on the part of the government of British Columbia." At that time, by the way, they had buried $100 million on a useless infrastructure at Pickering airport that no one will ever see; but that's a whole other debate.

We're talking here about a $500 million error. I hope the public of British Columbia will remember that that is an error.

MR. DAVIS: That's profit.

MR. LEGGATT: My good friend and colleague from my neighbouring riding says that it's a profit; the $500 million is a profit to the government of British Columbia. That $500 million profit came out of the skins of the average-income and low-income people of British Columbia. Now is that the way you want to make profit? It came out of overtaxing people all across this province. No, that's not profit.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: My friend from Dewdney has to stop thinking in terms of his private business; he has to start thinking in the larger terms of the economy of British Columbia. You don't make a profit on a surplus.

A well-managed economy is one in which accurate figures are fed in, so that you have some determination of the kind of revenues you're going to have available to accomplish the tasks at hand. Obviously this government doesn't have that kind of expertise. Can we trust that kind of management with the affairs of the economy? Remember how much they screamed because we had a $100 million overrun? "Why, these fellows in the NDP are hopelessly incompetent." And they convinced most of the people in the province of British Columbia, because we lost the government as a result of it. What are you going to do with a $500 million error? It's a very sad support for anybody who suggests that at the moment there is any kind of planning going on.

What should be done with the $500 million that was taken away from the citizens of British Columbia? It dried up their purchasing power and reduced their capacity to buy the goods and services our merchants are producing. In fact, it had a very adverse effect upon the economy, almost as adverse an effect, I would assume, as in their first year of office, when they decided, with a little fiscal trickery, to increase all the costs of services.

What should be done? Well, first of all, the major problem this province has to deal with — it is a crisis situation not merely in British Columbia but around the world — is the question of inflation. Each time you produce an element in the budget, you've got to try to decide what it is you are seeking to accomplish. Is it job creating; is it controlling interest rates; is it having any impact on the inflation rate? Well, there's no doubt at all — and I'm glad to see my colleague for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) also makes this proposal — that by not overtaxing the community, that is, in fact, a deflationary move that comes to grips to some extent with the cost of living. So the $500 million should clearly have been left in the hands of purchasers, of wage-earners, of low-income people in the province of British Columbia.

But there are other areas which we can look at in terms of the inflationary cycle. One is credit controls. There is a problem, of course, in regard to jurisdiction if you want to deal with credit controls. If the United States is about to embark on credit controls, this will have a deflationary effect on the economy. However, the side effects in terms of increased unemployment are onerous, and particularly in an economy like ours where we have much higher unemployment than the United States. In spite of all the rhetoric we've heard in this place, we continue to be the third-highest region for unemployment in Canada.

Now whether you want to use figures of 7.3 percent or 8.5 percent is really quite irrelevant. The facts are that unemployment in British Columbia is higher than it has ever been; we have more unemployed than we've ever had before; we are the third-highest region in Canada and consistently have been. Remember, that isn't just a statistic. It means that all those people who are unemployed aren't able to buy the goods and the services that are produced in the economy; they don't have that kind of purchasing power. It's an economy that has told them that they're losers, that we don't want them. That's one of the reasons for all of the social unrest and crime and those kinds of problems. You must deal effectively with the question of unemployment.

The difficulty on the unemployment question lies in the lack of capacity in the long run for this kind of economy to provide additional work. If you want to examine the forest industry, there have been significant investments in the forest industry. I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is very proud of the investments that have been made by major corporations — Crown Zellerbach is one, and MacMillan Bloedel — but I want to tell that minister that we're at the end of the string in job creation in the forest area, if you're looking at big, major industrial chains. He knows it.

The reason you're at the end of the string is that we are at the point where we don't have additional fibre. We're at the point in the forest industry where we are using our forest resources to their capacity. On the other side of that equation you have the companies which are investing, not only for the purpose of efficiency, of competing more effectively abroad, but also to reduce the amount of people who work in those plants. That's the reality. That's exactly what kind of economy we're living in.

I don't see any response in this budget at all to this chronic crisis that is coming upon us more and more every year. That crisis is the crisis of technology, automation and cybernation. Until you address that on some kind of long-term basis, you're not going to touch the question of unemployment. Unemployment figures will continue to be chronically bad; they will probably rise, given the kind of economic forecasts that are coming forward in terms of the British Columbia economy. Unless you look at new ways of creating employment, Mr. Speaker, we aren't going to come to grips with the major problem of unemployment in the province.

[ Page 1524 ]

Now what are the new ways of creating employment? First of all, when technology takes over in terms of major industry — such as the lumber industry and, to some extent, mining — we have fewer and fewer workers per capita in production all the time. Incidentally, the efficiency of the labour force in British Columbia is the highest in Canada, and continues to be the most effective. It's not only because we have a well-educated work force; it's also because that technology is continuing to improve. As that technology improves, our capacity to provide work goes down. But that is something that this kind of ad hoc budget does not deal with. It's a kind of budget which sees a project here and another project there, but it does not deal on any kind of basis with the problems that the province must deal with in terms of its budgeting process.

We talked about credit controls being impractical if you're dealing with inflation. I wanted to say a word or two about wage controls. We have had wage controls in Canada. They have not been totally effective, but I think, to be fair, they have had some impact in regard to the inflationary rate. There has been a raging debate in the Canadian Labour Congress as to what is the impact of control.

What I want to say is that, given the kind of inflationary pressures that this province will be in no way able to resist, I will predict that within two years this country will be back into a control situation. And British Columbia will be looking very seriously at how these controls — which I expect will be imposed on us on a national basis — will impact on the economy. There are a number of kinds of controls we can go to. As I say, it is not whether you like controls or don't like controls; it is that the inflationary cycle is going to leave this country no alternative but to see controls reimposed.

What I want this government — if it's still around in two years — to seriously look at is opposing the principle of just wage controls. That has been a terrible mistake, and not only in terms of the economy; it was a terrible mistake in terms of the structure of our political system. You can't impose controls on one section of the community and leave another section alone.

There is a form of controls which makes some sense. They should be short-term; they should be for a specified period. There should be a selective price control zeroing in on those areas where the population simply can't handle the increase in price. Selective controls will mean that if there is wage pressure in terms of prices in those particular fields, that wage pressure will be reduced, because the free collective bargaining process in Canada will naturally reduce the pressure on prices in that particular section of the economy.

But we cannot ignore what's going to happen in two or three years. As I say, I'm pleased to see the first gesture — some 23 years late for this government — In looking at our economy on more than a one-year basis. Unfortunately, they displayed very clearly that in trying to predict their revenues and expenses over one year, they are $500 million out. I can't imagine how far they are going to be out if they look at it in three or four years. It must be incredibly bad guessing on the part of their budgetary people.

But as I say, in terms of where we look for a solution to the inflation problem, it is my belief that whether we like it or not, we will be seeing controls in Canada again. The only question will be the kind of controls we see and the kind of debate that will take place around that question. It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are more likely to interfere in the free market in terms of controls — if you are seeking a solution to those two major problems, inflation and unemployment.

What else is really the matter in terms of the budget? Why don't we believe that it has addressed these two dragons that we have in terms of our economy, inflation and unemployment?

I want to throw another bouquet across, in terms of the $200 million housing program that was developed. The concept is sound, but the government, of course, shouldn't be standing up and taking credit for that particular concept. It was one they adopted — largely studied by the labour movement. Nevertheless, I have to give them credit for looking at a good idea, examining it and using it.

The only difficulty with the $200 million housing program is that it's so very little in terms of what could be done with a small amount of money. That $200 million is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia $8 million annually to subsidize the difference between the market interest rate and the 9.75 percent subsidized rate that the government is proposing. Now that $8 million is a very small price to pay, in terms of what is being....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) says that it increases the budget. I agree, it certainly does — very slightly.

MR. DAVIS: No. I said that it means a good program.

MR. LEGGATT: I am saying that it's a good program; I am endorsing the program. It's got certain structural weaknesses that I want to deal with; but as a means of attacking this two-headed dragon, inflation and unemployment, the housing program was the one part, it seemed to me, in which this government was starting to show some imagination. But $200 million was oversubscribed by five times. That gives you some idea the demand for accommodation there is out there. Also, of course, we've had Central Mortgage and Housing comment that they don't believe it significantly increased the housing starts in the province. I rather discount that statement; I think it has made some contribution to housing starts in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Eight million dollars is not a very big amount — these people deal in $500 million figures; in fact, they're out by $500 million. Why don't we multiply that program by five? That's not a lot. Five times $8 million would be a $40 million mortgage subsidy program for the province of British Columbia. That particular program would provide a billion dollars and a large part of it is additional housing stock, and additional rental housing stock which is most desperately needed now. That program would start to move in a significant direction in terms of those two major problems that we haven't been able to come to grips with in British Columbia.

First of all, if you think there was some incentive to the lumbering industry in terms of the $200 million, look at a billion dollars and imagine the kind of incentive you would have there. Look at the number of people you'd put to work all across the province in the trades. Now planning is important. One of the difficulties with the $200 million program is that no planning went into that program before it was

[ Page 1525 ]

announced. No effort whatsoever was made to accumulate decent housing sites and land, because what's happened is the price of land has escalated out of all reason. Now if there had been decent planning and if we had managed to acquire reasonably sized tracts of land in those communities that are housing-short, the program could have commenced on an orderly basis. Instead, what we had was a crisis on the government side and a kind of an ad hoc response, where they got lucky and pulled out this submission from one of our friends in the labour movement and said: "Well, let's run that one up the flagpole and try it out." That's not planning and that's not economic strategy. That's just dumb luck. That's all that is.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: You've been lucky. If you want to keep looking at the results of elections in the province of British Columbia, your luck is running out, my friend. You've only been lucky up to now, but let's have a look at the numbers out there. You're going to have to quit relying on luck. You're going to have to do something else.

Now I want to just deal a little bit more with regard to this question of housing. Housing prices in British Columbia have increased by up to 35 percent in the previous four months. Now one of the problems in contributing to house prices is when you take $200 million and you don't have any plans as to where you're going to put the housing, where the land stock is, and what you are going to do about it. There was a government that had a plan about housing. It had something called the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You may remember it. The Housing Corporation of British Columbia, under a tremendous barrage of criticism from the opposition, attempted to provide some public housing in various areas in the province. They went on and on about what a terrible corporation it was, how the structures were all falling apart and people didn't like living in there — it was just total chaos. That was the word I got from afar, and so I thought I better have a look at these horrible places — all these slums, allegedly, that the New Democratic Party was building.

I have three of them in my constituency, and I'd like the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who's interested in economic development, to come and have a look at those housing programs that were built by the British Columbia Housing Corporation and the Dunhill Corporation, which was subsequently sold. You would be surprised how delighted the people living in those accommodations are with their accommodations. You would be surprised how well managed those operations are, and how much the people thank the previous government for giving them an opportunity for some shelter so that they can move on to something else. It was a marvellous way to give our young people an opportunity to begin in life, and begin providing themselves with something which is not a privilege but should be a right — and that is the right to accommodation.

Well, I have three of them: Meadowbrook, Woodside and Meridian Village. All of them are very successful and all of them, by the way, are well managed. I've had very few complaints about any of these accommodations. There was some economic planning going on in those days, and you could use some now. While I'm trying not to be a destructive critic, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that I want this government to seriously consider rehabilitating the British Columbia Housing Corporation and going back into the idea of providing housing to people who need it. But we, of course, heard all of the destructive nay-sayers in those days in the opposition, and we also heard from the then minister, who is now the present Minister of Finance, when he sold this particular corporation. This is what he said in 1978: "The need for affordable housing is no longer critical and the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, although healthy financially, is superfluous to our needs." Where is he now? That corporation was superfluous to our needs, my foot! If they'd left that corporation going and left Dunhill and left them the opportunity to assemble low-cost land and provide housing to young people in British Columbia, we wouldn't be in the housing crisis we are today. Mr. Speaker, that's what planning is all about.

It is indicated that the actual subsidy in terms of a decent mortgage program is as low as $8 million a year — it may be slightly higher now with the new additional rates of interest. There is some additional information about this that the government should have a look at, and the first thing to remember about that particular program is that 25 percent of the cost of every home you put up is in building material. About $50 million of that $200 million is going to be subject to sales tax. Therefore the government is going to recover about $2 million in sales tax on its program. If it's that good for $200 million, why didn't you make it $1 billion? Instead you are squandering your money on this kind of little pet publicity projects that you've got.

Let's have another look. What about the cost of labour that goes into the housing program you've initiated for $200 million? Well, every one of those workmen who are productively employed are taxed, and that money comes back into the treasury. There is a very significant return in terms of that interest subsidy from the tax of the workers who are putting up the houses. The interest rate on apartment construction will be increased to 10 3/4 percent in year two, and 11 3/4 percent in year three. On the $75 million allocated that will save $750,000 in year two, $1.52 million in year three, and $770,000 in the last six months. The total saving is $3 million. The net cost of the program over four years is less than $24 million — $6 million a year, which is complete peanuts in terms of the amount of money that this government deals with. They haven't had the kind of imagination to move into a housing program that would have any kind of significant effect upon inflation rates and employment rates in Canada.

Now there was one attempt at economic planning, which was through BCRIC. The point has been made many times that the government wouldn't be able to take many bows for BCRIC if it hadn't been for the imagination of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they decided to take those assets and put them into the private sector, reduce the width of ownership to a mere 130,000 people instead of two million, which is what the ownership situation was when the assets were administered by the Crown corporations under the direction of the New Democratic Party. But what is BCRIC now contributing to the economic life of the province of British Columbia? I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's just another trust company. That's all BCRIC is. BCRIC hasn't any kind of original moves in it. My God, they went out and bought a bit of MacMillan Bloedel, and they thought they were doing something imaginative and original.

These guys are just like Montreal Trust, and the last thing

[ Page 1526 ]

we need is another trust company if we're going to develop the economy of British Columbia. I don't think BCRIC has made a single investment that isn't authorized under the Trust Companies Act in British Columbia, which is designed, of course, to stop people from investing in anything risky whatsoever. What do we need that for? Why do we need another trust company, particularly when one of the major problems in terms of the British Columbia economy is foreign ownership? Why didn't BCRIC decide to make a move on the foreign owners of MacMillan Bloedel? Why didn't they decide to look at apprentice shares instead of CPI's? Who cares whether CPI has a piece of BCRIC? It doesn't bother me, but I am concerned that the decisions surrounding the economy of Canada and the economy of British Columbia are made abroad. That's a significant question.

There is no contribution being made by BCRIC and by all that cash flow that came from the good citizens of the province of British Columbia — a cash flow used in the best will, wanting to change the direction of this economy in terms of owning our own economy in the province of British Columbia. They have failed in that kind of mandate, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they've had difficulty even persuading the financial community that they're successful. Right now it looks as though the market is very much hedging its bets around the BCRIC question. These two latest moves into the market haven't meant very much other than a slight drop in share value. I think they're trading at about $7.25 this morning. That's an indication that even the market itself has some very severe reservations about the direction of BCRIC.

It's another holding company, just another way of sitting on assets and not developing them. BCRIC hasn't produced any employment of any significance in terms of the province of British Columbia.

I indicated earlier, in supporting the amendment, that there is a failure to direct attention to the problems of the economy in terms of the budget. But there's also a failure in the budget to look at where we're going in terms of the kind of society in which we live. I remember a time in British Columbia when there were very interesting things going on out in the community. I'm thinking in terms of small business; I'm thinking in terms of the developments that happened in places like Gastown, Bastion Square and Market Square. There was some very original planning and thinking. And the Vancouver courthouse, which is one of the finest architectural sights in North America. Of course, if our Philistine friends on the government side had their way, that would now be a tall, black monolithic office tower, with just about the same imagination as the Premier and the Minister of Finance have shown in regard to this particular budget.

There was a time when our young people had a dream put before them. It was a dream of full employment. It was a dream of freedom. It was a time of experiment. Yes, and it was a time of making mistakes. But I liked those mistakes; I didn't mind them at all. Because on the plus side of those mistakes was the future of the province; on the plus side was the imagination and the spirit of our young people. I don't see this group inspiring that ever again, if they ever did.

What we need is to bring back that atmosphere of experimentation and change: to see more Gastowns, to see more of the new concept of small is beautiful, the new ways of job creation in the smaller areas, the development of alternative energy. All these things can only come about with imagination. This budget simply confirms what we've said all along: they haven't got the wit or the imagination to continue to run the affairs of the province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will be supporting the motion of non-confidence put forward by our leader and by our caucus in regard to this budget. There are a number of good reasons why I will be supporting this motion. First of all, the budget over all, in my view, is deficient in many, many ways. Primarily, the budget has failed to properly make provision for the senior citizens, the handicapped, the low-income people, the working people, and particularly the working poor people of this province.

It would seem to me unacceptable that a government has passed special warrants, special orders-in-council, and has had a $115 million overrun for the year '79-80 in the Highways ministry alone, and that same government makes very little, and certainly unacceptable, provision for our senior citizens, our handicapped and our low-income people in this province.

What are the priorities? Is it the welfare of our people or is it highways and bridges for a certain member of this Legislature? Is it coliseums and stadiums, or the people this government was elected to look after?

One other item, which I won't dwell on too long, is the matter of housing. It seems to me this topic has been covered quite well by previous speakers from our side of the House. I know that the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the member who just spoke and other speakers have described in some detail how the present government ruined programs that were designed specifically to aid the housing program in British Columbia. If this government came up with a program for 50,000 new houses and apartment starts in the province, can you see what it would do to our employment picture in construction and the lumber industry and for the people who build these homes and provide the services? I think this government has a responsibility to do something along those lines. It has really said nothing. They have come up with a $200 million program. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the whole of my riding, only 12 people qualify for this Mickey Mouse program introduced by this government — off the top of their heads again — a few weeks ago? Twelve people — big deal! How many people didn't receive benefits under this program? Actually, there are hundreds. What do you think those people are going to be saying when it comes time to vote? Are they going to say: 'Hey, good job, government. Good job, Social Credit."? Or are they going to say something else? I've got a hunch they would say something else today, if they had a chance to vote today.

Secondary industry. There's been very little secondary industry promoted by this government. I am not going to go into a lot of detail, because we are going to have a great deal of time, probably all summer, to have the opportunity to debate these items in this Legislature. But as far as I can see, there has been very little new industry in my riding — a few programs. And there have been some government grants, and those are appreciated — small grants, mind you, but those are appreciated. But it's only a drop in the bucket. What's really required in this province is something to provide employment opportunities for our people once again.

This government has taken no action whatsoever on the matter of a merchant marine for this province and for this nation. I doubt that they've ever discussed this topic with the federal government; I doubt that any representative of that government has ever gone to Ottawa and said: "Look, let's

[ Page 1527 ]

have a Canadian merchant marine. We could build the ships here in British Columbia. We have the people. The industry is in a depression right now anyway. Let's start a merchant marine." We don't have to go all out, but we could start in a small way — say half a dozen ships to transport our coal and other resources. What's wrong with that? It's not a bad idea. Our party has been talking about it for years. But I doubt that they've ever done anything about it. I don't think they are even interested. Most of our goods are being moved under flags of convenience at the present time, and I think that should be unacceptable to any government.

While we are discussing the shipbuilding industry, I would like to, just for a moment, discuss our own coastal transportation problems — which relates directly to the social and economic benefits to the whole coast, to the people of this province, and, once again, to employment opportunities as described in this motion. Just to give you a quick thumbnail sketch, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have read in the papers that this government has decided to take a day ferry and turn it into a night ferry at a cost of some $7.4 million for the refit. Then they are going to spend another $2.5 million to transform a night ferry into a day ferry for a run which already has a vessel which is perfectly adequate for that route; but they are going to take it off and perhaps turn it into a museum. In the meantime, they are going to leave I don't know how many hundreds of people stranded up on the coast. While all of this is happening, they have decided to close down the community of Ocean Falls, lay off everybody there by June 1; there won't be anybody employed in that community after that date. And how are they supposed to get out? Fired, but trapped.

What I am suggesting is that if the government is adamant in its decision to proceed with this ill-conceived plan — once again, a plan that they've conceived off the top of their heads, by a committee composed mostly of ministers who haven't really got the remotest idea of what they are doing in terms of water transportation in this province.... The government will pay for this bad decision, Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that. In any event, I think they are making a very unwise decision in suggesting that the Marguerite become a museum vessel. It should be used on a day cruise, in my view. If they are adamant in their decision to take the Marguerite off its present run, it should be used as a day cruise vessel, running from Victoria through the Gulf Islands, possibly to Vancouver. It would make a very pleasant and useful vessel for that purpose. It would bring in revenues to the B.C. Steamship Company and to the merchants in the Victoria area at very little cost. I'm sure that over the summer season the vessel would be utilized to its fullest capacity for the five- or six-months summer season.

I think that is at least an alternative suggestion that the government should look at. I see the minister is in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you that I had a personal discussion with one of the engineers of that vessel, and it meets, I am told, all the Canadian Coast Guard and MoT requirements, and is a safe vessel. It could be utilized for the purpose I just described.

Another way, perhaps, of partially stimulating the economy in British Columbia.... It's my opinion that right now this province requires five new vessels on the coastal service. I'll tell you how I arrived at this conclusion. The government is now considering putting one of the monster vessels on the Powell River–Comox run in 1981— either the Queen of Saanich or the Queen of Esquimalt. While I am sure that most of us living in the area will welcome the larger vessel when it arrives, I want the government to consider this: it's going to cost about $8.5 million to reconstruct the loading ramps at Little River and Powell River to accommodate that vessel. For that amount of money we could have a good start on constructing two smaller new vessels for that route. One of those vessels should be placed at Powell River, one at Little River, and there should be two-hour service instead of the four-hour service we now have. It would meet all the traffic requirements of that area for many, many years, and in the long run the transportation service would be much improved in that area.

As well, a third vessel of a similar size, for which the drawings and design, by the way, are in the hands of the ministry now — perhaps with some hull design changes — should be constructed, in my view, for the Masset–Prince Rupert route. If they eventually put the Queen of Prince Rupert on that particular route to serve 6,000 people, I think that's not a good move. In my view, that's not a good move. Also, the Queen of Prince Rupert should, as everybody will agree, be on year-round service from the lower mainland to the central and north coast of this province.

By the way, I said five vessels and I've only discussed three. I think as well the government should seriously consider the construction of two freightpassenger vessels to service the coastal communities of this province. It's quite obvious you can't build roll-on, roll-off ramps in every town and community of this province — and the federal government is largely responsible for the construction of wharves. So I believe that the type of vessel I'm talking about, a freightpassenger vessel — such as we had under Northland, which was terminated by this present government under a previous minister, mind you — should be constructed in this province to serve the communities of this coast.

As I said before, the social and economic future of this coast relies entirely on water transportation, Mr. Speaker, and this government has really done nothing. In fact, the service has deteriorated. We should seriously consider approaching the federal government and discussing with them the federal-provincial agreement that was signed in 1977 by this government, a subsidy agreement which at that time provided for about $8 million subsidy to the provincial government to provide "adequate freight and passenger service to the coast of British Columbia."

I would like to tell you that if you're talking with the people in Ocean Falls or Bella Bella or many of these 105 very small communities on the coast, they will tell you that their service at the present time has deteriorated terribly under this government. So perhaps we should be talking to Ottawa and saying: "Look, this year we're going to get about $9.4 million from that agreement." I'm not quite sure of the exact figure — it will come out in estimates — but last year, I think, it was $8.6 million. It's somewhere in that area, Mr. Speaker. Since the provincial government is, in my view, not living up to its agreement with the federal government, then perhaps the federal government should reassess this agreement until this present government here in British Columbia decides to live up to its part of this agreement.

One other item I'd like to discuss briefly with the House at this time is Ocean Falls itself. I had the opportunity of visiting that community last week for a couple of days. You'll recall that I discussed this matter in the House just two weeks ago, prior to the announcement by the government, and I wasn't extended the courtesy at that time — although

[ Page 1528 ]

I'd phoned and had spoken with certain people connected with the operation at Ocean Falls — of being told what was going to happen in that community. I'd made numerous inquiries. There was a great deal of uncertainty and concern on the part of the people in that community about their future at that time.

However, overlooking those little things, I'll tell you what I did find — aside from the fact that everybody in the province knows by now that the government has decided to completely close the community down, although that operation brought to the province almost $200 million in moneys from outside the province for the sale of its product offshore, contributed to the economy in that way, contributed to the economy in terms of the jobs and the taxation derived from those jobs in that operation. Sure, the anticipated revenue loss from that operation was going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $13 million for 1980. I agree that the operation couldn't continue forever on that basis. Steps should have been taken some four years ago when those major reports were presented to this present government on what to do and how to modernize that community. But nothing was done until a week or so ago.

In any event, what I found up there was that apparently the government once again made a decision off the top of their heads, without really thinking about it and thinking it through. I'll tell you why I say this. While there I had the opportunity to meet with the whole regional board, the school board and many, many other agencies involved in that area. They had not received any notification of what the government was planning for that community, and as a result there was complete chaos within that regional district, school board, and everything else.

Since I returned I must admit I have had some reasonably good response from certain government ministers in this regard; some action has been taken, but not nearly enough. I would like to see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible to this Legislature for that corporation, go to Ocean Falls. I don't think he's got the guts to. I don't think he has, Mr. Speaker. But at least he should send a representative there as soon as possible. There are many, many horrendous problems currently because of this announced closure.

Some people, by the way — just for the interest of the House — are not moving, closure or no closure of Ocean Falls. They're not moving, and they hope to be able to have the opportunity of being employed with this private company when it comes in to reprocess questionable timber, and with this flitch and chip mill that they are proposing to set up there. The problem there, Mr. Speaker, is that no resident who currently owns a home and has lifetime roots in that community has received any assurance that a job will be available to him in this new operation. In fact, the chairman of the board of that Crown corporation said publicly that none of these people are qualified, and so there are no jobs for them. How do you think it makes those people in Ocean Falls feel? Many of those people are, of course, qualified. I would like to see the government at least make some public statement in that regard and ease the load.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I just want to take this opportunity as well to express at least my gratitude to the senior people in management at Ocean Falls, and to the workers in that community, for their loyalty and dedication over the last few years, because they did make that community go. If they'd had half a chance, that community would still be operating today. In any event, the management people of that community, along with the union and other agencies, have set up quite an effective relocation committee, and they're doing a fair job. But there is no way they're going to be able to relocate all 410 employees, and that's unfortunate. There's no way. I expect that they will find jobs for about 150 people in that community; the rest have had it, unfortunately, at this time. I would like to see this government send a representative with some authority to do something to help ease that situation and to work with the general manager and the local union up there to help resolve some of these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a lot more to say here, but during debate of the estimates we'll have a lot of time to cover many of these matters.

I will be supporting this amendment, and I will not be supporting this budget, because as I said in my opening remarks this budget really doesn't help the people who really need help in this province. I will be supporting this motion of non-confidence.

MR. COCKE: The government and its supporters have decided to get away from the embarrassment of debating this amendment. They have decided not to debate any longer. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that some of us have a few things to say.

Just to remind the government and its supporters what the amendment says, because it strikes me that when I listened to a few of them bringing back their old baloney that they've been spouting ever since 1976.... This is what it says, members of the government and its backbenchers:

"That the motion that 'Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply' be amended by adding the following: 'but this House regrets that in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living, or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry and also that no provision has been offered to protect our citizens against 'rising' interest rates.'"

I thought it best, under the circumstances, to have a look at a speech. It's very difficult; I'm really being almost flowery in my language to call it a speech. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) treated us to many pages in the Blues yesterday, and I went through it looking for some kind of hint that the government had some idea what they were going to be doing about the areas of criticism from the opposition.

Incidentally, everybody gets up and makes significant gestures about this amendment. I can't recall ever having been in a parliament or having witnessed a parliament when there was not a motion of non-confidence on both budget and throne speeches. That goes for every jurisdiction. That goes for this jurisdiction. And that especially went for those half-witted amendments that came down when that group was in opposition. The half-witted debate coming out of the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was something for one to behold.

I want to go over a few points that he made yesterday. One of his first points was that the opposition are tying the government's hands by not permitting pairing. This is on a

[ Page 1529 ]

debate of confidence around the whole question of employment and other things. His inference on that one was that if we let him out of the legislative chamber to go to either Japan, Korea — where I don't think anything really significant has happened pursuant to his many visits — China, or even Ottawa something might happen in B.C. because that minister was permitted to travel. I'm sure that his colleagues would be only too happy if he travelled. I am sure that their votes would still be sufficient in this House to match ours if he travelled. The only trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that the province has difficulty keeping up with his bills. I understand that when he travels he not only goes with a small staff, he takes a large staff and guests in order to make his guests look like they are businesslike. But a larger group doesn't necessarily mean that that's the way you're going to get things done.

Mr. Speaker, their hands aren't tied. The Premier said it best last night. He said: "Anytime we want to leave here on business, all we have to do is adjourn the House." He made a mistake. He meant recess. But all they have to do is adjourn the House. Quite right. And so you can. There's no great big hassle about this question. They know the reason they're not getting pairing from this group. I'm not going to deal with that now because it is outside this debate. Sometime when we have an opportunity over one of the estimates, it might be an idea to just go over some of the history around this place, and some of the things that have occurred. Believe me, I am an expert on it — a real expert, having been a Whip for four years.

Another thing that he dealt with in great detail in his debate on this amendment — this is the Minister of Industry and Small Business, who should be responsible for getting things going here in B.C. — was our research. Now, I don't know what our research has to do with getting things going in British Columbia. Maybe he knows something that we don't know. I do know that he knows one thing, and that is that if you tell an untruth often enough it begins to gain in significance. That is the expertise that I have seen over there. That's one of those aspects of their best performance. They have become experts at doing that kind of destructive thing.

I saw a very good example yesterday, when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) through no fault of his own, got up and gave a long reply to a question that I had asked. And then all the way up and down the line on these cabinet benches they were crying: "Where's your research? Where's your research?" So I just checked it, and I replied to it today. We'll go over some of the details, but I will go over that with the minister in private. But, Mr. Speaker, it is bunko. And it's bunko to do it in this particular debate, because we were depending on that minister getting up and at least intimating what they're going to do about this whole question.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to do something this afternoon that has been thoroughly researched and talked about in this House, but I'm going to talk about it again. There has not been a reply from that minister about a significant number of jobs in this province that were sold down the river by that government and the government in Ottawa. But I don't want to do that just for a moment. I would like to just review a few more things that the minister covered in his speech.

The blueprint. I guess one can be aphoristic once in a while, and I'll call it a speech. In a very short, terse statement, he said that our economy is growing and our economy is strong. Every time I pick up the paper I'm concerned about what's going on in the lumber industry. We've been doing very well. We've been very fortunate. Part of the reason for our good position now is the fact that the lumber industry has "lucked out" up to now, but it isn't lucking out any longer. They are not so lucky now. There are major layoffs in my area and there are major layoffs in many of the areas in this province. So far the interior hasn't been too badly hit. But I'll tell you right now, the coast is getting hit worse every day.

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. They had an answer for that problem. Other members of that caucus over there have told us how this $200 million program is going to do so much for the lumber industry. As a matter of fact, I believe the Premier said something about that. Well, we know how much they're actually putting into it. I believe it's something on the order of $8 million this year in terms of a net amount being placed in the program. But when I checked with people who really know the retail lumber business in this province, what do you think I found out? I found out that right now there is a bit of a difference between the price of American lumber and ours, so therefore the retail lumber yards in B.C. have been stocking up with American lumber. I said to somebody who is rather an expert in this area: "But they'll be found out. The government says that they must use B.C. lumber." He said to me: "How do you think they're going to check? Do you think they're going to go out to every job and check board after board to see where it was manufactured? Nonsense." The lumber yards are stocking up with American lumber to use in that $200 million program. There's no question....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Maybe that would be something he could do — put on his overshoes and get out and do something useful, because he's done nothing since he's been a minister in this government.

That minister has said nothing of significance about that program. He certainly has not answered the question of how they're going to check on the lumber being used. And he hasn't answered the question about what's happening to the lumber industry here.

Do you know what he talks about, Mr. Speaker? He waves his finger and he talks about "socialism, dreadful socialism." They see them under the beds; they see them under the tables. Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful! Mind you, he says worse than that when talking across the floor. Since he has such a broad knowledge and understanding of world economy, I asked that minister where the best economy in the world is today. West Germany, Austria — low unemployment and a currency so strong that when we take our Canadian currency to them, it costs us the equivalent of $2.50 to buy a cup of coffee. That doesn't indicate a weak economy to me. If B.C. or Canada could only put themselves in that league they'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

That loose talk over there, that contrived socialism charge thrown across the floor, that dim-witted talk about Waffle Manifestos, things that they don't even understand, from a party signed for....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know what it was signed for. You're supposed to be a brains in the legal.... It was signed by a number of people in our party — the two members for Vancouver East for two. What did they sign it for?

[ Page 1530 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Did you sign it?

MR. COCKE: No, of course not. But what difference does it make? I wasn't asked to sign it.

The signature was put on it so that it could be discussed at a convention. And what happened to it at the convention? That's precisely it. Now nobody had to sign that dim-witted Social Credit resolution that called for castration and called for circumcision and all those things that come out of a convention. What nonsense! What a bunch of squeaking people who don't know what they're talking about and continue to talk, talk, talk!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the debate upon which you're embarking might better be in order when the motion is called that's standing on the order paper. Please proceed.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A witless request. The minister wants to know whether I sign my cheque and expect something for it. Yes, and depending on what you want for it, if you want something discussed you sign it. At least I put my own signature on it, Mr. Speaker, and that's a contrast to some of the things that have been going on around this province.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like to upset them, but when you talk about economies that are strong, economies that are great in the world today, you aren't finding very many. You're not finding many in the communist world and you're not finding many in the capitalist world, but you are finding two or three very strong economies despite the fact that we're having world upheaval. Those are West Germany and Austria, and I'd like to see anybody get up in this House and debate that issue.

In Great Britain, the iron lady who was going to solve all the problems — what has she done? She's taken them from chaos to chaos and now she's down the tube, just like every other iron lady and just like you're going to be because you can't even think through the needs of an economy. That's exactly what's happening in this province. They are a disaster.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give that man a lesson in history. In late 1945 and early 1946 Aneurin Bevan and Atlee went to the United States and asked for help, after having been bombed off the map. Do you know what kind of help they got? Zero! The Marshall Plan did more for the enemies than it did for the friends. Mr. Speaker, that member hasn't read history; he doesn't understand history; he doesn't know anything about it. They've never been in good shape. Thank God for a social democratic government over the few years that they had it, because at least that helped them.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that when the first minister was over here talking to the backbenchers, he was talking to them about some strategy. I wish he would talk about some strategy for this province, to get us on the road, to get us on the track, because that's our problem right now. I note, for instance, that as part of the minister's debate he talked about people escaping from B.C. during the time we were in government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like fleas.

MR. COCKE: Like fleas, he said. Did you notice the years that he didn't talk about? He just talked about last year, that there was a net migration here. He didn't talk about the intervening three years that they were government, never mentioned them. He just deals with those figures out of his own reports that happen to be useful in argument. That's one of the reasons why I think ministers should table everything. Then the press can have an opportunity to have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, there have been opportunities in this province over the last few years to do something. We were very interested when this government came in with their longterm care program, and I thought to myself, having had plenty to do with the negotiations with Ottawa prior to that program: "Well, that will be an absolute bonanza for the construction trades." I want to ask you members, through you, Mr. Speaker, how many people in the construction trades have been unemployed over these last two and a half to three years. In my area it's been up as high as 35 percent and relatively consistently over 25 percent. That's in virtually all areas of construction. And guess what happened? We heard announcement after announcement from the Minister of Health of that day about how much they were doing, how much they were building. We haven't seen the results of that work. The present minister has himself a real job — to catch up. Yet they could have been building these long-term care institutions; they could easily have been doing it, but they haven't. They're not hard. You see, a major acute-care hospital takes some planning and some time. But even at that, we managed to build the Royal Columbian in a matter of four years. The plans are already there for long-term care. Unless you get a very odd piece of property, you can get started on that thing very, very quickly.

MR. BARRETT: How about Brannan Lake?

MR. COCKE: Yes, they were interested in that; but they didn't have to do much building out there, you see. That didn't create any jobs, except for friends of the minister.

They could have been doing it in these very bad economic times that we've witnessed over these last few years, in terms of construction. But no, they didn't. They just decided, instead of building, that you keep announcing. The minister today was saying that they're not doing anything on the Stikine, when the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was talking about the construction of a dam on the Stikine. All he was doing was following the pattern of this government. Whenever you are planning anything, you are building it — as long as it's in the planning stage. I see all these hospitals that are in the planning stage, and it is as though they are building them. Go out there and check. You're not going to find very many people with hammers and saws, or cement trucks dropping off concrete.

Mr. Speaker, they had a chance. Let me tell you about that chance. I think this is a shocking performance. I dealt with this briefly, but I'm just going to deal with it again. Their chance was to turn the federal government around on that absolute fiasco of giving away thousands and thousands of jobs — 500 jobs right in the city of Vancouver — around Burrard drydock, and thousands of other jobs that would have been tied up in the supply. What did they do? They shipped jobs away to Tokyo. As a matter of fact, I understand that the construction is already underway in Tokyo. Those

[ Page 1531 ]

jobs would have meant a great deal, but we didn't hear a peep out of this government.

I expected something would happen the other day. I expected, when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) got up, that he would have argued: "Well, we did reproach Ottawa. We said to Mr. Huntington, 'No, you must not ship those jobs out of this province.' We said to the federal Liberals and Conservatives, 'We can't afford to lose those jobs.'" But I heard not one word. I heard words like "Waffle" and "socialist." I heard all sorts of phoney, crazy and goofy words that don't mean a thing, but I heard absolutely nothing at all....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister hasn't understood the significance of the story. So just to remind that minister — who is very interested in reading something that somebody has probably already read to him and who is now just going over it....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a comic book.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was incorrect. I suggested he was reading something. He's looking at pictures. Some time back in the late days of the Liberal government, they decided to make some changes in terms of our competitiveness in drydocks. They made some decisions about building drydocks on both sides of this country. Having done that, they decided to talk to some of their friends. It was a Liberal government, and I don't know who Burrard Yarrows are in terms of their politics, but they got something that is hard to believe. I'll tell you what they got. They got the government to say: "We will let you have this as your own if you put up a few dollars. Therefore the other shipbuilding companies won't have access." At that time it was thought to be probably something in the order of a $40 million to $50 million venture. It has increased in price to some $63 million. Burrard are putting up $22 million, I believe, at the very outside. With that, not only are they able to tie up the business, but they also had enough muscle with the federal government to get the federal government to send the business elsewhere.

Why? I suspect this: I suspect that Burrard is afraid of a reinforced cement drydock, which incidentally would be better. I'm sure that they're afraid of that drydock, and let me tell you why. Burrard wants to make offshore rigs, and it wants to make them out of steel, because that's their expertise. But if oil companies see that you can make them better and more durable out of reinforced concrete, floating — don't forget these are floating vehicles — then it means that Burrard is going to have more competition. I can't imagine any other reason why they'd want to send away all those jobs. I think they were looking way down the road. But meanwhile they have sure hurt us here in terms of jobs.

As I say, the minister found it acceptable behaviour not to say one word about that particular fiasco in his 40-minute debate of this amendment. He didn't mention what was in his blueprint, so nobody can tell. Anybody who can read that minister has to be a better reader than I am.

In any event, he and his government were party to this giveaway, and let me tell you how. They gave the equivalent of $1.5 million of our taxpayers' bucks toward that venture. That should have given them a little muscle. Not only that, it's being done right here. Surely they could have said at that time to their Conservative friends, Ron Huntington and others: "Look, we want to keep those jobs here. Can't you see, federal government, that you're going to get far more back in income tax than the difference? You're going to enrich the economy." But no, Mr. Speaker, they didn't.

At the time, the papers carried hardly anything. There was one little paper in North Vancouver, however, that carried something on it. I can't see it at the moment; let me tell you roughly what it said. It said that Ron Huntington had intimated — here it is — that Canadians were fat cats. That's the essence of comments made by Capilano MP Ron Huntington in an interview with the News. This is some North Vancouver paper. That's about the only place you found out anything about it, other than in a special column that once in a while went in one of the major dailies.

All this happened, Mr. Speaker, in the dead of night — and total silence from this government over a very significant matter in terms of our economy, even if they hadn't provided the equivalent of $1.5 million. Had they not, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Prince George South.

MR. STRACHAN: Standing order 43, Mr. Speaker, on page 13, speaks to tedious repetition of debate. Hansard will record we've heard this debate before.

MR. SPEAKER: We must take note of the fact that standing order 43 has been drawn to our attention, and I would ask the hon. member to try to refrain from irrelevance or repetition.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am raising something that is relatively new, I would think. It better be new in this province — certainly nobody over there has said anything about it. The minister certainly hasn't.

Now I heard that member's speech a day or two ago, and I won't allude to it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It wasn't repetitious, my friend says; it was tedious. That's probably another aphorism.

Mr. Speaker, there was no excuse for at least a donnybrook over the giving away of that contract to Mitsubishi. There is no excuse for a government sitting on their heels when we have an economy that's in tough shape. They're boasting about our unemployment situation because it dropped slightly. I wouldn't boast about an unemployment situation where you've got 8 percent, or roughly 120,000 people unemployed — and that's only the people that you can count. That's not those frustrated people, Mr. Speaker, that have long since gone off the unemployment list. How long do you carry your name up there when you can't get a job for a year or two? Finally, your name falls off the list and you are not counted. The unemployment insurance benefit expires, you wind up on welfare, and you're no longer one of those names on the list.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's unfortunate that we have a government in this province that doesn't look at important issues and doesn't look for ways and means of really helping our economy. They did that magnificent gesture, the $200

[ Page 1532 ]

million program, that was oversubscribed in a manner of days. What has it really done? How many people has it really helped?

Let me tell you, it's helped a lot of real estate people. I have a young daughter who said to her husband: "Hey, that's a great idea. Let's go out and look at some property." So they did. They went to two subdivisions. The ads in the paper indicated that they were being attracted to take advantage of the government program. They knew pretty well that there wasn't any money available, for all applications go, of course, to the credit unions, and they were all pretty well saturated by that time, but at least the kids wanted to have a look. They asked a question in both of these major subdivisions, and the question was: "Okay, that's the price today. What's the price on your next go around?" And now, of course, we've seen since that both of them have increased the lot purchase price by $7,000 to $10,000. One was a $7,000 and the other a $10,000 increase.

So that $200 million program is good for the developers, but I'm not sure how many jobs it's created. As I've told you before, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite sure that a lot of American lumber is going to be used in that program, because I have it from a first-class source that those retail yards are absolutely loading up with lumber.

Why, Mr. Speaker, do we put forward a resolution like this? We put forward a resolution like this to bring the government's attention to their obligation to the people in the province. We ask them to pay particular attention to areas in our economy that have obviously been overlooked by them, we ask them to be outspoken in the protection of our economy, and we ask them to make suggestions to the federal government that will help us. But we get absolutely nothing. Instead of that, we get remarks from that brilliant Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Pretty boring. You know, I read his speech today — talk about boring.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a masochist.

MR. COCKE: I know, but some of us have to suffer.

MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll be delighted to finish up by just saying this. Unless this government changes their entire behavioural pattern in the next few months, they are finished. They've lost credibility in terms of their integrity — they have none. They have had very little gain in terms of their administrative prowess. I haven't seen them really do anything that would persuade me they could run that proverbial peanut stand, but maybe somewhere back there they're doing something right. I know that the Premier has difficulty trusting any of his ministers, because in question period he keeps instructing them what to say. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to do this — let them loose. Give them a couple of months and maybe they'll be able to deliver something for this province. You can't do it all. As a matter of fact, you can't do anything, because you're too busy trying to keep them in line.

Mr. Speaker, somebody over there has to do something. Otherwise we continue on the path on which we have been going, and that path is to economic chaos. There is no way this side of the House will accept the kind of unemployment figures we have. There is no way this side of the House is going to accept the unacceptable interest rates. There is no way this side of the House is going to accept the kind of administration we've got at the present time in this province. We'll do everything we can to get rid of this incompetent administration.

MRS. WALLACE: I hadn't really intended to speak in this amendment debate, but I feel that there are some areas that have been overlooked, some areas that are very important and that I believe should be brought to the attention of the House. I am surprised there is no one getting up on the other side of the House to speak. Just to refresh their memory on what this amendment says, I would like to read it to you, Mr. Speaker.

"This House regrets that in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry, and also that no provision has been offered to protect our citizens against rising interest rates."

First, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal a bit with the cost of living. An area that I feel has been neglected is the cost of food. Now it's true that in British Columbia, based on our per capita income, we have a very low proportion of our income spent on food compared to many other countries. But that doesn't mean that in British Columbia we do not have a high cost of food in comparison to other areas of our own country. And it is. It's the highest in Canada in British Columbia. All this government did, relative to the cost of food, was to embark on that infamous study which took more than two years — it was supposed to be completed in one year — cost the taxpayers in excess of $3 million and brought down a report which is gathering dust somewhere, because there has been little or nothing done in relation to any of the efforts of that committee. Probably that's just as well, Mr. Speaker, because some of the inferences drawn by the reports from that committee would have been a disaster had they been instituted.

The cost of food. Mr. Speaker, while it's true that you and I and anyone in this Legislature have no problems meeting our food bills, let me tell you there are a great many people in this province who do have severe problems in meeting their food bills. They have an impossible task in trying to provide a nutritious diet for their families on a low income.

And I think one of the most interesting examples of how true this is is that the very week the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) gave a minute increase to the people in receipt of Human Resources assistance, the former Minister of Health put out a statement outlining the increased costs to provide a nutritious diet for various age groups and sex groups, based on Victoria prices. That list, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that to provide a nutritious diet for an average family of four would have taken the total support portion of the Human Resources allowance — nothing else left for clothing or for any extras. The total support portion would have had to go just to provide a nutritious diet. The government has not taken any positive steps to ensure that the great number of our people in this province who live well below the average income will be able to provide a nutritious diet for their families.

[ Page 1533 ]

This is a very short-sighted policy, Mr. Speaker, because it means that our young people are growing up without proper nutrition, and that is one of the reasons for the high health costs that we incur in this province, because it is a whole lot cheaper to feed a person properly to ensure that their health is adequate than to try and cure them after they develop problems as a result of that inadequate diet. Our high health costs are a direct spinoff from the fact that a great many individuals in this province — and a great many of them are young people — are not able to enjoy an adequate diet.

What could the government have done about it? Well, there are two ways it could be approached. Way back in 1975, I think it was, the now Premier went around the province talking about a guaranteed annual income. That has never been presented. A guaranteed annual income — done through some negative income tax or something — could have provided the kind of income that people would need to provide adequate food for their families.

Another approach could have been to look a little more carefully at whether or not anybody or any concern is making more than they should be making out of the total cost of food. It is very interesting to note that no matter what committee reviews it, no matter what body is involved in any study of food costs, they always come up with the same answer: that there is a tremendous concentration of control of the food industry in the hands of a very few very large multinational concerns.

In Canada there are 16 breakfast cereal manufacturers producing 95 percent of all breakfast cereals. In British Columbia 92.8 percent of the wholesale grocery trade is controlled by two companies. That's concentration! In 1976 supermarkets — that is a store that has more than $1 million worth of sales in a year — accounted for 70 percent of all grocery store sales in B.C. About 75 percent of that 70 percent went to the top four firms: Safeway, Super Valu, Overwaitea and Woodward's. That's concentration, Mr. Speaker!

When any organization or group of organizations exercises that degree of concentration, there is certainly room for a great deal of concern as to whether or not there is any price-gouging going on. This government could certainly institute some controls. It's been done before. The provincial jurisdiction has the power to introduce controls on prices, and I think prices at the retail level — there are some very questionable areas — should be given some very close concern by the government.

We've heard in the throne speech and again in the budget that we are now going to have a new combined Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Well, that's probably a very fine thing. I had hoped that when I saw the budget I would see some indication of some funding, or some indication somewhere that that was going to be more then just a change in name, that it wasn't just going to be a change in calling the ministry "Food and Agriculture" but having it do exactly the same thing as it had been doing before.

There is nothing in the budget or in the estimates, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that there is any intention of doing anything about looking at this corporate concentration that is so evident in the food chain here in British Columbia, and at the retail level. The budget is devoid of anything that is going to do anything for the people on low incomes in this province as far as the cost of food is concerned, and that is one of the major parts of the cost of living.

The other, of course, is shelter, and that's been dealt with before in this debate. The problem of shelter for low-income people is disastrous. The high interest rates have done a great disservice to people on low incomes — people who had budgeted carefully on their limited incomes, had purchased a moderate home at a reasonable interest rate, and had so planned their lives that they were able to purchase a home. Now they are losing those homes because the mortgages are being rewritten at higher interest rates — rates that make it absolutely impossible for those people to continue to meet those payments. Certainly they can't continue to meet those payments and enjoy any kind of an adequate diet or any of the amenities that are certainly their right.

And those erosions of the family income are far more than just a physical detriment to the family; they're a terrific emotional detriment. They cause the kind of problems that we continually face with young people in trouble and families in trouble. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a great many of the numerous family breakups that are occurring are a direct result of economic pressures. And those are the kinds of pressures that this government is doing nothing in this budget to remove. There is nothing there that will prevent those continuing high costs from eroding the family income. I am very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we are faced with a government that is not prepared to take action to ensure that there is something done for the cost of living for those people on limited incomes.

The next facet, Mr. Speaker, of this amendment is relative to employment and the mobilization of our human resource. It decries the fact that there is so little done in the budget to provide the kind of economic stimulus that is required to ensure that we make provision for our young people and provide an opportunity for them to find their proper and rightful place in our work force in the province of British Columbia.

But I have a fair amount of remarks I want to make on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker, and I would move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have the honour to present the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report as submitted be adopted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take two or three brief moments with the House to advance an argument which has been advanced on other occasions, with respect to the proportionality of representation on the standing and special committees, and to argue that the ratio of members, government to opposition, on those committees should reflect the same ratio as exists in the Legislature itself. As it is, the proposal, the motion before us and the report before us don't meet that criterion and that standard. Exclud-

[ Page 1534 ]

ing you, Mr. Speaker — even though you are a member along with us, you are not a participant in debating and voting and the like — I worked out some percentages as to what that ratio is. The government members comprise 53.6 percent of the membership of the House; the opposition comprises 46.4 percent. I appreciate that it's difficult to find 0.6 percent or 0.4 percent of a member — although some members may fit that very readily.

Using those figures and applying them to the committee standings as comprised in the report itself, we find in every instance that government members dominate the committee far in excess of their numerical representation in the House compared to their whole membership in the House. For instance, on the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, government members represent 61.5 percent of that membership, compared with 38.5 percent represented by the opposition, which is disproportionate to what exists here. What it means is that government is intent on dominating the committees; the government is intent on ensuring that its majority is going to be sufficient so that they can even have one or two members absent from those committees if they're meeting and still carry the day. I think probably a prime example of that had to be the Committee on Crown Corporations, which was scheduled to meet on two occasions. The meetings were subsequently cancelled or postponed, to put it euphemistically in the words of the chairman of that committee — but it was set aside simply because the government did not have a sufficient number of members on that committee to be able to control and dominate the committee.

As a consequence, two very important subject matters went by the board, one relating to B.C. Hydro and their application to the National Energy Board to sell power to the United States, and the other to the question of B.C. Ferries, resulting, of course, in my friends from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and myself suffering the indignity of seeing the north coast without any ferry service for at least a six-week period. That might have been overcome if that Crown corporations committee had been permitted to proceed with the numerical representation that it did have.

One can do one of two things. May tells me that perhaps the wisest procedural thing to do in this regard would be to move to refer the report back to the committee for consideration of certain other matters. To do that would be simply to undo what has happened until this time in the Legislature — to delay the establishment of these committees — and we are not embarked upon that type of program, because we want to see them functioning and in operation as soon as possible.

The other proposal is to do it by way of seeking to amend one of the committees there. In that regard I would like to move, as a test situation, an amendment to the report motion, seconded by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): that this motion be amended by deleting the words "and Passarell" where they appear under the committee heading of "Standing Orders and Private Bills," and substituting therefore the words "Lauk, Nicolson and Passarell."

If that amendment were accepted, Mr. Speaker, it would structure the standing orders and private bills committee....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, while I review the amendment I must observe that according to Speakers' Decisions back to 1967, the House cannot amend a committee report. On that basis alone the amendment would be out of order. In any event, even if it were possible, it would require two days' notice, so the amendment cannot be allowed.

MR. HOWARD: That doesn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker. I've read those rulings myself in anticipation of that, but I wanted to try anyway to put forward the case in a formal way about what we are seeking to do. I outlined earlier, for those who are chattering in their beards and otherwise, that the procedure would have been to recommit the report, which we do not want to do because that would simply delay the proceedings and the setting up of committees. That was all it was for. We make the case in an oral way, under no illusion, Mr. Speaker, that our representations will be listened to one whit, because this government is not the least bit interested in fair play, equitability, decency or honourable operations either in this House or in the committees.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion, very briefly. I would also like to suggest that the record should show, as does the performance of many people in many governments, that the NDP, the opposition in this House, and that member in particular, are not the sole possessors of the virtues of honour, dignity, concern and whatever else he took to himself and solely to himself in his statements.

I also believe, in relation to the motion, that the record should show that the ratio of government members to opposition members in this motion is the ratio that was agreed to by the members of the opposition and the government last session, at the beginning of this parliament, for the life of this parliament.

I would cite, for support of that statement, that they accepted the motion in the House at that time, and they participated in the committee structure after that motion was accepted by the House. For this to be brought up now was, I would suggest, as the member said, an attempt on his part — rather inexperienced — to play with the rules of the House.

I would also point out, speaking in favour of that ratio, that the chairman does not vote unless there is a tie. Nor does he frequently enter into any discussions of the committee. Therefore he is not considered an active member of the committee. The secretary also generally adopts this position and doesn't take an active part in the debate. This leaves the government with an active majority of two, which is quite proper, whatever the ratio, within the context of the British parliamentary system. I appreciate that the member doesn't seem to support the parliamentary system. But to the credit of this country, the people support the system; and this government intends to uphold that system.

I won't further offend the parliamentary system or this motion by wandering at random, as that member did in talking about ferries in the north — a subject which doesn't relate to this motion at all. I would just say that this side supports the motion. It is in the context of proper parliamentary structure and the traditions of the British parliamentary system. And it was agreed to by those members, at the beginning of this parliament, for the life of the parliament.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be quite brief — just a couple of points in response to the member for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). The committee members — in the first selection committee meeting last June — from this side of the House did not agree. At that time we took the position that the committees were not proportional. We lost the vote, however.

[ Page 1535 ]

Earlier in the budget debate, the member for North Okanagan made a comment that, paraphrasing it, would come out something like this: "The Legislature should accept the will of the people." I think that's a fair comment. The will of the people is that it's 31 to 26. When we meet in Committee of the Whole, we meet with 30 to 26, in effect, and that's the will of the people. And I don't understand why Committee of the Whole should be any different from other committees of this House. Why should they not all reflect the same proportion?

I'd like, very briefly, to quote from Beauchesne, which is something I don't do very often in this House; but Beauchesne, fifth edition, in discussing committees, says: "The membership of the committees is allocated by the striking committee in generally the same proportion as that of the recognized political parties in the House itself." So it might be, Mr. Speaker, that the report, as introduced by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), is in violation of Beauchesne. And that might be worth considering.

The next point I'd like to make is that when we were the government in this province, we had 69 percent of the seats in this chamber. Several committees just went over that 69 percent; most committees were much under the 69 percent. We gave the opposition more than their fair share of representation.

The final point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be interesting to have a look at the system in Ontario — the committee structure there. Now just for the benefit of the members of this House, the proportions in that chamber are: Conservatives 58, Liberals 34, and the NDP 31 — at the time of the compilation of this committee list. The committees were, government to opposition: 8 to 8, 8 to 8, 7 government to 9 opposition, 7 government to 9 opposition, 5 government to 7 opposition, 4 to 4, and the final one was 3 government to 5 opposition. I might also add that a number of these committees, which have a majority opposition membership on them, reflecting the balance in the House, are chaired, in fact, by members of the opposition.

MR. HALL: And meet all year.

MR. GABELMANN: And, as the second member for Surrey has interjected, they do meet all year. They're active, unlike most of our committees, Mr. Speaker.

We believe strongly that the motion as presented by the Provincial Secretary is wrong and should be defeated on the floor of this House right now.

MR. REE: I draw your attention to the clock, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.