[ Page 4261 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 4261

Mr. Levi –– 4264

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4268

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4270

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4274

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There doesn't seem to be a surfeit of guests in the gallery this morning, Mr. Speaker. To the three who are coming in, then, we bid them extreme welcome, sir. But I'm standing up really, Mr. Speaker, to convey the very, very best wishes of the government and, I'm sure, of all members of the Legislative Assembly to the Canadian ski team who have produced the best result in World Cup history. I think they certainly should receive the applause and congratulations of every member in the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen who just walked into the gallery are members of the Western Agricultural Conference, who have been meeting with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development: Mr. David Sands, the chairman of the group, Mr. John DePape, Mr. Tom Low and Mr. Weir Muir, the treasurer of the group, a very capable gentleman. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. DAVIS: The motion before the House today accuses the government of lack of leadership. This would be surprising if it didn't come from the official opposition. The official opposition, of course, believes in more government rather than less government. It believes in governing for the good of the governed rather than the other way round, so naturally it's concerned about leadership at all times and in all circumstances.

I can't vote for the motion, because like other members on this side of the House I believe in less government rather than more. I believe the government exists merely to serve the needs of the people. It leads only where leadership is absolutely necessary. In other words, it doesn't lead for the mere joy or experience of leading. It does that, and only that, which is absolutely necessary for the public good. It doesn't go around looking for new industries to take over, or establish new regulatory commissions to control the rest. Leadership, in that sense, is something which we don't need here in British Columbia. The present health of our B.C. economy bears witness to that fact.

The motion also refers to a lack of public confidence. That's sheer nonsense. British Columbia is booming as never before. Its public services are of the highest quality. Employment is at an all-time high. Unemployment, in percentage terms, is the lowest in the last decade. In housing starts we're leading the nation. We have less inflation here than in the rest of Canada. Our provincial budget is in the black. Only one other province, Alberta, can say that. Proportionately this government is spending more on health and other people services than any other provincial administration, certainly more than Ontario, more than Alberta, and more even than Saskatchewan, which prides itself in that kind of thing.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should repeat that: this government is spending more of its budget on health and other public services than any other provincial government in Canada.

Our tax rates are down, not up. Our people have more of their income to spend than other Canadians do. No wonder people are flocking to British Columbia. Capital is coming here in large amounts and the good life in this province is becoming a matter of note the world over. I think, and most British Columbians think, that our province has it made. They don't often have this pointed out to them; I think we should attest more to our real circumstances.

Our resources are both renewable and non-renewable. Alberta is doing very well economically speaking, but this province has renewable resources that Alberta does not, and in great amounts. We have forest resources, fisheries resources, tourism and water power. We have all these things, and if they are well managed and well husbanded, we can and will prosper. We can afford and will have the finest public services anywhere in the world. We are confident; we should be more confident. We should talk more often about our natural wealth, our natural advantages and indeed the skills and abilities of our population and look to our people more to provide the individual initiative which will continue to make this the finest part of the world in which to live.

We've got problems essentially of growth, problems of expansion. We've got a tiny population in a very substantial and resource-rich province. People are coming to British Columbia in record numbers. Last year more people came to British Columbia than ever before. More people moved to British Columbia than to any other province, including Alberta. On balance, even Ontario lost people. British Columbia and Alberta — the west — are growing faster than ever before. But we have problems of shelter, for example — of housing — naturally because of this great influx of people. We have to concern ourselves about our scarcest of all resources — land, residential land, lots for home building, and indeed, in some parts of the province, agricultural land.

I believe in the workings of the marketplace — the free interplay of supply and demand. But we have the world looking our way now. We have people wanting to come to British Columbia from all over the face of this globe. We have capital coming here in unprecedented amounts, and it's bidding up the price of lots, for example; it's bidding up the price of agricultural land. We have a remarkable situation, one which government may have to deal with in an effective way. Taxing our people and making funds available to those in real need to buy land and build houses is one approach. Limiting the sale of certain qualities of land to foreigners is another approach which has to be considered under these circumstances.

As I said before, I believe in the free workings of the marketplace. But when you have exceptional circumstances, such as we have in British Columbia, the fact that this is the finest place in the world, the most secure place in the world, the most attractive — from a price point of view — part of the world in which to invest, in which to put your money, in which to bank your money, in which to leave your money at least for a time — bears some examination.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: You can't complain about prosperity, but you have to live with exceptional prosperity. This is why some action may be required in respect to land. It's a matter

[ Page 4262 ]

of real concern. It has to be a matter of continuing concern to the members of this Legislature and to this government.

Foreign capital is coming here to buy up land. Some of it is of the nature of non-resident, absentee ownership capital. This must concern us because this is the kind of capital that doesn't necessarily pay close attention to our day-to-day needs, to our environment, to the ongoing or long-term needs of British Columbia as a province and of its people.

Energy is an area of continuing concern, basically because we don't presently have enough oil on tap to look after our needs — not only in British Columbia, but in all of Canada. Potentially, we have large amounts of oil. We have vast oil resources, but we don't have them immediately on tap. Canada as a nation would be in dire straits if, for example, there were to be a more serious flare-up in the Middle East. I think one can characterize the changing U.S. situation and the Canadian situation in these terms, rather glibly perhaps. With Reagan, they are going for security of supply; they are going for more activity in the oil and gas fields — more drilling, more development and more continuing reserves.

In this country, currently under the present federal administration, we are going for Canadian ownership — Canadian ownership and control as distinct from proving up more immediate supplies. And this does present us with a problem. Ownership is important; I believe in more Canadian ownership, but we must have more Canadian ownership and more supply, certainly security of supply and more adequate supplies of oil in the next few years if we are to continue to have a relatively stable economy in this country and a secure future for the people of British Columbia.

We are, I think, engaged in a sort of "beggar thy neighbour" approach in Canada. On the oil front, to put it in its simplest terms, we have chosen — and this is a Canadian policy — to keep our prices down; to give our energy-using industries, certainly our oil-using industries, a softer option; to encourage our people to remain the largest per capita users of energy among the world's industrialized countries; and at the same time to pay our own producers half or less than half of that which we pay foreigners to deliver the same quality of oil to our shores. As a result, we are postponing the day of Canadian self-sufficiency and we are buying more oil than we would otherwise buy on world markets. This, in effect, is a "beggar thy neighbour" approach. It helps to keep world prices up. It works, certainly to the disadvantage of the poorest of the developing countries, those who have no oil of their own. It gives Canadian industry, especially secondary industries in central Canada, what amounts to a big and often hidden subsidy for energy use. Seeing this, the manufacturers of other countries are now asking for protection against what they regard as unfair competition from Canada. We're distorting international trade and hurting our export industries, if only because we're favouring our importing industries. We've got too much government involvement already, and our mismanagement at home is now messing up our relations abroad.

I said I'm in favour of more Canadian ownership, but I'm not in favour of Canadian ownership in the sense of government-owned corporations doing most or all of the job in the energy sector or any other industrial sector. If PetroCan were to behave like any other independent corporation in the marketplace it would be all right, but PetroCan, as presently conceived, is an arm of the federal government which will be funded out of taxes, will have an exceptional and unfair advantage over all other corporations in the energy field, will be able to back in or, in effect, confiscate the property of others without compensation and will have the first crack at any discovery anywhere in most of the territories of Canada, in the north and offshore. Under those circumstances, it is bound to become bigger and eventually take over most, if not all, of the oil and gas industries of this country.

What we need is a continuing and healthy private sector in which we have competition....

Interjections.

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

Hon. members, we are in the throne speech debate and each member, in turn, will have his opportunity to speak. I fail to understand on what basis some hon. members feel that they can interrupt the proceedings at any point in time, and I would suggest that you desist.

MR. DAVIS: I believe in a private sector. I believe in a substantial degree of Canadian ownership. I think we have to have rules and laws, such as we have in a number of areas — broadcasting, banking, and so on — in which a proportion of ownership of equity is guaranteed to Canadians. That could be brought about, indeed would have to be brought about, over a period of time. It can't be brought about instantaneously. As a nation, certainly in terms of national government, we're operating at an immense deficit. We don't have the money to buy out industry. We don't have the capital to engage in massive exploration and oil sand development programs. So we've got to do it progressively and gradually. We've got to lay out the ground rules towards eventually accomplishing a substantial degree — say 50 percent and eventually two-thirds — of Canadian ownership in our strategic industries and vital resource industries. I think that is a worthwhile target, but it's a long-term target. It's longterm because to have energy security, production, efficient output and substantial incomes for Canadians we need capital. We need foreign capital as well as Canadian capital. Canadian capital, certainly government capital, is very scarce, so it has to be a progressive thing. But we should lay out the ground rules. We should have our targets as to the degree of Canadian ownership that is ultimately desirable and, indeed, achievable with the right kind of government and philosophy in this country. But at the same time I don't believe we should be unthinkingly subsidizing a massive Crown-owned corporation whose policies are dictated in large measure, if not entirely, from the political level in Ottawa. I think that approach is bound to result in very serious problems, not only economic problems but problems between the national government and our provincial government. You can't have a national corporation operating in every corner of the country, taking over resources and developing resources at its own speed and in their own way without running head on into provincial jurisdiction, control and husbanding of resources. It's inevitable that a collision, and a very serious one, will occur if PetroCan and the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of PetroCan are to be become the way of life in the oil and gas industries of this country. We're looking for trouble if we follow that route.

Traditionally the oil and gas industries on this continent have accumulated their savings out of profits. They've been

[ Page 4263 ]

given what are called "depletion allowances" and this has allowed them, instead of paying taxes, to use the money in exploration and development. In the United States, where the vast majority of those companies were owned by Americans, this was acceptable, because it was an industry which grew, flourished and produced great reserves and massive supplies of energy for the people of the United States, and was American-owned and -controlled. In Canada, this process has resulted increasingly in foreign ownership and control of wasting resources like oil and gas.

The federal government has, at long last, decided to cut off this flow of funds for exploration and development in Canada, and instead make grants available — eliminate depletion allowances, but make grants available to companies which engage in exploration for oil and gas. Those grants are contingent upon the degree of foreign ownership of the company. If the company has no Canadian ownership it's not going to qualify for grants, at least in conventional oil and gas development. If half or more of its stock is owned by Canadians, it'll qualify for grants at a given level. If it's 75 percent Canadian-owned and -controlled it'll get an even better deal in terms of grants.

The problem there, though, is: who administers the grants, and how are they administered? It's fine in the short run, perhaps, certainly for small Canadian companies with no capital of their own; they can substantially develop new resources on the basis of grants. But as they grow, their requirements for grant money will grow. And Ottawa certainly doesn't have much money. Ottawa is currently spending $120 for every $100 it takes in. In private-sector terms, it's been bankrupt for half a dozen years. It's in trouble. It doesn't have the money. Furthermore, the marketplace isn't all, that attractive, because the wellhead price — the price which the Canadian developer can get, assuming now they're 50 percent or 75 percent Canadian-owned — is half the world price. It's inching up, but it's still not enough to cover, the cost of development in the arctic, outlying areas and offshore areas of this country. It's certainly not enough to develop the tar sands.

So government regulation of price has to go. Certainly prices have to rise. But the regime that Ottawa is moving towards is not a marketplace regime; it's a regime which looks at each project — each development — in turn and treats it as a utility, looks at its costs, gives it a price that covers costs plus some rate of return that will attract more capital.

In other words, our oil and gas industries over time will become regulated utilities with a guaranteed rate of return. First, they get public money grants with which to develop. Secondly, they become regulated utilities.

The problem with regulated utilities is that they can always pass on their costs. Those which are inefficient can still survive. They will get a higher price because their costs are higher. Those which are efficient, those which happen on a large oil pool in a convenient place, and whose costs are low, will get, a low price. There will be no real reward for risk, because there will be no risk in what has traditionally been one of the most — if not the most — risky industries that we know. Risk has forced the development of large corporations, because large corporations could spread the risk.

We're going to see in the long run, under present federal policy, on the one hand a massive PetroCan in business. PetroCan, incidentally, has not yet found any oil on its own. In the remainder of the oil and gas sectors we'll find companies — the majority Canadian-owned, admittedly — operating as utilities whose rates of return on capital are guaranteed and whose efficiency will certainly be questionable, certainly other than such as to give us relatively low-priced energy in this country.

I'm concerned about government ownership. I'm concerned about our national approach to Canadian ownership and control, which if I'm talking only about ownership and control I endorse. But I'm also concerned about the end result. We need the skills. We need the know-how. We need the technology which can be supplied from outside the country. We need a private market. We need risk-takers. We need competition. Hopefully, more reasonable policies will follow — ones which would both sponsor the private sector and insist in the long term on a greater measure of Canadian ownership and control — policies which I personally can endorse and which, I hope, most members who really believe in a substantial private sector as well as Canadian ownership would endorse also.

I'm concerned about developments here in British Columbia in that context. I don't want to see B.C. Hydro in all areas of energy development. B.C. Hydro is going to get bigger; it's bound to be bigger. It will be developing our major remaining hydroelectric resources. It will probably be developing some of our major coal resources for the production of electricity. It could eventually be in nuclear power or other sources of electricity. Collectively they will amount to the production of a third, perhaps in the year 2020 half, of all the energy we use in this province. That's enough. Why should Hydro also be in the business of distributing natural gas? I don't believe it should be in the gas business. We should at least have another Crown corporation marketing natural gas; or, better still, turn that aspect of its operations over to the private sector. Turn it over to BCRIC; turn it over to an operation which would have to be, of course, a regulated utility, subject to the scrutiny of the Utilities Commission as to rates, but not part of one gigantic complex which is supposed to be, and never can be, all wise as far as our needs are concerned.

I'm concerned not only in the natural gas area but about small hydro. There was a conference in Vancouver recently on small hydro developments, and I was interested to learn about the current policy in the United States. It's not only state law in most individual states, but also federal law in the U.S.A., that the output of small and medium-size hydro developments can be sold to — indeed must be bought by — the major power utilities operating in the area. If an industry or a small community puts up a small hydroelectric development, first it can do so readily; secondly, it can sell any surplus energy it has to the utility generally operating in the bigger area surrounding it at a price which is equal to the rate which that utility charges for that kind of service. In other words, what's good for the big utility should at least be good enough for small developers of small sites in the United States. We need a policy like that here in British Columbia. Presently, before you can develop a hydro site — before any one of us can, before a small industry or a small community can — B.C. Hydro has to come in and look it over; B.C. Hydro has to decide whether it's economical. B.C. Hydro in effect has to authorize its development, and if it's developed it becomes a public utility. But before it can be financed, you have to be able to sell your surplus energy to someone, and that someone is B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is very coy these days. B.C. Hydro has excess capacity. It is building large

[ Page 4264 ]

new projects, each one more expensive than the last — basically, due to inflation. That I can understand, but B.C. Hydro is insisting that these developments take precedence, and when they're underway it can always point to excess capacity and say: "Well, we don't need the output of any small, new, local hydroelectric development." So we're in a condition of frustration in this province as far as small developments are concerned.

Small may be beautiful in some people's eyes, but it certainly isn't beautiful in the eyes of B.C. Hydro and it doesn't seem to be beautiful in the eyes of our policy-makers in this province now. I hope that policy effectively can be changed to allow for small developments locally, and especially in the north, especially in areas which can benefit from a small local development where it's therefore unnecessary to build an expensive transmission line into the area and where, indeed, the local costs, because they are low, will result in low-cost energy and will serve to attract processing, for example, to that area. B.C. Hydro, as all members know, charges the same rate for the same kind of service all over the province. If power rates are the same everywhere in the province, there is no incentive to locate in the north. There is no incentive to locate close to a resource, whether it be forest resources, mineral resources or oil and gas; you might as well come to Vancouver. So I personally feel strongly that we should have a more flexible policy and that B.C. Hydro shouldn't always be on the inside track; B.C. Hydro shouldn't be the final arbiter of all hydroelectric developments in this province.

I think I've made two points, the first being that this motion is not only contrary to the kinds of policies which I believe in, but also is nonsense from the point of view of the prosperity of this province. We have a province which is flourishing. It's flourishing in large measure because of the effectiveness of the private sector. I think we have good government. I believe we have government which is concerned about the growth of government and government-owned and -operated corporations. We believe in individual initiative. We know that our province is prosperous, that more people want to come here, more people want to live here, more people want to invest their hard-won earnings here. We know also that we have the finest public service. We're building more hospitals than ever before in our history. We're certainly building more hospitals than other provinces; we're not closing them down, as Ontario has been doing, for example.

Our problems are of prosperity, of success, of growth, of having it made, so to speak, and we must address ourselves to them. But we must make sure that the private sector has a large and indeed growing role to play in this province. I therefore endorse the Speech from the Throne as it stands. Certainly I can't agree that there's a lack of confidence in this province, of public confidence in the province, and indeed in its government. I certainly can't agree that there's a lack of leadership shown here and now.

MR. LEVI: It's become very popular.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Attorney-General, I am standing up. God, Garde, you've been saying that for 11 years.

It is becoming very popular in this House, for the people on that side, to talk in some kind of good way about the virtues of Crown corporations. We've heard the previous member, who was formerly a member of the federal government, talk about some of the problems of Crown corporations, and then in the next breath he talks about setting up another Crown corporation which would distribute gas and take Hydro out of its monopoly situation.

On Friday a young man came to see me, from the University of Victoria; he was doing some research on Crown corporations. While we were talking, I said: "Well, you should look at the federal Crown corporation situation, because at last count they had 360-odd Crown corporations." He quickly corrected me, and said: "No, 420." That's 420 Crown corporations operating from Ottawa, within the federal government, and I would very quickly point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't had an NDP government in Ottawa at all.

We've constantly heard from the people across the way about either the good points of Crown corporations or the bad points of Crown corporations. We have a committee of the House which tries to come to grips with some of the problems that the previous speaker was talking about in respect to B.C. Hydro. It was agreed by the whole committee and it's agreed by the whole House and, I think, by the whole province, that it's too big — far too big. Two years ago we even had the Premier saying that we've got to do something about B.C. Hydro. But the reality is that nobody can do anything about it. They can't take them on; they can't confront them. They are really the economic dictators of the province. It's partly because nobody is really laying out an economic plan for the province. That's implicit in the amendment to the motion which my colleagues moved yesterday, when they said that this House regrets that the speech from His Honour does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government. That's all we're going to confine our remarks to in this amendment — lack of confidence.

Nobody over there has talked about some of the areas of our community which reflect this lack of confidence. Nobody over there, for instance, has decided to talk about the incredible problem taking place in most of our urban centres, also in some of the rural centres, in respect to how the young people get into a house.

About two weeks ago four of my children — who are now past 20 — had a meeting. They were celebrating the birthday of the youngest one, who is 18. Two are married; two are about to get married. What were they talking about? The youngest one comes home and tells me.... I don't know why it was, but all they wound up talking about was housing. They were talking about condominiums. They were also talking about who they were going to put the finger on to help them get this. That is a key problem which young people — for the first time in this province — are really starting to talk about. Everybody here who has children of marriageable age is talking about what they are going to do. "Are we ever going to be able to own a home?"

If, as I think, the problem is that they will never own a home, then we'd better find some alternative mechanism to make sure that young people have an opportunity to have some access to a home or a piece of land, whether we do it on a rental basis or on a lease basis. We better start looking at some alternative mechanisms.

We have a situation in the Vancouver area where there's a massive pushing up of prices on an almost weekly basis. If you live in certain parts of Vancouver and you own a home, you can sit back and just watch that home appreciate as much

[ Page 4265 ]

as $1,000 a week in terms of the value of that home. What we are slowly doing in this province is ghettoizing our living accommodation to the extent that there are many young people who will never be able to get into it. We have that particularly in the lower mainland area, and we're getting it more and more now in the Fraser Valley, because that's where the growth trip is. That's an issue of confidence in terms of this government.

Yesterday the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) said that we always say something negative. Nobody said anything negative about the move they made in January 1980, when they put $200 million into the mortgage market and in fact liberated some $8 million or $9 million and made it possible to build 5,300 houses. We didn't say it was no good; we said it was an excellent first move. For the first time in five years this government decided to inject itself into an area that needed some assistance. It was a good move. We said that. What we said afterwards was: "What else are you going to do? That's only 5,300 houses. "

The point is that the government is going to have to make some commitment about what it's going to do with this very real problem of how our young people who will have families are going to have somewhere to live. That's an issue of confidence. That's what these young people are talking about. They are the voters. They're the people who are saying that things are not going well. The previous speaker talked about prosperity. Yes, there is some prosperity in the province, but it's not equally shared. There's no prosperity for people on fixed incomes and there's certainly no prosperity for young people, because even when they do what many people over there seem to think the young people don't want to do, which is to work and put together money, they still have nowhere near the opportunity to put down a down payment to get into a home. What is the government doing about that?

We had an announcement the other day from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He announced a Crown land policy. He's not announcing anything new. That's been on the books for pretty close to six years. The development of the Essondale land in my riding in Coquitlam was something that was talked about and planned for in 1975. It could have been done in 1976, 1977 and 1978, and it hasn't even been done yet. That was all planned for. There was just the question, when the government changed, that the new government had to make a decision whether or not it was going ahead, and it didn't. The reason it didn't, as we hear time after time and year after year from the speakers across the way, is that we have to leave it to the private sector. What we have in the private sector now is a very sorry situation with respect to the incredible inflation problem. Much of it in the Vancouver area was brought about by the terrible increases in housing prices. There is enormous competition among real estate people, developers and people who are speculating — the average Joe who has decided, "This is how I can make a bit of a nest-egg for the future" and pushing up prices.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, I appreciate that we have more people coming in, but then there is the question of what do you do in terms of planning — to know that you're going to have enough time. We're told by the builders and developers that even if we started now and put in tremendous resources we'd be years away from even filling the gap. The great problem is that there's the other side of the picture.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) indicates two or three years. I can remember two years ago....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You're being hopeful? You're smoking something which I don't even want to mention, because that's not even realistic. It takes a year to get it through the municipalities and planning, get them to the building state and get the financing — and get the financing when it's going from 15 to 16 to 17 percent.

There are many, many problems, but we haven't addressed ourselves to that young group. The government is fond of saying: "We musn't leave any monumental debts for future generations." We're sure leaving them one now. Somehow there has to be some kind of government intervention in respect to the kind of warfare that's going on in the housing market. Do you mean it's going to be allowed to continue? The price level that it reaches is going to have a continuing, almost permanent effect on the housing market in British Columbia. That's an issue of confidence.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the sad parts about the whole question of young people getting into housing is the mortgage rates. What amazes me is that six months ago we had discussions in this House in which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was unhappy because he couldn't get Mr. Bouey to come out to a meeting of the western ministers to discuss the question of interest rates. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are other issues which the Minister of Finance can address himself to. After all, the government is a user of banks. A lot of the money in the government goes through the banking system. How many times do we sit down with the leading charter banks of this province and say to them: "Are you fulfilling your social responsibility in terms of what kind of mortgage money you make available to people in the community?" We know for a fact that they're not doing this, because when the government went into its $200 million program in January 1980, it had to go to the credit unions to facilitate this. There appeared to be no interest from the banks to get into that, only from the credit unions. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that there again is an issue of confidence.

We ought not to talk always about the great future design of the province which is still being negotiated, particularly in relation to the coal situation, but some of the immediate problems that face the future voters. That is the issue of confidence. We can argue this particular amendment on the basis of confidence, because we can say to you: "Do young people in this province have confidence in the government?" I say to you no, they do not. The teachers don't have confidence in you, the health professionals don't have confidence in you, and people on fixed incomes are very worried about the situation — they don't have confidence in you. That's what makes up this motion, because as everybody moves around the province and talks to people, these are the people

[ Page 4266 ]

who are saying: "What is the government doing?" It is quite remarkable that in the midst of an economy which is good, it is not equitable in terms of the opportunities of people in the community.

Yesterday the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), in a brief remark, made some mention of a former Minister of Human Resources. He was referring to me, and he said we did nothing for the handicapped. I sat in my office, and I listened to the speech, and I was a little bit appalled by his lack of knowledge of what was done for the handicapped in the province and what has not been done for the handicapped since the new government came in. But the point is that that member is not prepared to do his homework: that group of handicapped people form part of that body that constantly exhibits statements about a lack of confidence in the government.

The question is, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to plan the province, and not in a hit-and-miss way, then we need to have some kind of design from the government, but we haven't got one.

In respect to the discussions about Crown corporations, we have had, in the last year, an opportunity to see what happens in the field of high finance in respect to the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars. In respect to BCRIC and what it bought — the question of how it bought will be debated at another time — what were the mechanisms that were used which led to the creation of investigations? But the important thing is that if one were to say to the Premier: "Your glorification about BCRIC is because that is the free enterprise system...." We point out to him that if you did not have the leverage, which was the various resource companies that were bought by the previous government, you would not have gotten into the game in the first place.

Then, of course, we question the kind of game that they are in because we are talking again about confidence in the economy. We don't see any change, either now or in the future, that will flow from the purchase of the enormously expensive Kaiser corporation, because what we look for is the whole question of job generation, and that is not there. We don't find, for instance, in terms of the government, that it is prepared to talk in a very meaningful way about what it is doing about job creation for young people. That exhibits a lack of confidence.

We are constantly talking about, in this province, the question of employment. We are faced with the same problem that most western provinces of Canada are faced. These are the desirable places to live, it has always been my contention, for a lot of people; this province is the promise of last resort for many people. They come out here for a number of reasons, particularly if they come from the eastern part of the country where they can't get jobs. We've always had that. It's always going to be that way. We are a naturally attractive province in terms of the climate; the sun shines first here and it shines last — it's great. But we have to make provisions, and those that we can make could have been decided on a long time ago. Sure, we've got to look for some kind of development. We can't absorb everybody in the province, but what we need to have is some kind of real plan, which we don't have. We don't have that kind of plan, and that's why one begins to worry about the whole question of confidence in the government.

If we could get from the government over the next three or four months — we will be able to debate it and we will try and draw it from them — what they have got in mind for the economy in 1981, 1982 and 1983…. What is the plan? We all remember very much the glorification of the budget earlier this year. There was a buoying of confidence out in the community because we had hit over $7 billion in terms of the budget, and then within six weeks it all crumbled. The scare was there, the minister comes in, and we hear that everything is not right.

Suppose we examine what the problem is there. They had one area, among others, in which there was a significant shortfall in the export of gas. One does not have to be a genius to know, if you travelled in the United States as I did in 1979 and early 1980, particularly in Washington and Oregon, that the days of purchasing gas from Canada were finished. It was in their newspapers every day. They couldn't meet the price, and they had other alternatives that were coming on stream in terms of what was going on in Mexico.

We had debates in this Legislature about the pricing of gas three or four years ago when this side of the House criticized that government for failing to seek the proper kind of pricing at the time when the gas could be sold. Then we had the unusual situation of seeing the Minister of Energy writing a letter to the Energy Board saying: "Please, don't go ahead with the increase that we requested." It makes good sense. After all, you're not going to sell it down there at a higher price if you can't even sell it at the existing price. But who was monitoring that field? Do you mean to tell me that when you put together the financial estimates of this province somebody doesn't say: "Is BCPC aware of what the market potential is in the United States for the sale of gas?" From listening to the minister it almost appeared that it came about overnight. It didn't come about overnight. There was great discussion going on on the west coast of the United States about the need to find alternative areas to purchase natural gas, because they simply weren't going to be able to continue to purchase ours at the price that we were charging. Consequently, for a number of months now the Ministry of Finance had been thrown into a tizzy about its revenues. That's an issue of confidence. Nobody out there and nobody in here knows to this day, unless it's a few members of the government, just what the revenue situation is with respect to the government. We don't know. We know what the expectations were in February and March of this year. They would be something like $1 billion underspent as a result of the statements made in the supplementary papers that we got from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but we don't know now. Surely that's an issue of confidence.

How can you run a province when you have no basic plan which you're moving towards, no plan at all? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), in talking about competition, feels that in the utility area there should be more opportunity given to smaller companies to compete with Hydro. It's the issue of competition. There's a great discussion going on in this country right now about competition with the banks. We've just opened up in Canada. The Bank Act has now been passed, and we're going to make it possible for 50 more banks to compete with the charter banks that were once near-banks.

Now we come to the issue of competition. If the basic motivation is that you create more competition in order to make it competitive for.... What are they competing for? Are they competing for profits, or are they looking at making it competitive in terms of the people that purchase the service? There are very little differences in the services given by banks. The interesting situation is that it is now possible for

[ Page 4267 ]

foreign banks to come into this country to compete in the banking market and to take the money out of the country. That's the remarkable situation we have with the banking industry in this province. The Bank of B.C. is extremely active in Alberta and other provinces, One might well ask the question: why isn't it active here? Why isn't that kind of investment being made in this province?

There is no basic fiscal investment policy in terms of the government. We had an opportunity three years ago to start to examine this. It was the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Economic Development who had a report commissioned — in fact two reports. They spent well over $250,000 and examined the capital market structure of this province. The report was delivered. It's never been issued, and we've never been privy to the kind of information that, presumably, for the first time in the history of this province, was collected in terms of the capital market and investment possibilities. We've never had that, and we should have it. But for some reason the government chose not to do that.

The government is not, to my knowledge, exercising any influence in terms of its discussions with the banking industry about what its social responsibility is. That's an issue of confidence. After all, this government pushes something like $7 billion from treasury out into the community. In terms of a multiple of four or five, you're looking at a considerable amount of money past $25 billion to $30 billion, most of it going through the banks and generated from the taxpayer. Surely there's an opportunity there for the government to sit down with the banking industry and say: "Listen, we are part of the people that make your plant grow, and yet you have certain social obligations in respect to interest, in terms of mortgages, in terms of what small-business needs are." It's not just that the government has to do it all the time. Do those kinds of discussions go on, or is it really as has been said many times: "Well, that's really a federal issue and we can't deal with it." It's not just a federal issue. There are enough federal issues. They are issues of the region in which you live, the region in which those banks operate. They are passing through their system a large amount of taxpayers' money, and obviously the government can take the leadership in having those discussions.

Those kinds of discussions did take place several years ago. They took place under the government of W.A.C. Bennett, who finally said that the only solution to getting a banking industry was simply to encourage the development of a bank out here. So we developed the Bank of B.C. When the previous government was in, there was a whole discussion about the availability of cash-flow money and bridge financing for small businesses, along the style of the United States Savings and Trust. So that government moved toward the development of that: looking at two, three and four different mechanisms of distributing money and making money available in the province, not just simply remaining slaves in respect to the banking industry. That's the kind of discussions the government has to have. That's an issue of confidence.

It goes back to what I was saying in the beginning, that if we want to go no further in this discussion, in terms of the issue of confidence, let's take a look at all the young people, whose major discussion every day when they make plans to get married or to start a family is what they are going to do about housing, what they are going to do about accommodation. The ironic part is that you have people today....

We're not talking any more about affordable housing for people with low incomes who need to get into housing like everybody else. We're talking about affordable housing for people who have two incomes, where people have incomes of up to $40,000 a year, yet never have the opportunity to purchase a house or a condominium because of the exorbitant prices and because of the interest rates.

As the government, they can sit back and say that it's a federal question. We can't get to talk to the governor of the Bank of Canada. Or they can take the other initiative, and sit down with the banking industry. They've sat down with the credit union. They participated in a program that worked. Now let's sit down and see whether we can do something with the banking industry, because they're not suffering at all. In the midst of this great crisis that we're going through, in terms of the inability of young people to get housing, the people who are benefiting — along with the developers and land speculators — are the banks. Banks don't have any trouble; their assets are going up; their deposits are increasing; their return on investment is quite dramatic. So when is the government going to do that? Are they prepared to sit down and talk to them, as obviously they must have done with the credit union? That's an issue of confidence.

We can no longer deal with what that government says are the substantive questions, which really relate to an intellectualization about the constitution, which we'll discuss in a different way. It's a complete ignoring of the basic economic problems people are going through. It's no good saying in this House that the economy is prosperous when it doesn't touch a large number of people in this province. At least 25 percent of the people in this province are not touched by the prosperity of the province, unfortunately.

I just pointed out to Mr. Speaker — and I'll do it again for the benefit of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). What kind of situation are we in in this province when two people in a family are working and making $35,000 to $40,000 a year and they can't buy a home? That's a real problem. We have to start talking about affordable housing for people referred to as middle- and upper-income. What's going to happen to the people down below, where a man is working and making, if he's lucky, $2,000 a month? In order to get into a home, he has to look realistically at carrying a mortgage of $700, $800 or $900 a month. We have no expectation.

Those are the real economic questions that have to be addressed. They're not speculations, as sometimes happens in terms of whether we need another Crown corporation, or whether there are very serious problems about the distribution.... There are more substantive problems that affect everybody.

I just want to address one more point in respect to this. I don't think that we give enough attention to the problem of people who are renting. That's an issue of confidence as well. Every MLA in this House — on both sides of the House — has had large numbers of letters from people talking about rent increases, in some cases where rent controls are not in effect. Let me give you an example. Two years ago in this House, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came in and said: "We have now decided to start to remove the rent controls on certain levels of housing." He told us then — and he was endorsed by his colleague who is now the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — "The housing vacancy is such that we can now move to deregulate." We warned him then, as we warned him this year —

[ Page 4268 ]

and we were not the only people who were warning him — that he had no basis for making the decision to reduce the rent controls, other than the pressure that he was getting from certain sectors of the real estate industry. They simply had to keep their promise to the rental people, that is the people who did the building, that they would make it easier for them — because, remember, the government said that they would never reduce the rent control. We're into a situation now where there is a very serious problem in respect to rents. Last year, during the debate on the Residential Tenancy Act amendments, we asked that the government give consideration to reimposing some level of control, particularly in the $450 and $500 area; those are the people who are writing to us about the incredible increases that they're facing.

There are two areas that we've discussed, both related to the whole question of housing, of existing accommodation, which the government refuses to address. It's interesting that at the beginning of the year it wanted to address the issue of the shortage of housing, and certainly that contributed to the increase in the housing starts in the province. But you can't take these particular problems in isolation. If you're going to do something about looking at improving the housing stock, then you have to take a look at what's going to happen in respect to rent controls, so that people aren't forced out of their homes because they can't pay. It's part of the total package to have a discussion with the banks about what they are prepared to do in terms of all of the problems that exist in relation to accommodation.

That's the kind of thing that people would have confidence in, but they don't, because they write us and they tell us that the government doesn't seem to be interested in the provision of housing; it's not interested in the provision of reasonable mortgage rates. All in all, what we've come down to again is the government announcing that their answer to the housing question is to now free up some Crown land. They're basically dealing with planning that was done four or five years ago. We don't know what it's going to cost for people to get into those lands. We know that municipalities today are selling land that they own at market rate — in my own municipality, where I live — at $65,000 and $70,000. That's how much is being paid for a lot. People have no expectation whatsoever of ever being able to purchase that kind of thing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the issue of confidence that my colleague moved, and which was seconded by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), in terms of when the government will discuss those issues. It's only from time to time that we get some discussion about the economy from a member over there; the rest of them stand up and they go back to 1972-75. They have not one thing to contribute in terms of looking at the issues that are before us today. They're prepared to put on the blinkers and say: "Everything is fine." Well, everything is not fine. If you don't want to keep bringing forward the business of our being negative, examine one or two of the problems; somebody over there examine, as I have attempted to examine, the question of housing, the question of rental accommodation. That's what you're supposed to do. It's long gone that anybody over there....

The mavericks have gone from that government or from that party. It used to be that people would stand up and make proposals, because that was what was worthwhile to do. We don't get that over there; we just get a recitation of what the previous government did — which has not been in government for more than five years — and not one suggestion, except from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), and that's the great tragedy. They're the ones who are absolutely bereft of any ideas at all, any ability to do a critique. They sit there; they're very much like trained seals: the less they say, the less trouble they get into, and that's it. That's the issue that you have to face. You don't sit there as the back bench and not make some suggestions. But we haven't had it from over there, Mr. Speaker.

So that's why, when we started up the throne speech, we felt it was crucial to get to the economic problems and have a discussion about those. That's what I've attempted to do today, in terms of the government looking at the banking industry, coupling it with the problems they have with the provision of housing stock and looking at the problems of rent and rent controls. Those are basic day-to-day issues that everybody is concerned about, concerned about whether they own their own homes and have children who are looking for a home, or whether they live in a situation where they constantly have to get in touch with the rentalsman to see whether they can get their rent reduced. Those are day-to-day issues, and that's what we are concerning ourselves with in this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to dwell very long on this irrelevant motion, but I will say that we've commenced a new parliament and we're off to a worse start. I hardly spoke in the last session of our Legislature, because it was, by all odds, the worst in our history. We're entering into a throne speech debate today — a non-confidence motion in the government — with neither the mover of that motion nor the seconder present to hear the debate and with the press, as usual, down to a corporal's guard. I'm glad there's a sentinel this morning in the press gallery. But all of this is reflecting that the Legislative Assembly, under these circumstances, really needn't meet at all, because the members themselves don't make relevant speeches. The time drags on. The press doesn't bother to attend the debates. The media ignore it. So, Mr. Speaker, what point is being served?

The usefulness of a Legislative Assembly is when people attend this House as elected representatives, to put before their colleagues and the press in attendance their ideas as to the future of British Columbia, so that the people can learn about the ideas and policies of their elected representatives, and on that basis make wise judgments as to whom they should have serve in government for the purpose of putting forward programs that will either benefit or harm the public of this province.

Now the NDP, appearing in debate, puts forward a non-confidence motion, suggesting there is no public confidence in the leadership of this government. But they themselves fail to present arguments to set forward that hypothesis. Indeed, the mover, the seconder and the Leader of the Opposition don't even bother to attend their own debates. The press ignores it.

But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: if there is a climate in British Columbia which agrees with the motion that has been put forward by the NDP, shame on all those who have created that climate, because never has British Columbia been more prosperous. Never has it been more obvious to those who will analyze that this is no accident; this prosperity did not fall from the sky. It came as a direct result of policies and leadership.

Our prosperity runs against the current in North America, against the current of Canada and of the United States.

[ Page 4269 ]

Capital investment in this province, economic activity, housing, people moving here; every indicator suggests precisely the opposite of what the NDP has said in argument. And I say this: if there are those in the public who have been encouraged by the media to believe this myth, then shame on the media and shame on the opposition for not looking at the facts of the case and for not looking with respect at the prosperity of this province and recognizing that it is policies and leadership that have produced this result. Those who would aspire to government in British Columbia, who now sit in the opposition or who may one day run for office as MLAs, should study and learn these policies, because they lie behind the future of this province.

Once before in this House, Mr. Speaker, almost a decade ago, I saw a myth grow in this province that somehow the NDP, despite the things that they had said repeatedly in their speeches in opposition, could govern this province responsibly. Yes, a climate was created in which it was supposed that the NDP could assume office, somehow would abandon the policies and all the things that they said, and would provide responsible leadership for this province. But the public learned, to their dismay, precisely the opposite. What the public had to learn, Mr. Speaker, was that the NDP, when they came to office, put their policies into effect. They put their ideas into effect, and they brought disaster to this province.

That's why people were leaving. That's why investment almost disappeared. That's why after three short years there was no mining industry in British Columbia, except what was carrying on with the existing mines; exploration had disappeared. So had exploration in the petroleum industry in the northeast comer of British Columbia.

I heard this morning in the repartee across the House here — if one could use that charitable expression, Mr. Speaker — one of the members of the NDP, in fact the seconder of this motion, condemning corporation after corporation after corporation. I say to this House and to the public: listen to what they say. I've been reading the newspapers. I've been listening to the climate, no doubt inspired in this resonance between the NDP and the media, that somehow confidence could go from the business community to the NDP and that somehow they have learned a lesson. I find no evidence of that. I find them saying precisely the same things they said in 1970. I tell you that if the NDP ever come to power again, they'll put their same policies into effect and once more will bring disaster to the economy of British Columbia. I only warn of one thing: if that ever happens again — and people know that British Columbia made a mistake about government once and never learned the lesson — instead of having a temporary reversal in progress, you're going to have an irreversible one. Then indelibly imprinted upon the minds of those who would work with us to develop the economy of British Columbia will be the realization that if it could happen a second time, it could happen a third time.

As you move about the world attempting to develop markets, encourage investment and produce a better future for British Columbia, the one thing you run into again and again is: will the socialists be back? That's the great fear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said: "When?" That should strike terror into the hearts of all of those in British Columbia who want to see a bright future for themselves and their children. I see bright smiles from the socialist opposition, but I invite you, and I invite the media, to stand up and state your policies clearly and explicitly so the people of this province can understand you and not put you into office under false impressions and with false beliefs, as they did in 1972. Stand up and tell us. Don't say your spots have changed and let the media pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Stand up and describe your spots. Have people pay attention to the debates in this House so they can know.

MR. KING: Renegade Liberal!

HON. MR. McGEER: There's no such thing as a western Liberal any more, Mr. Member. You know the NDP have taken over the Liberal Party, and one doesn't know whether Broadbent is in Trudeau's lap or whether Trudeau is in Broadbent's lap. Davis is in both their laps.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We're going to have later on in this session, if it doesn't die from boredom, some debate about the constitutional position and the necessity of keeping resource development close to the provinces. If people didn't learn between 1972 and 1975 how closely the prosperity of our province and the west is linked to resource policies, they're apt to discover again, without the NDP in office but with their equivalent in power in Ottawa, the consequences to British Columbia and the western provinces of counter-productive resource policies. This is what we have in Ottawa today, and it's going to hurt us here in British Columbia. It won't hurt Quebec or Ontario. It may hurt the Maritimes to some extent, particularly Newfoundland, but it will hurt the west. To those who want a unitary state, who want to develop a single clone for all of Canada and follow a single set of policies from Ottawa, again I say, take warning, because the economies of the regions of British Columbia, Alberta, great central Canada and the Maritimes are different economies, and if they are all to progress, the control of these needs to be placed close to the people who live in those regions of Canada.

What happened to the Liberals in western Canada, with two exceptions in the province of Manitoba? The people of western Canada dismissed them as government. They dismissed them as government but, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that in dismissing them as government they were unable to dismiss their policies, because the counterproductive resource policies imposed upon us by the federal government in their latest budget does no harm to those areas of the country, like Quebec and Ontario, which supply the majority of members of that government. It is because one can have a government of Canada that is not a national government but a regional government that it is necessary for us to keep power in this nation close to the people of the various regions. That is why you need to have resource development under the control of the provinces.

When similar policies to what the Liberals are following in Ottawa were imposed upon British Columbia by the NDP when they were in power in 1972, the public had the opportunity, and I might say the wisdom, Mr. Speaker, to dismiss that government in order to dismiss the policies. But the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan do not have that opportunity when those same

[ Page 4270 ]

counterproductive policies are introduced by a regional government which holds national power. So we are going to have a tough time in British Columbia, and because we now must march counter to the current in North America and in Canada as a whole, and because we must overcome counterproductive resource policies introduced by a regional government holding national power, whose policies we lack the political power to overcome, we must work doubly hard to overcome. We must work doubly hard in British Columbia; our policies must be doubly effective. Our leadership has to be stronger, Mr. Speaker. We aren't going to get that kind of strong leadership from a lapdog NDP on the national scene, one that nearly destroyed the economy of British Columbia in three short years on the provincial scene.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say "Wake up" to the NDP, "Wake up" to the Legislature, "Wake up" to the media, and "Wake up" to the people of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: I must say that I enjoyed the speech from the good doctor. The lack of confidence that the public of British Columbia obviously feels in the government has obviously reached the ears of that member, because he felt the need to argue with the public against their feeling. He's the man who, in describing a former Social Credit government, wrote a book called Politics in Paradise. I wonder when he writes a book about the current Social Credit government whether it, will be entitled Liberals in Limbo or Fools in Fantasyland.

In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is an interesting section that other members on this side of the House have made reference to, and I want, this morning, to do the same. "My government believes," says the throne speech, "individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life," and then those aims are listed.

This morning I want to talk, first of all, about why it is that British Columbians have no confidence in this government, a fact that is self-evident to all those people who spend more time with the public than they do in the laboratories.

"To enjoy the best possible health" — you can't get a hospital bed. The "best possible health" in this province — look at the lifespan of native Indians, the number of native Indian children who don't survive childhood; look at the increase in occupational disease; look at the lack of child development therapy and services, in this province, the absence of rural doctors in community after community, certainly in my riding and I know in other ridings as well. The government absolutely refuses to find financial assistance to put doctors in rural communities on a part-time basis. The list of failures in health care goes on. During this debate other members have made that point and other members will make the point further.

The second of the government objectives is a fair system of justice. How galling! How really incredible from a government that was elected, by manipulating the voters and boundaries so they could win an election through gerrymandering.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. GABELMANN: It's not garbage. You just have to look at Vancouver–Little Mountain, on both sides — not just the finger side, but the indented side as well.

But, more importantly than all the cases that have been made in this Legislature over the last year about injustice in this province, we have a basic system of injustice when the poor cannot afford lawyers and cannot afford to go to court. I don't know how many times a week I get calls and letters from people whose solutions could be found in the courts but who won't go because they can't afford the chance that they might not win their case and would be faced with the court costs. They do not pursue cases they probably would. They can't take the chance. And this is a province with evenhanded justice, a fair system? Absolute nonsense! There's no fair system in justice whatsoever in this province for the majority of our people — certainly not for the poor people and absolutely not for native Indians.

The third aim of the government is "personal financial security." Tens of thousands of British Columbians will never own a home. That's financial security? There are a hundred thousand or so British Columbians on social assistance, more than half of them kids. That's financial security? There are another hundred thousand or more unemployed. That's financial security? And how many more tens of thousands of British Columbians are underemployed, not doing the work they have been trained to do? That's financial security?

Number four is "to live in a healthy environment." I don't believe it. A government that's going to permit Amax to do what it's going to do in the Kitsault area; a government that has done very little, if anything, to deal with the fact that the drinking water for the whole Campbell River area is being poisoned by another mine effluent dumping in Buttle Lake; a government that does not protect the basic salmon resource in this province by protecting salmon streams and enhancing the fishery; a government that allows industrial pollution to run rampant in this province, and they talk about a healthy environment.

They then talk about "equality of opportunity." How much equality of opportunity do native Indians have in this province? How much equality of opportunity do women have in this province? None, and they will get none from that government.

Then they talk, about what is really probably their basic issue: "to have the freedom to lawfully pursue their individual lives without undue interference from either the state or their fellow citizens." Nice ringing words, but from this government those words apply to those people who have the right station in life and have the right amount of money to start life with, not to anyone else. That sentence applies to real estate agents and land developers, not to ordinary people and certainly not to women and native Indians in this province.

It's unbelievable that the author of that speech would include such a ringing indictment of five years of Social Credit.

I find it a bit disconcerting, having listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) being critical of our attendance in this Legislature when he was speaking a few minutes ago, when at the present time — just so that it's clear in Hansard, for the record — there is a total of four Social, Credit members in this Legislature.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I draw the Chair's attention to the lack of a quorum in the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all your members, Bill?

[ Page 4271 ]

MR. KING: They went out looking for the government that called the session. What did you call the session for if you don't want to attend?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The responsibility of the Chair in the event a lack of quorum is pointed out is to take a list of the names of members who are present. All of that is following a division bell. I don't know whether or not this is the intent of the member but, my attention having been drawn to the lack of quorum, I must now follow that procedure.

Hon. members, on the count and on names which I have inscribed here, there appears to me a sufficient number. Quorum is present.

MR. GABELMANN: I want now to turn to the question of housing in British Columbia. It was mentioned in the throne speech, but only in passing. It is clearly and unequivocally the major issue in this province, if I read what people are saying to me. You might persuade me that the issue of health care ranks up there with it.

I notice the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in and out.

MR. SPEAKER: Would those hon. members who are either coming or leaving please make their remarks whispers as they move.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the confusion on the government's side is reminiscent of the way they've governed for five years and probably indicates why they've called this session: they're in a state of confusion, don't know whether they're coming or going and don't know why they're here. Why don't we just have an election and settle this thing?

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of North Island people are sleeping in campers, trailers and cars this winter. In greater Vancouver there are people who are literally homeless. Agencies involved in attempting to find shelter for people report they cannot find shelter. People go weeks without shelter in this province. What does the throne speech say about housing? Virtually nothing.

There is no need in this discussion for me to detail the crisis; we all know it exists. It's been in the papers and on the media and has been the centre of attention for weeks and months. Only the privileged in this province can buy a home, and those who are not privileged can now no longer even find reasonable rental accommodation. Those who are lucky enough to find it take what they can get; they do not have a choice. That situation was created by a government that believes in freedom of choice. What choice do individuals have about where they live in this province? They have virtually no choice.

There are two groups I specifically want to talk about in terms of housing. One is the disadvantaged — those people whose incomes are fixed and for other reasons have limited financial resources. I also want to talk about young families — people getting married and having children when they are in their twenties and thirties. In some cases they are earning good money — $20,000 or more in some cases — but are absolutely unable to purchase their own homes. What kind of society is it that Social Credit promised us? A society of individual freedom and free choice, which will allow everybody to have the kind of life they want — but not in the home they want. Isn't it a priority of free enterprisers that people should be allowed to choose and have freedom about where they live? Isn't that a basic right in society? Not from that side of the House it isn't.

What they say about personal choice and freedom is rhetoric and nothing more. They are the ideologues of our age. They are caught up in the trappings of their free enterprise philosophy. We are the pragmatists.

Times have changed. Not many years ago there were days in this country and this province where the shoe was on the other foot, where governments of the right were more pragmatic than parties on the left. I will admit that. A charge that the CCFers were ideologues caught up in their own ideology and philosophy, unable to make decisions on a pragmatic basis, might have been able to stick on some occasions, but the shoe is now on the other foot. Social Credit is captured by its own philosophy, by its own ideology, and is therefore unable to act, unable to relate to the problems that exist, and unable to find solutions, because they don't look beyond their own ideology or their own framework. In that sense they are trapped by their ideology. And what a travesty that is. What a tragedy that is for British Columbians. And now not just for poor British Columbians, but increasingly for most British Columbians who can't have that basic right in our society to live in the home of their own choice. Free enterprise — how wonderful it is!

Five years ago now, in fact it was December 6, 1975, the Social Credit Party ran an ad. It said: "Release Crown Land for Low-Cost Service Lots — Affordable Homes People Can Own." When the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was Minister of Housing, he had a nice, pretty brochure — almost in NDP colours, too — printed: "Landservicing Program: How to Qualify," "The Affordable Home: We're Helping it Happen." A few days ago, we had yet another announcement about Crown land being made available. They announce it every few years. They'll announce it in the next election campaign and we'll probably have this ad repeated. You don't have to change many words: "Bill Bennett's way. Release Crown lands for low-cost service lots. Affordable homes people can own." That was in 1975. You've had five years.

In that same year the United Community Services, through its SPARC committee — which I happened to be involved with in those years — did a comprehensive report on the housing problems in the lower mainland area of greater Vancouver. They talked then about the things that needed to be done. They talked about the fact that governments had to be involved. And what did the government do in 1975? It ran ads in the papers. A couple of years later it printed a pretty brochure. Then in 1980 there was a a little story in theVancouver Province. Dave Todd would think it was a big story; he wrote it. There were only 486 lots bought since that fanfare announcement. Only 486 lots. That's five years after the ad and three or four years after the program was announced. So what should we expect? What should British Columbians expect about the announcement on Saturday? Not very much. Is it an election announcement? Nothing's going to happen for at least a year.

In the Province today, I gather that the servicing.... It's hard to understand quite what that means, but we're starting out with $31,000 per lot. If housing on those lots comes in under $100,000 or $110,000 for finished, completed housing, it will be very, very surprising. It won't be a luxury home at that price these days. But let's just say it

[ Page 4272 ]

comes in at a total price of $100,000. Your average young family, with $20,000 to $25,000 income, manage to scrape up $10,000. They only have a $90,000 mortgage; if they've managed to scrape up their $10,000, they've a $90,000 mortgage. That's more than $1,100 per month mortgage payments, and no taxes have been paid. This program's going to help British Columbians?

Why do we still have a part-time Minister of Housing? We have a Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). What he is mostly interested in is lands, so that he can make sure his friends and political supporters can get a good deal with their gravel pits. That's about all he does, too. A part-time minister. Five years of talk.

I want to talk about seven things. This is by no means an exclusive list, nor is it a complete list. It is seven things I think could be done by the government if they had the will and the determination to act.

First of all, by declaring that they will create a full-time minister of housing, they could say to this province and its people that they are declaring war on the housing crisis in this province, and that they will take action to ensure that solutions are found. No one expects that all of the solutions can be provided; no one ever expects that. But you can signal that you as the government are prepared to attempt to find some solutions, that you will work with the federal government, through CMHC, through various agencies that can be created here in British Columbia, that you will work, that you have declared war. Do that by declaring that you are going to have a full-time minister of housing.

What should be the first task of that housing minister? It should be to re-establish the housing corporation. We need in this province a housing corporation — such as exists in every other province of Canada — to coordinate all aspects of housing development and creation, and to reduce the interminable bureaucracy that accompanies the whole development of housing. Individuals who are trying to have a house built for them, or to build their own, find interminable delays. Procedures are not clear. That occurs for developers; that occurs for contractors at every level of home-building in this province. Create a corporation that will have as one of its tasks the simplification and the opening up of the bureaucracy that accompanies housing development.

After the housing corporation is established, go into land-banking, but do it in a rational way. Do it in the way that Prince George as a municipality has done it; do it in the way that many prairie cities are doing it and have done for years — Swift Current, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary. They go into land-banking programs; they put serviced land on the market in an orderly fashion, not in this hit-and-miss fashion that the government proposes every few years in election announcements, in fancy brochures and in Saturday morning press conferences in Vancouver.

What good is it in Penticton, Port Hardy and Cranbrook that 19,000 lots might be opened up in greater Vancouver? Has the government considered what impact on prices this hit-and-miss approach is having in the marketplace? There are occasions in the housing market when adding a program or adding financial incentive or throwing land on the market has the single effect of driving up the price by more than the benefit. That is particularly true when housing programs are developed on a hit-and-miss program: some of the programs even developed outside of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing by the Premier when the Housing minister is in Australia — such as HIP last year, the so-called cheap-money program. Sure it was good; we said so at the time. The idea was sound.Iit was our idea, of course; we talked about it in '75 in the savings and trust legislation. It was a good idea. But it is a bad idea when it's done piecemeal, when it's done hit and miss. That applies to land-banking as well.

The fourth thing the government should do, if they have any desire to alleviate the housing crisis, is to enact the legislation that is on the books of this province — the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. Enact that legislation. Put into place, together with the credit unions of this province, a capital resource at subsidized rates. Use some provincial revenue for subsidy for housing. At the same time, some of that money can be made available for small businesses, many of which are going into bankruptcy as the result of high interest rates. Lower-interest loans, longer terms, without the rigorous demands the banking industry sometimes puts on individuals — the government has much more flexibility. Enact that legislation. How else in this capital market are people going to buy a house? Who can afford to? The rich.

You know, the way the housing prices are going, if an MLA doesn't have a spouse working and if the MLA doesn't have a cabinet job, that MLA probably will be ineligible for most housing offered in this city and in most other cities in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless he's got a turkey farm.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. Unless you have some other source of income — your law practice, your farm, your cabinet job, your spouse's income — even an MLA in this province will be ineligible for loans to purchase a home in this province, should that be the case, should they desire to do so. Doesn't that, if anything, bring home the magnitude of this problem? The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) can smile; the Minister of Labour is also a lawyer. The Minister of Labour has got his practice sitting there dormant at the moment he can always go back to; the Minister of Labour has got a cabinet salary. He probably can afford it. If we can't, if some members in this House can't afford it, think about the public, because we're pretty well paid. We're pretty well paid, and there are some of us who can't afford to buy a home. What a tragedy that is in this province, particularly in light of all the PR about free enterprise and about individual choice and about how great it is to live in a non-socialist world.

Number five, Mr. Speaker, in my list of proposals is that the government get actively involved in special-needs housing. There have been four areas of special-needs housing that have been defined by governments: they are co-op, public, handicapped and seniors' housing. The government in whom I have no confidence has decided that it does not want to be involved with public housing or with co-op housing, that it would prefer that be done by Ottawa. Yet we had a speech from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) only moments ago who said that the best governments for western Canada are governments that are regional or local governments. Yet in one of the most urgent and critical areas in our society, the provision of public and co-op housing, they say: "It's better if Ottawa does it." Are they hypocrites, or what? Why would they say on one hand that they want control of the economy, they want to be able to run the affairs of British Columbia and of western Canada from here, from western Canada, then say,

[ Page 4273 ]

in two critical areas of housing: "Give it to Ottawa. We don't want to touch it"?

Cooperatives are not something that private enterprisers feel very comfortable with, because they have never believed in cooperation. They believe in fighting; they believe in competition; they believe in dog-eat-dog and the devil take the hindmost end — and there are a lot of devils taking a lot of hind-pieces in this province right now. It's about time you did in housing — and particularly in public and co-op housing — what you want to do everywhere else in the resource sector: take control of it. If Ottawa still wants to do it, let them do it too; work out joint programs. Do more than provide small pieces of land here and there, a little bit in Burnaby and not much anywhere else.

Do more for the handicapped and seniors. I admit that the seniors' program has its good points; I'm not going to be particularly critical of it. But I do know of groups in various communities in this province who are attempting to develop seniors' housing and have been some years in the bureaucracy without ever getting anywhere near a bulldozer on the site — in one case particularly, two and a half years and they haven't even got a site yet, because the government is not interested in putting all of its effort into this major crisis. So set up a special department of the Housing Corporation that deals with special-needs housing.

I still have some time, Mr. Speaker, and I want to use that to read into the record excerpts from a statement made by the United Way of the Lower Mainland, a non-partisan group recognized by all members as a very important part of our community. They talked in May of this year about special-needs housing, and I'm going to quote excerpts from that. They were asking the government to consider these ideas when developing their policies for special needs.

"Coordinated policies and more integrated programs involving government, the private sector and voluntary organizations must be developed if special housing needs in the lower mainland are to be met. Input received from over 150 organizations show that special housing needs are not limited to the aged and the physically handicapped."

Those are the two areas the government has accepted responsibility for: aged and physically handicapped. It goes on:

"Single-parent families, women and families in crisis, single, older people, transients, those wishing to leave institutional settings, plus mentally and physically handicapped individuals and their families have important special housing needs. All have a number of common needs and face similar barriers to obtaining adequate and affordable housing. Their problem is made more severe by the accelerating cost of housing, which is causing difficulties for a large proportion of the population.

"Although there are a number of provincial and municipal government programs designed to answer special housing needs, there is no single government agency responsible for coordinating efforts to produce special-needs housing. The complex process of developing proposals and navigating the maze of finance, zoning laws, licensing and contracting is left largely to individuals and voluntary organizations."

It states the case. It states the problem and the solution. It's now up to the government to enact that solution as part of an overall package.

Mr. Speaker, number six on my list of seven is that if the government does not move immediately to stop the foreign speculation in our housing market, they will have created the greatest crime in a long list of crimes that their government has ever created. One of the major facts fuelling the increasing cost of housing in the lower mainland of British Columbia in particular is the fact that outside, non-Canadian money is coming in and taking advantage of our cheap dollar and our relative stability in comparison to other parts of this world. They are allowed to outbid and pay more than the listed price for housing and turn it over again within months. It is housing they don't even see, because they retain agents in Vancouver to purchase it for them from their homes in other parts of the world.

There must be a law enacted at this session of the Legislature. Give this calling of the Legislature some purpose. We've seen none to date. Bring in a bill that we can debate and pass which outlaws foreign ownership of our housing in this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Free enterprise! They allow foreigners to come in and speculate on our market, denying British Columbians the right to live in their own home because the price is driven up. What a bunch they are. I wish some words were allowable in this place, because I feel like saying them.

Number seven, Mr. Speaker — in my last few minutes — is that the government should create, as they have done in socialist, left-wing Alberta, a community housing program like the government has done there. Those left-wingers in Alberta have created 32 different government programs to deal with the housing problem, and you've got none. It is so left-wing there that they're prepared to create a government agency to provide community rental accommodation. You guys think it's socialist, so you won't do it.

What's the government's plan to develop rental accommodation for young families in this province? I hear the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on the radio talking about the great MURB program out of Ottawa, the capital cost allowance. It doesn't provide housing for young families. It doesn't build three- and four-bedroom rental accommodation. What it does is provide capital cost write-offs in existing housing or luxury bachelor housing for rich people. It doesn't provide any housing for ordinary families. If you want to propose capital cost allowance provisions — and I'm very dubious about them because all the studies indicate they don't work — then propose them for the accommodation for those people, young families, who need it, and not for swinging singles in the West End in luxury apartments. Have a program. Do something. It takes socialist Alberta to recognize that the government has a responsibility to do something. This group is so right-wing it makes Peter Lougheed look like a social democrat — and that's really saying something.

There are seven ideas. As I said earlier, they are not exclusive and they're not complete. They are just a few things that are reasonable to get started on yesterday. It's late. For many people in this province the dream of owning a home will never be met. But for future generations, perhaps the dream of owning their own homes might be realizable if you start now to enact a variety of programs to deal with this housing problem. The fact that you haven't makes me support the motion of non-confidence; the fact that you haven't done that — among many other things — makes the public of

[ Page 4274 ]

this province support the non-confidence motion. If you don't believe that the public of this province are on our side on this motion, call the election today, and let's find out whose side the public of British Columbia are on in this non-confidence motion.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I, like many other speakers, would like to welcome the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) back to this House, and I join many other speakers in this House who have wished him good health in the future.

Believe it or not, I'm rising in this great forum this morning to speak against this frivolous motion which has been brought forward by the socialist herds on the other side of the street. They have nothing to offer the province. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they had nothing to offer the province when they were government. Now that they're back in opposition, oh, my gracious, they've sure got all the solutions.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make this very plain and clear, that the problems we have of success, the problems we have in dealing with the growth, and the problems that we have in dealing with this great and burgeoning economy — certainly that herd on the other side of the street would never have to deal with them, because there would be no economy in British Columbia today. There would be no need for housing; there would be no need for all of the services that we have to supply people, because people would be continuing to leave this great province, like they were when that herd over there were government.

You know, it's very easy for them to stand up here and talk about all the problems that we're experiencing because we have strong and dynamic leadership and because people are coming to this great province to seek opportunities that are not available to them in any state in the union or indeed in any other province in Canada. That's because we have strong, dynamic leadership in this province; that's because the people of this province and the people of other provinces and other jurisdictions have faith in our leader. That's why they're coming to invest their money here, and that was not the case when that socialist herd were over there. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case.

I listened with a great deal of interest to that last speaker, who probably is more socialist than any of the socialists over there. As a matter of fact, he is just bordering on you know what — I'm not supposed to mention that. Of all the speakers over there, he's probably the worst. But he's got all of the answers.

Mr. Speaker, I remember not too many years ago in this Legislature, when they had a full-time Minister of Housing. I'll tell you, they created more problems in housing for the people of British Columbia than we'd known in the history of this province in 100 years. Yet he stands over there and says: "A full-time Minister of Housing...." More bureaucracy; spending more of the taxpayers' money on nothing is going to solve the housing.... That's a simplistic solution that those socialists over there always have. No positive suggestions; just harp and harp.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to think about this for just a moment. Name me one socialist country in the world that hasn't had a housing problem. Oh, they talk about their great theories. I'll tell you the true result of your theory, my friend. Who built more houses this year than any other province in Canada, including Alberta? The great province of British Columbia. I'll tell you those facts speak for themselves, my friend. You can talk about all your airy-fairy ideas. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and British Columbia has created more housing starts this year than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker — and I didn't mean to raise my voice....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to announce the coal deal again?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, those socialists over there — yack, yack, yack, they're great at yacking. They've got all the solutions now that they're in opposition. But I don't think the people of this great province have such short memories that they're not going to remember their dreadful record of running this province when they were government for a few short years.

Now I want to talk about housing, and I want to get off this subject, because I've got some great things to say about this great government and what we've done with this great province. But I watched some of their housing — the state-run housing projects — when I was in opposition. You know, they created a mobile-home park up in Squamish — $25,000 for a mobile-home park. I want to tell you that's the results of some of the great socialist philosophies. They never create anything positive in their life. Lots of theory.

I've also had the advantage of looking at a number of socialist housing projects in other countries, and I want to tell you, you have to force people to live in them. I looked at one in Melbourne about two weeks ago. People are jumping out the windows. State housing — "Little boxes without topses...." You force people into them. They're built by the government. I want to tell you, you can't name one socialist country in the world that hasn't had a housing problem, still doesn't have a housing problem.

You drove the free enterprisers out of the housing problem. They are the ones who will solve the housing problem. I want to tell you, the results are in; the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We've done a great.... We had an announcement, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said he was going to create 19,000 lots on the lower mainland. Yet they keep yacking over there that we're not doing anything. I want to tell you, more simplistic solutions.... But I'd like them to stand up and tell me where their theories and where socialism has really worked anywhere in the world. It looks great on paper, it's a great theory, but it sure in heaven's name hasn't worked anywhere in the world, and it didn't work for you people in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just one other thing about the last speaker. He was talking about banning Albertans coming in here and investing money in this great province, banning Albertans from buying houses in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: He didn't say that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what you said. You said: "Ban anybody coming in here to buy houses." So you want to ban the Albertans from coming in here and investing in housing. You would, as a fellow Canadian, deprive them of the opportunity to live in the California of Canada. That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying:

[ Page 4275 ]

"Albertans, look, you've worked out there in the ice and snow for all of your life...." All of the prairie farmers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have spent their life opening up this country on the prairie — put up with mud and snow and ice and everything else — you would ban from coming here to live. If you followed out your policy that's exactly what you would do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you again, I want to remind everybody in this great Legislature and all those in the public galleries, I want to remind everybody that we have had more housing starts in British Columbia this year than in any other jurisdiction in Canada. I think that is a clear result of some of the policies which we have.

But I also want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, when I'm talking about housing, one of the reasons we have a housing problem is that, as I've said before, people are coming to British Columbia because they have faith in this government, they have faith in its future prosperity. The biggest cloud that we have hanging over the future of British Columbia — and I want to tell you, as I travel in the investment world, as I travel in that great world which is becoming smaller every day when we talk about international trade — the biggest cloud, the biggest problem we have hanging over the future and faith in the future of this province is that those socialist hordes might someday have something to say about running this province again.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have worked long and hard the last five years to restore confidence in this province of British Columbia in the international marketplace. We have done it in a few short years because of the dynamic policies of this government. Now the international marketplace looks at us. They say we know how to run a government, have the right policies and good leadership. That's why they're doing business with us, and that is why they're investing here.

This frivolous amendment to this motion does not.... I guess they didn't read the actual throne speech because of all the very positive things it says in there — the accomplishments of this government and the faith in the future. They're talking about a lack of leadership. I don't know how they can say that when we have, under the leadership that we have under this government, actually brought this province from the brink of economic disaster created by the socialists in the few short years they were government. Under the leadership that we have we have turned the province around, in a very difficult world situation, to become one of the leaders — not only in Canada, but all over North America, my friends. As a matter of fact, we are the envy of practically every nation in the world when it comes to having a strong and growing economy. I think you're being frivolous, and you can laugh until the cows come home. The people out there recognize….

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're just a newcomer, my friend, to this Legislature. You weren't here in those bad old days when you could watch your own government, that you're now a part of, dragging this province down to the depths of despair so that there was no faith in the future. You weren't here, but if you had seen what happened, then you wouldn't even be sitting over there with those birds now. You'd have more sense.

They've said over there that the province is a shambles — a jurisdiction that is the envy of the world. People are coming here from other jurisdictions and provinces asking us: "How did you do it? What policies did you have? How did you improve your economy? How did you create that faith in the future that you have in this province?" People are coming here to find out how we did it.

They're saying the province is a shambles. I want to tell you I wouldn't give Bill Bennett's little finger for your leader's whole body and his brains too. You compare that. Here's a guy who.... All of a sudden a leopard is going to change his stripes. Oh, he's going to change his stripes. I read an article in the paper the other day — new image; the leader bides his time in B.C. But when the question comes, "What would you do differently?" "Oh, I'd do the same old thing." Once a socialist, always a socialist. I'll tell you, if they're not socialist, Mr. Speaker, I defy them to stand up in this Legislature and say they've changed their stripes. Stand up in this Legislature and tell us you're no longer socialists. I defy you to do that. No, you're going to try and get this old soft sell, and if you ever get back in government you'd carry on the same old socialist policies. Now that we've built up this economy, now that the kitty is full and investment is flowing in here, oh, what great things you would do. Oh, yes, you'd spend all the taxpayers' money. What great ideas you would have. Oh, Johnny come lately. Now that we've put the economy back together, now that we have the province on the move again, you'd just love to get your finger in that cookie jar again, wouldn't you, so that you could tear it down. You are socialist, you always will be socialist, you were socialist, and none of this biding my time, changing the stripes on the leopard. I'll tell you you're a socialist herd over there and you're wandering in the wilderness. You have no leadership. You find a green field and you go over and mince a little bit and bite it off — something that somebody else has created. You and your government never created one solid new idea, but you bought it up from the free enterprise system and said: "Oh, look what we did." What new did you do? Absolutely nothing. You haven't come up with one solid idea, like any other socialist country. It's great to take over what the free enterprise system has created, but what did you create? Absolutely nothing.

I've repeated this in this House before and I'll repeat it again. They were government at a time when the economy of the world was strong, when there had never been higher demand or higher prices for minerals, when there had never been a higher demand or higher prices for lumber. In 1973 the world energy situation gave them a great opportunity to do something, but instead of that they were driving mining companies out of the province. They were driving investment in the forest industry out of the province and they were driving the petroleum industry out of the province at a time when there was great need, high prices and great demand. Make no mistake about that. That is the truth. You couldn't even run the province when things were good, and you think I'm going to forget that. You had the opportunity and you failed. You didn't have leadership, and you haven't got leadership now.

If you think the old leopard is going to change his stripes, you'll never convince me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Spots.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that they will convince anybody.

[ Page 4276 ]

You know, Mr. Speaker, it has not been easy during the last five years to restore confidence at home and abroad in this great province of ours. Some of the greatest problems that this government has encountered are in trying to undo some of the damage that was done in those few short years that the socialists were in government.

MR. LEA: The Marguerite.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, we can have all of the smart remarks from the member for Prince Rupert and all of the yacking, but the public will never know, the people of Canada will never know, nobody will know, the long hours and the decisions that we had to make to try and undo the damage that was done to this province during the three short years of socialism. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that even today we are still wrestling with a number of those problems. As I said when we first formed the government, it will take not one year, not two years, and not five years, but in some cases it will take up to 20 years to undo the damage that was done to this province while that socialist herd over there was running this province.

We have, in the last five years, under a very dynamic leader, done more during very difficult times....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll name them, my friend. You want some facts; let me give you some facts. I'm very happy you mentioned that.

"November 1980, British Columbia economy — greater investment in the economy of British Columbia, both percentage-wise and dollar-wise, than any province in Canada in 1980." You yack away over there because you don't like the facts and figures, do you, Mr. Member? You don't like the facts and figures; you like to yack away and confuse the issue. Not only has the investment in the last year been greater in numbers, greater in percentage increase than in any other year, but I have a list here of billions of dollars worth of projects which are on the drawing board.

I want to tell you, if those birds were in power those projects would not go ahead, make no mistake about it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if that group of socialist hordes over there ever form the government again, investment in British Columbia would dry up the same as it did while they were government, and the capital investment that created the much-needed jobs for our young people would not come to the province of British Columbia, and make no mistake about that. You can't deny that, my friend.

It's happened in every socialist regime in the world. They talk about their socialism. I defy them to name me one country in the world where their theory has worked for the good of the people. It's created hardship, shortage of housing, no jobs. Name me one jurisdiction where socialism has worked. That's why all over the world, my friend, they're throwing the socialists out. Make no mistake about that. The people have had enough of this socialist philosophy. It didn't work then, it hasn't worked now, and it'll never work in the future. It just creates havoc.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll tell you something about what the socialists did in Britain. Do you want to hear it?

Your great shining example! Under socialism in Britain, the workers were paid the lowest of any country in the European Economic Community. That's what happened when the great socialists were in Great Britain. Explain that, my friend. Why do you think Henry Ford built his plant in England instead of in one of the other European common market countries? Because the great socialist leader of Britain at that time offered him one of the biggest subsidies that was offered in any country in the European community. Oh, yeah. Great theorists, my friend, except when it gets down to doing something. They're greater subsidizers of big industry than a free enterpriser would ever dare to be.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, that socialist herd over there is telling us that there's a lack of leadership in the province of British Columbia. I ask them this question: if there's a lack of leadership in British Columbia, how come British Columbia is leading in practically every aspect of both social and economic development, every province in Canada, including the great province of Alberta, and indeed is bucking the national trend? Oh, you prefer to forget that.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, why are you so unpopular?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think we happen to be very popular, and that's a myth that you've built up my friend.

MR. LEGGATT: Why don't you call an election?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, sit there and yack about calling an election. That's all you can do, bottom line. Get down and yack about something. Why don't you stand up and tell us what you'd do. I haven't heard one positive suggestion from you socialist hordes over there as to what you'd do when you'd become government. You don't have to tell me; I know what you'd do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd ruin the province again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member, but if he would take his seat for just a moment, I would like to remind all hon. members that orderly debate requires that temperate language be used and also that interruptions not take place. I would ask the members please to observe their own standing orders.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have literally thousands and thousands of statistics here to back up my statement that indeed the economy of British Columbia is bucking the national trend. We have a growth rate this year almost double that of the national trend. There were 65,000 new jobs created in the 12 months prior to October. I'm not talking about the unemployment rate, which is lower than the national average, and which I do think happens to be something great, because we have thousands and thousands of people coming here to seek jobs and yet we're still able to keep our unemployment rate down. I'm not talking about the

[ Page 4277 ]

unemployment rate. I'm talking very positively about the number of jobs that have been created in British Columbia, created not by a socialist government and not even by a free-enterprise government, but created by the private sector because we have laid the ground rules down and they are coming to this province to invest. No, they won't talk about that, Mr. Speaker. They won't tell you that British Columbia moved from second to first place, dislodging Ontario with the highest per capita income in 1976.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it wasn't. I want to tell you, my friend, I'm talking about the working people. Since 1976 the per capita income of the working people in British Columbia is higher than that of Ontario and is now in first place. The working people are benefiting from the policies of this government and the leadership we have in this party. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, even the labour union leaders know that the policies of this government have been good for the working people of this province. The working people and the labour union leaders recognize that today there is relative peace in the labour scene in British Columbia. Take and compare that with the record of those socialist herds when they were government, when we had greater labour strife in this province than there had been in the previous 20, 30 or, yes, 40 years in the history in this province. The labour union leaders recognize that it is no good to have all the benefits....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you fellows shut up while I'm speaking.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to make a little note of this: the labour union leaders recognize that there is no sense in getting high pay and benefits galore for the labourers in this province when, indeed, there would be no jobs. That's a fact of life, and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The working people of this province finally recognize that it's Social Credit policies — the policies of this government under the leadership of our Premier — that have created stability in the economy and assures them of a job down the road. You can talk about all your airy-fairy programs and all your airy-fairy socialism, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's been the policies of this government that have brought stability to the working people in this province.

No longer are they worrying whether their mill is going to close down or have a strike.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, you can always nit-pick. That's exactly what you're doing. You can nit-pick all you want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Tell that to the 1,200 people in Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those 1,200 people found jobs elsewhere, when you stood up in this Legislature and said there were going to be hundreds and hundreds out of work. You did a disservice to this Legislature and you did a disservice to those labourers in Ocean Falls when you stood up here and tried to create panic. We solved that problem. We put those people to work in other areas of the province, and you as a member for that area should hang your head in shame. We worked for the labour union. We worked for the people in that area and we've solved that problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You stood up in this Legislature and tried to create havoc. That's typical of you and your whole socialist gang over there. We worked with the problem. We worked with the labour union leaders and the management in Ocean Falls, and we solved that problem.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: I now require that the hon. member who has the floor of the House will observe the standing orders of the House or else cease and desist from his speech. I would ask that hon. members not interrupt; otherwise we will have to follow the procedures as provided for in the standing orders. The member will address the Chair and continue his speech on that condition.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for allowing that socialist member over there to get me excited, but I did just want to give him the facts.

I do feel that this government has worked long and hard to build a good life for the people in British Columbia, a life where the labourers in this province have faith in the future, know that they are going to have a job. People from other provinces are coming to British Columbia to seek opportunities that are not available to them in the province in which they were brought up. That, Mr. Speaker, has not been an easy job. For the information of the Legislature.... This is not me speaking but an independent columnist. I can tell you all about the economy, but you'd just say that's more government propaganda.

This is from a Vancouver Sun article which quotes a federal economist — not a British Columbia economist, not anybody in my ministry. What do they think about the economy of British Columbia? "British Columbia's economy is much stronger than the rest of the country, and it is expected to stay that way." He says, and it was mentioned several times yesterday, that indeed we have some problems with inflation. But that is not only a British Columbia problem; indeed that is not only a Canadian problem but a worldwide problem. I would like to remind this Legislature that it is a far greater problem in socialist jurisdictions than anywhere else, and I would also like to remind this House that when that leaderless socialist group over there — they were leaderless then and they are leaderless now — was the government, inflation in British Columbia was exceeding the national average by quite a few points. Yet they have the gall to stand in this Legislature and talk about inflation. I shudder to think what would have happened if they had stayed in government — we probably would have had an inflation rate

[ Page 4278 ]

in British Columbia double the national average. But today, because of the policies of this great government, inflation is now running below the national average, below that of practically all of the socialist jurisdictions in the world, and indeed below that of most other countries in the world.

It's great for them to stand in this Legislature and yack about inflation. It's a problem. We recognized it as a problem when we formed the government, and we did something about it. That is why today inflation in British Columbia is running below the national average. We did something about it. If you're so blind, why don't you call around to my office someday, and I'll give you a few facts of life. If you can't see, my friend....

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But would you tell that guy from Prince Rupert to quit heckling me.

Talk about leadership! There is no comparison between their leader.... He had three years, and he ran the province into the ground, took the party out of office, because nobody had any faith in him. They expect that the social welfare worker has a great deal of experience now. They think that he can be Premier again. The social-welfare worker has changed his spots. He hasn't changed his spots, and he hasn't changed his philosophy. I defy you to stand in this Legislature and tell me you're not socialists any more. I defy your would-be Premier to stand in this Legislature and tell me what he'd do. He's a great actor. But I'll tell you, you need more than acting on this side; you need action and you need decisions. Compare leadership!

I've said something about job-creation in this province. I'm not saying this, and my department isn't saying this; this is an Ottawa economist: "There have been 65,000 new jobs created in B.C. between October 1979 and last month." That's a 5 percent increase, and that is good in any man's language. "As a comparison, unemployment dropped to 71,000 from 78,000 in October 1979, and at a time of the year in which unemployment usually grows. A total of 5,000 unemployed people found work between September and October in this province." That's quite a record. As a matter of fact, it's an excellent record. It's not surpassed by any jurisdiction in North America. It's very easy for the socialists to sit over there and yack about their little picayune problems. They couldn't handle the economy of this province. They couldn't lead this province.

I'm beginning to think that they're not even worthy of sitting in opposition, because Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a responsibility to the people to make some constructive suggestions and give some alternatives. But during the whole session last year there was not one positive suggestion emanating from the socialist herds over there. That's why I say that they are wandering leaderless with no direction and no policies. But they seem to think that they have the solutions.

I want to tell you and I'll say it again, because it has to be said and it has to be said time and time again: the greatest threat to the future of British Columbians — the working people of British Columbia, the young people who want to grow up in a province and find opportunities, all segments of people and our society in British Columbia — is the threat that the socialists might ever, God forbid, form the government again. Make no mistake about this. If that sad and sorry day ever comes to British Columbia, you will see a return of the people having no confidence in the future, investment capital in British Columbia dry up and a government that tries to create an economy by spending the taxpayers' money. Compare that with last year when over $11 billion was invested in capital construction in British Columbia to provide jobs for the future.

Is my time up? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, because I have much more that I would like to say. I will wind up by saying this final phrase: if the sad and sorry day ever comes that the socialists once again form the government of British Columbia, you can make no mistake about it, the dynamic economy and the faith in the future that we have built up will disappear overnight.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:22 p.m.