[ Page 6629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Brown; social assistance cutbacks –– 6630

Dangerous Health Practices Act (Bill M201) Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 6630

Oral Questions

Aboriginal rights in constitution. Mr. Passarell –– 6630

Enumeration of voters. Mrs. Dailly –– 6631

Mr. Lauk

Presenting Reports

British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6632

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Lea –– 6632

On the amendment

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6639

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6643

Mr. Cocke –– 6647

Mr. Strachan –– 6650

Tabling Documents

Pacific National Exhibition report and financial statement, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6652

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual day when we have two high commissioners visiting us in the Legislature. Unfortunately only one of them is presently in the gallery. I'd like to introduce His Excellency Lieutenant-General Benjamin Mibenge, High Commissioner for Zambia to Canada. Would you welcome His Excellency. I think also arriving shortly will be His Excellency Edward Latter, High Commissioner for New Zealand to Canada, and Mrs. Latter; and Mr. Ross Graham, consul of New Zealand in Vancouver, and Mrs. Graham.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and myself, I would like to ask the House to welcome a group of students from Capilano College in the gallery and precincts today. They are under the guidance of their teacher, Ms. Yetta Lees. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, the person I would like to recognize is not in the gallery today, but I'm sure that all members would join me in acknowledging the achievements of a 16-year-old young lady from Fort St. John who has just been competing in three international meets with the Canadian speed-skating team in Quebec. Leslie Davidson came second overall and was the top Canadian in the three meets. She is the only representative from British Columbia on the national speed-skating team.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I notice in the gallery my old ecumenical friend, John Tisdalle, a former member for Saanich in this Legislature. We all should bid him welcome; I'm sure we all will.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of you to recognize me. I was just going to make the introduction, and I join the member for Vancouver East in welcoming Mr. Tisdalle to the House.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a question of privilege on behalf of s the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). Mr. Speaker, I think it's a disgrace that there are only nine photographs of the minister in this annual report of the Ministry of Tourism. I think we should all resolve to make sure that at least 20 or 25 appear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure there is an appropriate time for that discussion, but it is not now.

MR. BARBER: I rise on a question of privilege affecting this House and every member of it. This is the first practical opportunity I have had to raise this, as it was only this morning that I was able absolutely to determine the identity of the individual; and that does relate significantly, I believe, to the question of privilege that I propose to raise with your permission, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Monday, following the presentation of the throne speech, the official opposition moved a motion to establish a committee. That motion was lost.

During the course of debate on the motion I spoke. During that debate, as is not uncommon in this House, there were interjections from both sides. After I concluded, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke. During his speech there were interjections from both sides, including from me personally.

The question of privilege devolves from an incident which has now, in my mind, assumed some significance. It is because of its peculiar nature that I ask you to determine whether or not there is a question of privilege and whether or not there is a precedent established here. At one point during the address of the Minister of Science I was startled to be told by the individual sitting behind me on the floor — a guest in the House, not a member of this House — if I may say it: "Why don't you shut up. He didn't interfere when you were speaking." I turned around to see who this was. It was a member of the public, I assumed. He then went on to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about and that the material I was referring to was in fact covered in the throne speech itself. The gentleman in question was clearly very hostile. He was more than a little annoyed and took some pains to instruct me as to the contents of the throne speech. I thought this was a peculiar thing for a member of the public to do, but I presumed at that moment that this was simply an uninformed member of the public who didn't know about the special privileges accorded to members of this House: that they may speak uninterrupted, and that they shall not be told when to speak or when not to speak except by the Speaker, according to the rules.

I discovered yesterday, and had confirmed this morning, that this person in fact is not a member of the general public. Rather the gentleman in question is one Patrick Kinsella, deputy minister in the office of the Premier. I checked this morning with the seating plan provided to me by your office and also asked the government Whip who the individual was, because I didn't recognize him.

It strikes me as a little peculiar — and I confess I resent it more than a little — that I should be told on the floor of the House by the deputy minister in the office of the Premier whether or not I should speak and what I should say. It is that particular issue, and the particular problem of precedent, as to whether or not guests on the floor of the House — especially a deputy minister in the office of the Premier — shall find it their business to tell any member of the House what to say and when to say it.

Therefore, I have raised this at the earliest practical opportunity, because until this morning when I finally had the list presented to me by Mr. Reser, I was not aware — as I had ever previously met the gentleman, and it didn't occur to me at the time — that it might be a very senior public servant who was telling a member of the Legislature what to do.

The contempt that seems to have possibly been committed — if I may refer you briefly, Mr. Speaker — is covered on page 136 of the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May. It is the very ruling that you yourself made when the now Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) raised a question of privilege in regard to a possible contempt by way of interference with his communications, and I cite it briefly. At page 136 it states:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such re-

[ Page 6630 ]

sults may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent in the offence."

It then goes on to point out, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Speaker:

"Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or any committee thereof, whether by strangers present or by persons attending as parties or witnesses, will constitute a contempt."

Again, briefly, I find it bordering on contempt that a deputy minister, who is obviously angry at my remarks and concerned, in his view, that I had misconstrued or misheard the contents of the throne speech, should presume to tell me whether or not to speak or how to read the throne speech presented by His Honour, and this may well be a contempt. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, if you do find on the basis of this prima facie case that such a case has been established and that the requirements in terms of the earliest presentation have been met, then I would be prepared to move a motion and would ask your guidance as to how we deal in the future with interjections — that perhaps is the easiest way to put them — by a member of the public on the floor of the House during the course of the House's business, following a speech by a member and during the speech of another member following it. I would appreciate your direction.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Perhaps the hon. member would lay the motion on the table, which would clearly indicate the motion is in existence.

MR. BARBER: Do you wish it read or simply transmitted?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is only required if a prima facie case is established.

MR. BARBER: Then may I give it to the Page?

MR. SPEAKER: As long as we can be sure that the motion is in existence, that satisfies.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps to assist you....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If a prima facie case is established, then debate would be permissible. Since it is not a point of order that we're working on, I don't know on what basis I recognize the Premier, if it has to do with this matter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I rise only to provide my own thoughts on this, Mr. Speaker, because it affects....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, it's in the form of an apology, if one is required, to the member, and to say that I'm very concerned with the statement made. It certainly is conduct not becoming a professional member of my staff, and if such was the case, I certainly would apologize in advance of the information, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope the member accepts that on my behalf, and I will follow through with instructions to my people. I know that we're all concerned about the conduct of the Legislature and those associated with government. It's regrettable, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, if such an incident did occur.

MR. SPEAKER: The only basis on which I can accept that is under the ministerial statement provision; a reply is in order.

MR. HOWARD: You are permitting debate on this subject matter, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Reply!

MR. HOWARD: It's not worthy of a reply at this moment, but certainly if you find there is a case of privilege, there will be one.

Presenting Petitions

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The petition of 817 concerned citizens from lower Vancouver Island humbly showeth that the actions of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in reclassifying single parents of small children in effect denies these parents the freedom of choice to raise their own children at home. "Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House may be pleased to support the 817 concerned citizens of lower Vancouver Island in their request that the minister rescind this policy."

Introduction of Bills

DANGEROUS HEALTH PRACTICES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M201, Dangerous Health Practices Act, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTION

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. At the recent constitutional conference, section 34 as proposed by the federal government had widespread agreement among the provinces until the Premier intervened and totally confused the issue. Is it now the policy of the government of British Columbia to keep the phrase "existing" in section 34 rather than the original version?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps I can respond without using the incorrect information contained within the question from the member for Atlin in describing actions of myself. Perhaps the best way to respond.... If he had had this available he could more accurately have posed the question or not have had to ask it at all. I'll read from the letter I sent to the Prime Minister on this issue. The letter proceeds:

[ Page 6631 ]

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"I have been advised by the Status Indian Tribal Council and associations of status Indian bands representing the majority of Indians in British Columbia that they now no longer oppose the aboriginal rights provision contained in the original federal constitutional resolution. I understand this is now generally the position of treaty and status Indians across the country.

"The change in the Indians' position is very significant, insofar as it was a basis for the exclusion of that provision from the November 5, 1981, accord, and the inclusion only of present section 36, by which the subject would be addressed at a meeting between first ministers, with the participation of Indian leaders.

"Because of this, British Columbia is prepared to support reinstatement of aboriginal and treaty rights in the resolution now before the House of Commons, provided you and the provinces who are signatories to the accord concur, and provided that the process under present section 36 remains in place, with a precise definition of all aboriginal rights and the complete identification of the implications which these rights may hold for Canada and for the provinces."

Without taking the time to read it in oral question period, I might say that we go on to establish British Columbia's historic position, not as a condition, but as a fact. So, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the question and the premise upon which it is based are incorrect.

ENUMERATION OF VOTERS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary, with respect to your announcement today that there will be an immediate and full enumeration, what will happen if an election is called before July?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, as I mentioned yesterday, the Premier stated very categorically at least a month ago that there would be a province-wide enumeration held prior to the next general election. I think that's a pretty clear-cut answer to the question you have raised.

If I may go on and respond to her question by trying to clear up some of the confusion surrounding this issue, perhaps the best way to do that would be to repeat the statement which I made earlier today.

MRS. DAILLY: We all have it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, there may be some members who have not been apprised....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I refer the Speaker to the resolution adopted by this House on Monday with respect to question period rules. Let me suggest that a ministerial statement cannot be made during question period, particularly one that the minister has chosen to deliver outside of this House, which is somewhat discourteous in the ordinary course of events. He should not be allowed to make the same statement he has made outside of this House in the House during question period taking up valuable time.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think we're all acquainted with the procedure of question period. If a question is posed, then the answer to that question could be anticipated. The scope of the answer must not supersede the scope of the question. I think the minister is aware and I think he will work within the bounds of the rules.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't propose to abuse the time of the House with a lengthy answer. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to summarize what clearly was stated and which was stated earlier in the House as well.

First of all, there are three actions that we are taking about the voters' list. Firstly, there will be a full and formal enumeration before the next election to establish a new voters' list. Secondly, the Election Act will be amended to make enumerations mandatory following each general election. And lastly, the Election Act will be amended to provide for the registration of voters on polling day.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of other questions to ask the Provincial Secretary, but before moving on to those I would like to ask the Premier a question. Do you not think it is absolutely ridiculous to change the Elections Act on the floor of this House, instead of calling the Fair Election Practices Committee? I think it's ridiculous. I want to ask the Premier a specific question. Why are you not calling the Fair Election Practices Committee so that we can change this Election Act in a proper way in a committee instead of back and forward listening to the Provincial Secretary joke and flim-flam? Why are you not calling the committee?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There was a question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think I should respond that I think this was dealt with. No such committee has been set up, except by the government. However, the member for Burnaby North is judging legislation which, while it's been stated in the throne speech, is not yet before this House. I think when the member sees the legislation she will probably wholeheartedly endorse it. I would be very surprised if the member voted against it — this being the first opportunity for that member, having been on both sides of the House, to do something positive about the permanent electoral list. Though I know full well the member pushed very hard to have that done when they were government, she was apparently unable to persuade her colleagues.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the Premier. I understand he does not believe in full democratic participation of the members of the opposition in changing an election act. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member would be suggesting then that debate in this Legislature that is not carried out in committee is not democratic. I happen to think the most democratic institution of all is this Legislature, where their input and discussion and debate will take place.

[ Page 6632 ]

I'm surprised the member holds the view that somehow a committee is more democratic than this chamber. But I want to assure the member that all members in this chamber have an opportunity to have input and participation and discussion on legislation on a broader basis than in a committee of just a few. I consider that the ultimate democracy, and I'm surprised at her statement.

MR. DAILLY: As his Premier does not seem to understand the importance of legislative committees and what they are and how they function and the actual democratic procedure of using a legislative committee, I will have to come back again to the Provincial Secretary and we'll have to laboriously go through these changes on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial Secretary is, with respect to the minister's announcement that persons missed in the enumeration will be able to register and vote on election day: will the ballots of persons registered at a polling station on election day be placed in the regular ballot box along with other votes?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this question in anticipation of a provision?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is. It would be more useful to all of the members, I think, to raise these questions in debate during the presentation of the bill. I simply attempted to respond to earlier questions yesterday, and saw fit to explain that there were these two measures involved in the bill, which I thought would satisfy their curiosity at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm answering her question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order takes precedence and I must recognize the member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the member is not anticipating anything. She's asking a question based on a ministerial statement made this morning under the minister's name.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for clarifying. The minister was answering a question. Please proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I simply was offering a suggestion to the House that it would be more useful to discuss this kind of detail when the bill is before us, and I would be happy to do so then.

She raises a question — to be very brief — having to do with the matter of polling-day registration. This is a major new initiative to make sure that, notwithstanding that a person may not have got on the voters' list, for whatever reason, he is going to have an opportunity in the future to be registered on polling day. I believe the member is asking whether this will be counted on polling day.

A verification procedure is contemplated, under which the person would establish what his residence was. You have to know what poll he lives in — if he lives in the poll that he is voting in. Therefore there would need to be a verification procedure. Then, come official count day, the ballot would be counted. Now this is different from the old procedure with the section 80 ballots, because if it was later determined that the people who voted under section 80 were in fact not on the voters' list, they lost their opportunity to vote. The ballots of those who voted under section 80 and who were later determined to be on the voters' list did in fact count. The new procedure will allow an opportunity to anyone who's inadvertently not on the voters' list, who perhaps did not have enough initiative to get on the voters' list, to vote on polling day. A verification procedure will be taken with that particular ballot, and it will be counted on the day of the official count, which I believe is about two weeks after election day.

MR. LAUK: This substantially is the same as section 80. If the ballots are going to be kept separate and apart from the ballot box, then there is the risk that these ballots may never be counted, and we are just back to the same old procedure, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask the minister to confirm that the only change with respect to voting on polling day is that these people will have their ballots put in an envelope, separated, and that they may not be counted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think we are engaging in a debate on this. I think we should be clear, though, that the act will clearly order the registrar of voters to count those ballots. There is no question that he would be obliged to do so. The inference that they would not be taken into account is absolutely incorrect. The act would clearly order that this be done. I only say that certainly there has to be a verification procedure involved in this new opportunity for a person to register on polling day so that his ballot may be officially counted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is after question period because I did not wish to intervene in the time that was being computed. Nonetheless, hon. members, in formulating your questions it might be wise to look at page 171 of Beauchesne, relating to questions referring to anticipation of amendments to legislation. Perhaps in future your questions could be formed with that in mind.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for 1980 of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, over the next short while I'm going to be touching on a number of points from resource economics as it is applied in this province to interest rates to revenue-sharing between the federal and provincial governments. There are two other topics that are going to be covered by colleagues of mine. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will be covering housing shortly after I address the House. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) will be touching on bankruptcies in British Columbia as a specific topic.

I think, though, in starting to talk about the throne speech and those aspects of it that reflect on or deal with the economic well-being of the province, it's well worthwhile putting the science of economics into some perspective. I think

[ Page 6633 ]

we all understand that it's not like math or physics. It's not exact, it's theoretical, and it's almost anybody's guess until the proof of the pudding is in.

As a matter of fact, to put it in the proper perspective, there's a story that I'd like to share with members of the House. It's of the three professionals who were stranded on the desert island with nothing for sustenance except a can of beans, unopened. They were a chemical engineer, a civil engineer and an economist.

To try to get this can of beans open the chemical engineer said: "Look, I'll put my academic training to work here. What I'll do is I'll take a bit of this seaweed and a bit of this limestone; I'll put them together and the chemical reaction will cause heat. It will burn a hole around the edge of this can, and we'll eat the beans." He tried it; it didn't work.

The civil engineer said: "Well, we'll put my academic training to work here. We'll use this old, fallen piece of wood here, and this rock as a fulcrum. We'll get the end of the wood under the can lid, we'll pop it off and we'll eat the beans." He tried it; it didn't work.

The economist said: "Boy, you two are all wet. We're going to use my academic training now to open this can of beans. First of all, let's assume we have a can-opener."

That puts it a little bit into perspective. At the same time I think we also understand that medicine is not an exact science; but we do go to the medical profession when we're sick to try to get better, even though we're almost positive that the medical practitioners aren't as sure of everything they're doing as we would hope them to be. But what choice do we have? When we're sick, we have to go to the doctors. When our economy is sick, we have to go to the economists, no matter how inexact the science they practice may be or may not be.

One of the discouraging things about watching the present government and the methods with which they try to deal with our economy is — what is to me obvious — a complete lack of planning. It's not that their plans have gone astray, but that there were no plans in the first place. We see them dashing from one economic project to another, but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason.

The three basic questions that have to be answered when looking at any economy are: what are you going to produce, how are you going to produce it, and for whom is it going to be produced? What is going to be produced? Well, we already have an economy in British Columbia, so we'd have to change that a bit and say: what is being produced? Is it possible to produce more, and what will it be?

If we take a look at that and we see some possibilities for us to expand our economy, then we have to get to the next question. How are we going to put these new products on line in British Columbia? We have to take a look at how we're producing the ones now. Are we producing them efficiently? How can we produce any new product coming on line efficiently also?

What are we going to produce in the future? It seems that we're going to be doomed to the same kind of economics that we've had in this province for a hundred years: not of looking to new innovative products to put on the market, but to further the extraction process. Every time we put investment into the economy of British Columbia we do nothing more than further widen the extraction process and ship out more raw materials adding very little wealth. We have some examples which the provincial government is either now carrying out or contemplating carrying out — they're looking at proposals.

Someone has to be the overall planning agency for the economy. Otherwise we have anarchy in the marketplace and the industrial sector. It appears to me that that's what we have. There is no overall strategy. Not once has the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Premier or the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ever come into this House and said: "Here's British Columbia. Here's the overall plan." The only plan this government seems to have is one that they are very, very wont to keep putting forward. They say: "We want to create the correct favourable climate so that industry and commerce will happen."

You have to ask yourself: if they have no plan, what's the climate they're going to set? We know that there is one climate that will attract industry into this province, and that's a climate where you give the resources away for very little or you actually subsidize them. That's one kind of climate that will inevitably attract investment into any jurisdiction with raw resources — not to charge the proper economic costs for taking our resources out.

I'd like to point to one thing that's happening in my part of the country. Mr. Speaker, I think when you hear what I have to say you will wonder at the sense of what the government is trying to do. In front of the government at the moment is a proposal for the shipment of LNG from Canada to Japan. Basically, the proposal is that we'll take natural gas — some of it from Alberta but some of it from British Columbia — put it in a pipeline and ship it to tidewater near Prince Rupert. At that point we'll liquefy it, put it in huge ships designed for the project and carry it to Japan, where it will be put back into vapour form to generate electricity for Japanese industry. This is from Dome themselves. That's what they plan to do, and that's what their customers plan to do.

Mr. Speaker, does it make sense to you that we're going to take natural gas — keeping in mind that we don't really know how much natural gas we have...? All we really have are the estimates from the companies who give that information to the government, which then comes out as if these estimates are accurate or within the ballpark. But I think we all have doubts as to the volume of natural gas available to us and the needs that we, as British Columbians and as Canadians, are going to have in the future.

So we're going to take natural gas and ship it to Japan, and they're going to create electricity with it. What are we going to do for the creation of our own electricity in this province? We're going to dam the Stikine and Laird rivers. Now think about that. Does it make sense that we're going to take our natural gas, add no wealth to it whatsoever and ship it out in its raw state to create electricity in an industrial state competing for the same markets we are, while for our own electrical needs we're going to dam two of our rivers, one river for sure, the Stikine, a salmon-producing river.... And all of the effects of damming rivers that we've learned over the years — both at the time and the ongoing environmental harm that's done.

I don't think you have to be an economist to look at that and say it doesn't make any sense for us, as British Columbians or Canadians. As a matter of fact, at a meeting last Friday night in Prince Rupert, where Dome were putting forward their proposal, I asked the Dome spokesman. First of all I said: "I know why Dome wants to do it, and you really would be remiss if you didn't plan to do it, because of your shareholders. I understand why Dome wants to do it, but can you give me one good reason why the province of British

[ Page 6634 ]

Columbia or the country of Canada would do it?" He said: "That's not my department." I said: "I see. That's a question I'd have to put forward to the province of British Columbia and its government." He said: "Exactly." I'm putting that question today: does it make sense? If so, explain it to us. Because on the face of it, it doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, we are going through a time in British Columbia when it's getting more and more difficult to make ends meet. It's getting harder to pay the mortgage or to buy groceries, a new vehicle or clothing. In other words, it's getting very, very tight. We're having difficulty getting along, at least if we're going to use the old established level of expectation that we've had in the last few years.

I'd like to read a short passage from a book. It's written in the first person, and he's talking about the economy. He says:

"You know, one of the advantages I have is that I'm not an economic expert — thank goodness for that. 'These are the days when the economic experts of the world are busy talking in one another's fallacies,' as Mr. Orage said wittily and editorially in the New English Weekly, and it's a wholetime job.' No doubt it's also a very fascinating one. But the result of this is that the experts stand discredited, bankrupt and naked, though as anyone knows who has had the misfortune to listen to them, they're not even ashamed of their nakedness. They are as barren of help as our statesmen whom we have watched ever since the war fleeing from one conference to another in a desperate effort to flee from the wrath to come.

"No, I'm a much more important person than a professional economist. I am a consumer, and it is time the consumer spoke. There has always seemed to me to be more than a family likeness between the regiments of consumers in peace and the regiments of infantry in war — both are the backbones of the respective bodies and both are commonly ignored. In the army it is the infantry who has to furnish the fatigued parties and march, march, march as well as fight. Just as the citizenry, it is the consumers who have to put their hands into their pockets when there is any ticklish work to be done and pay, pay, pay as well as live. In short, both get the kicks and few get the dollars.

"What I'm trying to do is get your permission to christen my hero. I don't want to call him or her just a consumer, for that would mean starting off at the wrong foot with the other foot stuck in the textbook. What I want to call him or her, if I may, is the poor, bloody consumer, just as those of us who are old enough to have served in the war used to talk about foot-slogging in the infantry and call it the 'poor, bloody infantry.'"

Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting from a book called The Meaning of Social Credit, written in 1934. It seems to me that if there is one thing that this arch-conservative government across from us has forgotten, it's the roots of Social Credit and the roots of any kind of social responsibility. They are strictly travelling a road of arch-conservatism and monetarism, with no thought for the consumer. Their minds are travelling in larger circles than that. They have piers in downtown B.C. that they're trying to finance, they have coliseums, they have coal deals and they have petrochemical plants. They have all of these great mega-projects floating through their heads, but it doesn't seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that they have much concern for the consumer in this province — not much at all.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to the throne speech. It says on page 3:

"My government believes that economically strong provinces are integral to a strong Canadian economy. Economic leadership to promote the well-being of our people is a vital element in establishing the framework of progress and opportunity that must serve us in the years ahead."

On the next page, under "Economic Development Conference," it says:

"My government will continue to demonstrate strong leadership in its own sphere of economic activity and, in this vein, an Economic Development Conference will be convened in the spring."

I would like to now go back and quote from the book written about Social Credit:

"But the result is that the experts stand discredited, bankrupt and naked. They are barren of help as our statesmen whom we have watched ever since the war fleeing from one conference to another."

Is that the answer that this government has for our economic woes — that it's all going to be settled at a conference in the spring and then everything is going to be hunky-dory? What about this winter? What about the people who are not going to be able to meet their mortgage payments this winter, Mr. Speaker? Is the economic conference in the spring going to be a ray of hope for them? It's not what this government is going to do; it's what has it done and when is it going to do something to help the consumer — the person who makes this province work, the person who makes this province grow, the person who keeps it all together and the people who are the backbone of this province.

Manufacturing is down. It's going down every year in the province of British Columbia — not up but down. It's almost impossible to believe that in 1981 manufacturing in this province, as a percentage of our gross provincial product, is down from what it was ten years ago and down from what it was five years ago. In other words, we are going into the extraction of raw resources even more, shipping them out with no added wealth, no secondary or tertiary application, just shipping them out for short-term benefit — short-term political benefit. There is no plan by this government to get our economy going the way it should be going. I mentioned earlier that we have to decide what we're going to produce, how we're going to produce it and for whom we're going to produce it. This government has no such plan; it's evident. Look at the number of people who had faith in this government and in the Premier, those who invested their savings — their hard-earned money — or went out and borrowed money, and on the strength of the government's word bought BCRIC. "A lesson in the marketplace" it was called. We have sure learned our lesson. We have to ask ourselves why BCRIC is such a disaster. It's a disaster because it has not invested in the economic future of this province; it has invested in jobs that were already here, in an economy that was already here. Literally what we did was to take close to half a billion dollars of British Columbia money and ship it out of the jurisdiction. We didn't gain one job; we didn't gain one industry. We ended up in exactly the same situation we were in before in terms of economic development. The only thing that happened was that we shipped British Columbia dollars out of this province to be invested

[ Page 6635 ]

somewhere else. That's the sum total of what happened in BCRIC. It was supposed to be a company that was going to invest in the future; it ended up being a company that invested in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: And ensured Kaiser's future.

MR. LEA: I understand they bought a sports team — the Colorado Broncos or something — with the proceeds. Instead of having jobs in British Columbia we have the proud owner of a new sports team in the United States.

Are we actually taking a look at our economy and trying to figure out which way we can go in order to produce more jobs and more wealth? Well, we have a government that says it wants to. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, what this government actually put into research last year — into industrial and technological research, so that maybe we could find some new frontiers, maybe start taking some of our forest products, mining products and agriculture products and find some way to add more wealth through new technology? Do you t know what we spent last year? We spent $8.2 million in research; 0.13 percent of the government's budget went to research. We should hang our heads in shame, Mr. Speaker. With that kind of spending and that kind of emphasis in trying to find new industries and new economics, we're not going to find them. Again I think it points out a government that is willing to go along with the status quo, willing to sell out our resources cheap, even willing to subsidize them for immediate, short-term economic gain, because it is politically expedient.

To plan, we may have to tighten up our belts for a while; we may have to build up capital goods. For the future we may have to put into research the money we'd like to spend now. I think British Columbians are willing to do it. It's the government of this province that is not willing to do it, because to them it might mean that they lose the next election. That is paramount in this government's mind — this arch-conservative government, this non-Social Credit government, this government with no social conscience, this government that only deals with experts and brings them in from Ontario, this government that has been hoodwinked by those of the far right, not just the medium right but economists of the far right. I think we can prove it. You'd never know it to listen to them, Mr. Speaker. They very seldom talk about what they're going to do. They very seldom talk about an economic strategy; if we British Columbians listened to them, we would think that they had none at all. I happen to have found a paper put out by the province of British Columbia in 1978. It's called "Towards An Economic Strategy For Canada: the British Columbia Position, " and it's signed by Premier W.R. Bennett, February 1978. I suppose what we have to do is decide in our democracy what different forms of economic theory are possible for this government to adopt. I suppose they could adopt the classical approach of Adam Smith or J.-B. Say of France. They could intend, through complete monetarism, to control the world or at least our part of the world — by a small group of people sitting around a mahogany table somewhere and deciding that the economy is either going to go or not go by the amount of money that's dumped into the economy at any given time. If things are really going in an inflationary spiral, then take some money out. If it's depressed, then stick some more money in. Even Mr. Friedman says that that's a little out of date, and he has revised that original monetary theory to take into account some of the Keynesian philosophy that came along later. But not this government. They think that Mr. Friedman is a "lefty." Now that's not Karl; this is Milton. They actually think Friedman is a "lefty," because this government is an absolute adherent to the Thatcher-Reagan-federal Liberal-Friedman kind of economics. That's what they are, and they state it.

Turn to page 33 of "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada: the British Columbia Position" — "Monetary policy." This is what the Premier of our province put forward to Canada. He said: "If you'll just carry this out, everything will be hunky-dory." He said that in 1978. Before getting to it, I'd like to remind you of a statement that's been made a number of times lately by the Premier of British Columbia in his wrath. He points his finger eastward toward Ottawa and says simply: "Lower the interest rate." That's what he says. "Lower the interest rate." It's pretty nice politically to say it today. All the mortgages are going up; everybody's angry about the interest rate, and so they should be. But what does he Premier say to Ottawa? A simple solution: "Lower the interest rate."

What would happen if Ottawa took our Premier's advice? He doesn't say how much to lower it either. Politically that's getting dicey. Then somebody may be able to call him on it. Just "lower the interest rate." The Premier, out of the other side of his mouth, says: "Well, we're concerned about the stability of the dollar. We're concerned that the dollar may fall."

What would happen if Ottawa, with no other action, lowered the interest rate? Would the dollar fall? The answer is yes, the dollar would fall. What would happen to us then? Would the price of consumer goods go up? The answer is yes, the price of consumer goods would go up. Mortgages would come down — that's good. But the other things that would happen by lowering the interest rate without taking into consideration the exchange rates and without stopping the flow of capital out of this country and bringing in price controls and wage controls where needed.... If you want to do all of those things, then yes, you can lower the interest rate. But you just can't lower the interest rate and say that everything is going to be hunky-dory.

It might have far-reaching repercussions for British Columbia. Just last night in the state of Washington, our neighbour to the south, a committee met to decide exactly how they were going to approach Washington, their national capital, to talk about an import quota on British Columbia lumber. If the interest rates were lowered, as our Premier wants, with no other action taken, and the dollar started to fall, would we not be putting even more pressure then on the lumber producers and the politicians in the United States to lobby even harder their national government to bring an import quota on our timber and forest products going into the United States? Would we not be pushing it just a little? We're already being accused of dumping. What would happen if the dollar fell even more, instead of strengthening? That's what would happen if you followed this government's advice to Ottawa.

It's surprising to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier would even suggest that Ottawa is travelling on the wrong path with their monetary policies. Because in 1978, this government and this Premier were in absolute accord with what was happening. Did you know that in 1974 there was a statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada on Canadian bank policy? The governor of the Bank of Canada announced in 1974 that the bank was going to follow a gradual monetarist

[ Page 6636 ]

policy, annually stepping down the rate of increase in money. It said this might (a) cause the rate of interest to choke off both investment and consumerism; (b) cause taxes to rise if government spending could not be reduced; and (c) cause complications for exporters and importers through the price level of foreign payments and the rate of exchange being disrupted.

But they did go to the monetary policy in Canada in 1974, and it hasn't changed. They are following a monetary policy, through the Bank of Canada. Now the Premier is saying to the government of Canada: "Interfere! Go to the Bank of Canada and tell them to lower the interest rates." Is that what the Premier of this province said in 1978? No. In that paper from 1978, it says: "The Bank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is in the form of a monetary rule, should be supported in principle."

They even go a little further, because they believe that the Bank of Canada's monetary policy is a little wishy-washy, and they'd like to have stricter monetary controls than the ones that are being exercised by the Bank of Canada. In the same paper it says: "Such a rule would dictate that the money supply would not be allowed to increase as rapidly as it did in the early 1970s. The excessive money supply growth contributed to the severe inflation of the economy — and has endured in the seventies — and to the present structural economic problems."

Let me give a further example of what would happen if the government of Canada followed the province of British Columbia's advice through our Premier, and they lowered the interest rate. I think we'd still have inflation in this country. Now, if we were to lower the interest rate, that would make lending by banks a much easier proposition. It would be easy lending if we lowered the interest rates. That would create new deposits, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, for every thousand dollars of new deposits, we would have created in the branch-banking system of this country $12,500 worth of credit.

If the Bank of Canada were to lower the interest rates at this point, as the Premier has pointed out that they should, without taking other measures, we think the interest rates should go down. But there are other measures that can be taken — the Premier doesn't mention any other measures. "Lower the interest rate." We would ever further widen the money supply in this country than it has ever been before, and during an already inflationary time. What the Premier is suggesting to the Bank of Canada is that during this inflationary time they further widen the supply of money.

Now what's gone wrong with this old Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker? You and I know that they sure aren't Social Crediters. We also know that they're not new Conservatives. We know that they are old-line Conservatives. They're out of date, no matter what economic theory you look at. They're absolute monetarists. They actually believe that fiscal policy should be done away with and that we should return to the economics of monetarism, and they state it boldly and loudly in their 1978 position to the provinces of Canada.

But now things have changed a little. People are mad. They're angry about their mortgage rates, and a politically opportune Premier points his finger towards Ottawa and says simply: "Lower the interest rates." I've pointed out a number of things that could happen, Mr. Speaker, if we were to do that. We'd increase the money supply; we would further inflation in this country. God knows where it would go if the government of Canada were to follow the Premier's advice. I know one thing: we'd be paying a heck of a lot more for everything we consume. So really what the Premier is doing is saying to Canada: "Put up the cost of living. Not only put up the cost of living, but we want you also to jeopardize our best trading partner for our lumber and forest products, the United States. We want you to force the States to bring in an import quota on forest products. We don't have enough people out of work." He wants more — or is it just that he doesn't understand? I think that's what it is. Nobody could be that cruel.

So what do we have? We have a Premier who can only be one of two things, Mr. Speaker. He's either a person who's completely bereft of any economic knowledge, completely ignorant of economic matters and how the money system works and how the banking system works, or we have a complete political opportunist. He's one or the other. Now if he is a political opportunist, and he enjoys pointing his finger at Ottawa and blaming them for everything, even when he knows better, then it's unpardonable that the Premier of this province would actually take the misery of people of losing their homes and treat it in a politically cavalier way. If it isn't unpardonable, what is it? It means that he's completely ignorant about finance, monetary matters and about economics, and that's unforgivable in a first minister. So it's one or the other: the Premier has committed an act that's either unforgivable or unpardonable.

"The Bank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is in the form of a monetary rule, should be supported in principle." I don't think anyone since 1936 has really believed that that's the truth. Even ex-President Nixon didn't go along with that.

Let's see what happened when the United States turned to monetary controls, and let's see what happened in Canada in 1974 when we turned to monetary controls. We see what's happening as Great Britain turns to a monetary theory. The United States, just about six months earlier than we did, stopped using price and wage controls and all the controls available to a modern economic structure, and went to monetarism. In 1974, the United States had a surplus of $8.1 billion. At the same time, they switched to monetarism. They now have in the United States a deficit of over a trillion dollars. That's what the monetary theory has done for the United States. Reagan didn't bring it in. Monetary policy has been followed by Democrat and Republican presidents since 1974.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In Canada, by the admission of the Bank of Canada, the government has been following monetary theory since 1974. What about the deficits? What's been happening to the deficit in Canada since we've changed to the monetary system being put forward by the government opposite? In 1972 — this is by percentage of the gross national product — we had 18.8 percent of net federal debt. In 1973 and 1974 it even went down a little. It went down to 17.2 percent of the gross national product. In 1974 it went down to 15.5 percent. This was not under monetarism. That's when we made the switch, and watch the climb: 1975 and 1976, 17.2 percent; 1976 and 1977, 18.1; 1977 and 1978, 21.5 percent; 1978 and 1979, 24.8 percent; 1979 and 1980, 26.2 percent; 1980 and 1981, 28 percent.

Ever since the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada changed to monetary finance, the national debt in

[ Page 6637 ]

this country has travelled upwards at about the same percentage point increase as in the United States, which changed to the monetary approach at about the same time. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work. The economy is much too complex and much too sophisticated for a group of self-appointed monetary intellectuals to sit around a mahogany table somewhere and try to control the economy of this province and of this country strictly by changing the number of dollars in the economy at any given time. But that's what they're trying to do. This government believes in it. Not only do they believe in it, they think it should go further than it is. They think that the monetary policy by the Bank of Canada is too wishy-washy, and that we should actually go to an even more strengthened monetary policy.

There's a classic definition of pure monetarism. I'd like to take this classic definition of pure monetarism and compare it to the kind of monetarism that the province of British Columbia put forward to the government of Canada to use. This is the classic from the textbooks.

"Let the central bank stabilize the growth rate of the money supply every year and every month at some agreed-upon constant rate — say between 8 and 9 percent a year. Then, abandoning active fiscal policy and all fine tuning, let the free market take care of the rest, including a floating rate of exchange. Let no man, no governor, no committee try to manage interest rates, unemployment, price levels or foreign balances."

Pure monetarism. What does it say over here in the Social Credit government document? "Such a rule would dictate that the money supply would not be allowed to increase as rapidly as it did in the early seventies." In other words, keep the money supply tied by year and by month to the gross national product and the interest rate. Don't do anything else.

Also in this is fiscal policy. Let's see how closely this government across here comes to being monetarist — not even as up to date as Milton Friedman. It says: "An analysis of the use of fiscal policy in Canada over the past two decades indicates that errors have been made" — I guess we all buy that — "but does not warrant the conclusion...." They shouldn't be totally rejected, the government says. We will give them a point there. They don't want to completely reject fiscal policy, but they would like to go to 95 percent monetarism.

I'd be willing to bet, Mr. Speaker, that there are cabinet ministers over there — possibly even the Premier — who didn't even know that this was your policy. Obviously no one in cabinet wrote it. I suppose what they did was phone down to the civil service and say: "Got any economists 5 down there?" They said: "We've got six of them." They said: "Put forward a position paper for the province. We are going to Ottawa." This is 1978. Did they ask what kind of economists were going to be putting it together? I guess they said: "We really want it conservative." So I guess they dug up the most conservative economists within the province of British Columbia, whoever they are, who put forward this position paper on behalf of the province. The province trotted down to the first ministers' conference with this paper espousing pure monetarism, with all the resultant changes that count, such as high unemployment.

I think we have to examine what happens when you apply monetarism the way this government has asked the federal government and the Bank of Canada to do. What happens? Say we are having an inflationary period and we want to check inflation. We want to get prices back down to some stabilization. Well, what we do when we want to do that is we take money out of the system — in the monetarist system. Now how they do it is they might go out and sell government bonds. So every time a government bond is bought it takes money out of the banking system; it takes money out of circulation. Taking money out of circulation hopefully makes the prices drop. What else happens? If we are going to take money out of the system and leave less money out there for people to spend, then obviously borrowing is going to go down, because high interest rates go along with it. Taking money out through bond issues. Making loans hard to get. So what's the result? What theory is it that the monetarists work under? They work under the theory that when times are tough those on the bottom must suffer. What the whole monetarist system is designed to do is make marginal businesses go broke, thereby creating unemployment — more unemployment, less demand on the system for consumer goods; less demand on the system for consumer goods, curbing inflation.

Remember, at the same time that the Bank of Canada brought in their 1974 monetarist approach, the Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Trudeau, got on his feet on national television and said: "We are going to wrestle inflation to the ground." But do you remember what he said next? He said it's unfortunate, but in order to do it we are going to have to suffer more unemployment. The monetarist system creates unemployment to fight inflation. That's what it's all about.

This government agrees with that. They don't believe in spreading it out. They don't believe in the middle class taking a little kick. They don't believe in the rich taking a little kick, because at the same time that they are putting forward their monetarist theory of cutting down on money available to the working people, they're talking about stimulating industry. Is it crazy? How can you slow the economy down by stimulating industry?

What has this government been saying to the federal government all along? They have been saying: "Decrease your deficit. At the same time we want you to give more money to the provinces. We want you to spend more money, Ottawa, but we want you to take less taxes, and we want you to decrease your deficit."

Now what did the federal Minister of Finance have open to him coming into the last budget? It's not the way it used to be. We don't have either inflation or deflation; we have another new modern thing happening called stagflation. That's where we have high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. Maybe someone else in this chamber has read some economist's solution to cure them both at the same time, but I haven't, and I'd be very interested in having someone else explain to me how you do both without exchange controls, without stopping the flow of money out of here and price controls on commodity areas and wage controls where needed. There's no other way.

So here is Mr. MacEachen, the federal Minister of Finance, going into the budget having one of two choices because he's under monetarism, which they suggested he keep. In fact, they commended the Bank of Canada and the government for adopting monetarist policies. He has to fight either inflation or unemployment — one or the other. He can't do them both under monetarism, because there is no known economic theory under monetarism to deal with stagflation. Yet this province, this government across here, is putting forward monetarist theory to look after the economic

[ Page 6638 ]

ills in Canada and in this province when there is no solution in monetarism. It has been proven there is no solution. But having had their genesis somewhere around the ark, they have no idea. They think that life is just a simple little thing that you create a favourable climate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that they don't have any idea how the economics of this country or this province work. I think we can prove it by the kind of documents I have in front of me. They are actually asking the monetarists to control stagflation when there is no known cure under monetary theory. But they agree with it, they support it, and they push it.

What other kind of jackpots have they gotten themselves into? Cost-sharing with the federal government. To read what's happening now in the newspapers you'd think that this government didn't design and agree with the new cost-sharing program. But here's a quote: "Province to Battle Government Cuts." That's the provincial government here which is going to battle federal cuts. "Curtis Opposes Separate Financing Idea." "Curtis Says Times are Hard Ahead for Schools and Hospitals." As if his government didn't agree to the present financial formula that's going on, in their greedy little way, in 1976. They agreed; as a matter of fact, they pushed for it.

One of the things that politicians say to each other is: "Never write it down, because someone might find it later." Here it is, in the same 1978 paper to the federal government, on page 40: "The Role of the Provinces." This is a statement by the provincial government. It says: "Likewise, the transfer of tax points to the provinces in lieu of cost-shared programs has further strengthened the potential of the provinces to affect the performance of the economy." Isn't it interesting? In 1976 this government signed an agreement with the government of Canada. I think I have it here, Mr. Speaker: "Fiscal Federalism in Canada." This is when we went to this new cost-sharing program which this government is squealing like stuck pigs about now. After long and complex negotiations, including a number of last-minute accommodations, the arrangements governed by the present act were accepted by all provinces; that includes this one.

When we were in, our government — our former Minister of Health, our Premier, and our Minister of Human Resources — went to Ottawa and said: "We reject this new kind of financing." Do you know why they rejected it? Because they said we'd end up in the spot we're in now, that's why. But oh no, not these economic wizards — not these super-sharp business tycoons who came in from the hills to show everybody what economic wizards they are with their outdated monetarism, signing federal-provincial agreements that have actually brought less funds into this province than the old fifty-fifty cost-sharing program. Do you know what would be happening right now if they hadn't signed that agreement? No matter how much health care costs went up in this province, the federal government would have been required under the old agreement to pick up 50 percent of it. They sold us out. I don't think they did it purposely; I think they were just stupid.

Mr. Speaker, this talks about their social conscience. They knew that Prince Edward Island would be worse off under this agreement that they signed; they knew that Newfoundland with all the Atlantic provinces — they knew that it would be a very hard and trying time for some of our sister provinces if this agreement went into effect. But at the time we were riding a little high on the hog. We thought our economy was going to go big. Well, they thought that just by being elected that was the proper climate for economic recovery. They thought just the mere presence of themselves in office would create an economy that we could all be proud of. They didn't realize that it was a bit more complicated than that. So they ran off to Ottawa thinking: we're in now, the climate it great; the economy is going to get better, so what we can do is sign this agreement and we'll be okay, Jack. Maybe the Atlantic provinces won't do all right, but who cares? We're down here looking after British Columbia.

When we were in government and our Premier stood up and said, "No, no, no, we as British Columbians will not take more than our share and make the people in other provinces suffer; that is not being a Canadian," the member for Surrey said that he never felt prouder of his Premier and his leader than on that day, and I think we all did. How do you feel about your leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. LEA: You feel good? I'm sure you would, because he is doing exactly what you would want him to do: practise greed. You feel good about that.

Cost-sharing. Yes, we're in a pickle. We aren't in a pickle because the federal government imposed a financial formula on us, but because this government agreed with the proposal put forward by the federal government. Now I'm not going to give the federal government clear marks — they knew what was going on too; they were looking for an out. But when the New Democratic Party was in power in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they didn't have anybody to pick them up on their sucker move. But when Sterling Lyon got in! This government — boy, I'll tell you, they knew they had it coming and going, because they had a government.... As one ex-Social Credit minister said: "The world turns around on greed, my friends — greed." It sure does, when it comes to this government.

So what have they done since they've been in power since 1975? No money into research for new technology; no exploration to find new industry to add wealth, but only a continuation of old Social Credit practices of ever widening the extraction process, shipping out of the province raw resources and the jobs along with them. They'll even subsidize natural resources if the short-term activity that comes from it makes them look politically good. No plan whatsoever — no what, how or for whom in their economic planning. Their advice to Ottawa: one of pure monetarism, one of taking one segment of society and making that one segment suffer bad times, not sharing equally — not having the middle class and the upper class share a little bit in the restraint and the belt-tightening. Oh no, we can bring the control of the economy back into line and fight inflation by just asking those who are unemployed to suffer; just those who are unemployed, that's good enough for them.

Interest rates. If the federal government followed the Premier's advice, we'd probably lose for years the kind of relationship we've had selling our forest products to the United States. If the government had followed the Premier's advice, prices would be escalating today; prices would be going beyond our wildest imagination, because to lower those interest rates without exchange controls and without stopping the flow of capital out of this country.... We would have a money supply problem in this country that would drive us into an inflationary spiral like we've never

[ Page 6639 ]

seen before. That's what has been suggested by this government and that Premier to the federal government in this country. Cost-sharing, problems with post-secondary education finances, problems with the financing of our health system — only because of an agreement signed by this government in 1976, all written out, there to see.

Every time one of the mistakes of this government comes home to roost, they blame someone else: big business, labour, the federal government, single mothers, welfare recipients, the opposition. They have blamed everybody, but they haven't taken any responsibility for the kinds of acts they've done.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, economics is not an exact science. It's called the queen of social sciences. It's not like math or physics. Theories are only theories until they've been put into practice, and then the proof of the pudding of the theory is in the results.

Everyone has pointed out that it's very difficult for a government to decide upon what sort of economic approach it's going to take. It's difficult to know which economist to believe, and which one not to believe, and whether you believe either. John Kenneth Galbraith said:

" It will be no easier in the future than in the past for the layman or the lay politician to distinguish between the adequate economist and the others. But there is no difficulty whatever in distinguishing between success and failure. Henceforth it should be the simple rule in all economic and monetary matters that anyone who has to explain failure has failed."

But Mr. Galbraith says we should be kind to those whose performance has been poor. We should be kind to the government. He says to be kind, but we must never be so gracious as to keep them in office. And I agree.

They put forward an economic theory called the monetarist theory. Looking at history, I suppose they should have had some idea that it doesn't work. But they didn't. Let's be kind to them, but let's not be so gracious in this province that we return them to office.

Monetarism and this government are synonymous. This government, monetarism and Reaganism are synonymous, as is Thatcherism and as is the Bank of Canada of this country. They are classic monetarists trying to hide, now that they've got into all sorts of economic problems, by talking about women. Now they're concerned about people, after they've ruined the economy by an outdated monetarist economy theory. Now they're going to appoint a deputy. Now they're going to expand the Labour ministry to talk about employment. Now they're going to have a conference in the spring.

Mr. Speaker, what they're doing is explaining failure. And that means they've failed. Because of that I'd like to make an amendment to the throne speech, moved by myself and seconded by Colin Gabelmann, the hon. member for North Island. The amendment is that this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to recognize that the economic policies of the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and further, fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all our people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, we begin this debate on the amendment to the Speech from the Throne in the midst of what is probably the worst economic crisis that British Columbians have faced since the Great Depression. I doubt that that statement would be challenged, particularly by those thousands and thousands of people in this province who face this winter without jobs, and many are facing this winter without the security of knowing they may be able to keep their own homes. Entire communities in this province, including entire communities in my constituency, are unemployed — not just high unemployment rates in those constituencies, but the whole town is out of work. In town after town we have that situation, particularly in communities dependent upon the forest resource of this province.

Loggers and millworkers and those employed in the forest industry, and those who provide for the forest industry in other service industries, expect that, come the winter and Christmas, they will have a month or so where they shut down. People plan their lives around that. But not many of them have planned for the two or three and in some cases the four months — and in some cases the fear of six months — of shutdown this winter. That doesn't just affect those workers and their families. It affects the entire communities they live in, and it affects a lot of small business people and a lot of others in every one of those communities. And, of course, down the road it affects everyone in this province. People are scared; they're not spending. As a result, small businesses are going bankrupt. We haven't yet seen the impact of those bankruptcies that will happen after Christmas. Many of them are hanging on, waiting and hoping that there will be some kind of Christmas trade that will give them enough cash flow to survive for a few more months, but in January and February we'll see many of them go under.

Poor people, a group that not many of us talk about nearly enough — those who are on social assistance and on fixed pensions and those who are in low-paying jobs — are paying out almost all their incomes on shelter in this year of Social Credit. They have very little left for food or clothing. Dozens and, no doubt, hundreds and, fearfully, thousands of children in this province are going to school every day without a lunch because there is no money in their family to provide for that third meal a day. I know teachers who take an extra-large lunch to school so they can share a little bit of their food, a little bit of their wealth, with their kids. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) shakes his head. He probably never spends any time in his constituency nor, Mr. Speaker, any time in any of the poorer parts of this province. He has certainly not spent any time in the city of Vancouver or in parts of my riding, where in fact I can tell him about kids who go without their lunches.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: He says it's sick. It sure is sick, Mr. Speaker. It's a sick society and it's a sick government that would allow that kind of situation. If you want any proof of that, you, Mr. Speaker, and the member for Central Fraser Valley come with me, and I'll introduce you to those kids, their teachers and principals. What do those people expect from a government? What do those people expect from the people they elect to, hopefully, help them in their daily lives? They expect something. They might not know about the throne speech, because they can't afford to buy a television set or a newspaper, so in many cases they don't know we're

[ Page 6640 ]

here debating a throne speech. They may not know about the throne speech, but if they knew about it and that this was an opportunity for some presentation of economic action and initiative, they would expect a few things. They would expect a vigorous economic policy. They would certainly expect a substantive housing policy. What did they get in the throne speech? On page 4 and 5 they got a couple of paragraphs saying nothing. Some of the sentences were very well written, I might say — almost as well written as the kind of throne speeches we've seen for years in Ontario. They're that well written.

MS. BROWN: It sounds the same.

MR. GABELMANN: It sounds very similar — the same kind of language, the same kind of smooth rhetoric, but it says nothing for those people who face those kinds of economic situations.

Fortunately, though, those people had an opportunity to listen to what the minister responsible for housing in particular in this province was prepared to say after the throne speech at a press conference. Later in these comments we'll get into some detail on that. What do those people who face a winter of unemployment and severe hardship get from the throne speech? They get three words to help them through the winter: realism, compassion and profound optimism. That is all those unemployed people and their families have from this government in this throne speech. Compassion is fine, but those words provide no groceries, pay no rent and they certainly save no houses from repossession. When you come to housing, what did the minister say in his long-waited housing policy? Remember, Mr. Speaker, the policy was proposed a year ago by the Premier and the Minister of Housing. They said: "It's imminent. Any day now we're going to get a policy statement" — a year ago last fall — "on what the government's going to do on housing." Almost every two weeks throughout the year we had a promise from the minister that the announcement would be within the next couple of weeks. How many times did we hear the minister say, "In two weeks, my friend" — having had five and a half years to prepare, think through, and to do a proper presentation of a proper housing program? What did we get? We got a housing minister who issued a press release. He devoted the entire front page to saying: "Because of the budget introduced on November 12 in Ottawa, we're going to have to do something here in British Columbia. Therefore because of MacEachen's budget, we have this statement." In effect that's what the entire front page was saying of his press statement.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

During a time when we have the highest mortgage interest rate and the lowest vacancy rates, we've had no action. Now we have the grand announcement. Before we go into some detail about analysing what that announcement says and means, what problems should the government and politicians try to solve? What kinds of issues should be dealt with by such a policy statement?

In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, there are at least three major groups of people whose needs need to be attended to by such a housing statement. The first, and in my judgment the most important, are those people on low and fixed incomes who face excessive rent increases — most of those people living in decontrolled apartment buildings.

The second group are young families who hope, and have been led to believe over the years, that they could own their own homes.

The third group are those people already in their own homes who are faced with mortgage renewals which in many cases mean they will no longer be able to afford to pay the mortgage, and therefore will have to give up the homes that they've been living in for some years.

Homeowners, this third group, are so frightened today in this country that they swelled the numbers of demonstrators last Saturday in Ottawa to unprecedented numbers. When have we ever seen a demonstration in this country so massive, so broadly based and so well-disciplined because people were coldly angry about what governments were doing to them?

Why is that? Because poverty is finally beginning to reach into the middle class and the middle classes in our country are finally beginning to understand what 35 to 40 percent of this country have had to understand for decades: the grinding nature of poverty. Those people, many with their education and many with their understanding of the political system, decided to join in that massive demonstration, which should tell governments at whatever level in this country something about how people feel.

I'm not going to go into all kinds of horror stories about those people who are facing mortgage renewals that they can't afford to pay. We're all well enough aware of that. The newspapers have been full of stories over the last number of months.

The second group — those young people, those young families attempting to get into their own home, to purchase their own home — have in most cases given up that dream. It's a dream that exists, but it's so tenuous now that they don't even bother in most cases.

I don't know how we in this province, where we have a desire for home ownership, where we have what are perceived to be good incomes, where we have lots of land, where we have lots of lumber, where we've got lots of material and lots of workers, can't put those things together. We have the demand, we've got the material, but we can't put it together. Why not? What's wrong with government?

The member for Prince Rupert talked about lack of economic planning. I suspect he had something when it comes to the approach that this government takes when it comes to those kinds of obvious problems.

But today, Mr. Speaker, before I get on to a more detailed analysis of the so-called housing policy, I want to spend a bit more time on the group that I think, as I said before, we don't spend enough time talking about, and that's the poor. The seniors, poor people, deserted mothers, the countless working poor — and that's an increasing number in our society — provide the most tragic, the most depressing and most damning indictment of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and his millionaire friends.

Let me just recount a few statistics, a few examples and a few real-life situations. Someone in our office phoned the B.C. Housing Management Commission the other day to ask what the current figures are on waiting lists for B.C. Housing Management Commission housing — that's subsidized housing. There are 3,000 families and 3,500 seniors in the lower mainland on that waiting list. The 1980 annual report tells us that in that year, completed in 1980, there were 1,300 people placed in the whole province. In the lower mainland alone, today, there are approximately 6,500 family units — 3,000 families and 3,500 pensioners — on the list.

[ Page 6641 ]

Many thousands of other people don't even bother to put their names on the list because they know they have years and years and years of waiting before they'll get on. Most of us in our constituency offices don't even recommend to people that they put their names on the list for the same reason: there is no program to provide housing for those people.

In 1980, according to this annual report, 20,000 people called the office of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. As I said earlier, 1,300 were placed. There's just a little bit in the annual report. This is another one of these government documents that I think we should refer to on occasion. Here's a little paragraph about the housing demand:

"Nineteen-eighty brought an increased demand for commission-managed housing, particularly in urban areas. In the greater Vancouver region, staff handled over 20,000 applicant calls, visited 1,300 applicants and interviewed 900 walk-in applicants. During 1980, 455 senior citizens and 918 family applicants were placed. By the year's end, staff in the commission's regions were administering applications for accommodation from 8,000 families and senior citizens, a 19 percent increase in applicants over the previous year. Family applicants increased by 41 percent over 1979 in the greater Vancouver region, and on Vancouver Island" — the greatest increases of all — "43 percent and 50 percent." A 50 percent increase in seniors' applications. And it goes on.

Let's leave that. That's those people who wish to participate in the government's B.C. Housing Management Commission program — a Mickey Mouse program if ever there was one.

What about seniors' housing? The minister has talked grandly in this House about his commitment to seniors' housing. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if you are part of a group on Vancouver Island today which is attempting to build senior citizens' housing, the ministry will tell you that there are no available units until 1983? "Thank you for applying, community group, but there is no more money on Vancouver Island under our budget for seniors' housing. In 1983 more money will open up. We'll put your name down." That's what they're being told. If the members don't believe me, they can phone the Ministry of Housing itself. That's where I got the information.

All over this province, literally thousands of people are actively waiting on lists in the co-op housing sector. At the University of B.C. there are two separate housing co-op groups who have organized themselves. They're all ready to go and have been for some time, but they can't get the land to build the co-ops. Why can't they get the land? It's Crown land. Well, what's wrong with that? The minister talks about making Crown land available. Why isn't the Crown land available? The minister says they're thinking about making a village out of the university endowment lands and until they decide whether it's going to be a village or not, they're not going to release any land. That's the attitude of this government toward co-op housing.

So then we look at market housing. We look at what people have to look at in terms of day-to-day rental applications in the newspaper. I have Monday's Vancouver Sun want-ads. What's your ordinary working-poor or welfare recipient going to do with this kind of available rental accommodation? "Attractive bachelor and one bedroom, $370 to $430 per month." That's in Vancouver. "Three-bedroom basement, $600 a month." In East Vancouver, hopefully they're a bit cheaper. Here's a two-bedroom for $550 a month. "West Broadway, 2 bedroom, $550 a month." "South Burnaby, one bedroom, $450 a month," and on and on and on. I don't need to go through them. I took those at random. Anybody who wants to look at the paper can demonstrate that. How do you pay $400, $450, $500, $550 a month for rent when we have a minimum wage that hardly produces that in total income in a month? These people also have to feed themselves, clothe themselves, hopefully have a telephone and pay the heat bill and the light. How do they do it? How do they do it in this society in these days, and what's the government's response to it? Nothing.

I want to talk about some real situations in my constituency. In Campbell River I'm going to describe five separate situations and ask members of this House whether they think the government, through the Minister of Housing, is doing what they should be doing, and whether the government, through the Minister of Human Resources, is doing what they should be doing, and whether the government, through the Minister of Labour, is doing what they should be doing.

I'm going to describe the cheapest family rental accommodation building of any size in Campbell River. I know the building well, because I lived in it myself until recently. If you are a single mother with an 18-month-old child, presumably in this building — and there are several cases — you would have a one-bedroom apartment. That one-bedroom in that apartment building — one of the cheaper ones in Campbell River — is $377 a month. The shelter portion for social assistance is $300. The food, living allowance and all of the other costs, like the heat — not necessarily the heat in this case, because that's in the shelter.... That doesn't matter because the shelter portion is lower already than the rent alone. So their heat, light, telephone, food, clothes and Pablum for the baby comes out of a difference of $163 a month.

Think about what you would do, Mr. Speaker — and I ask members in this House to think about what they would do — if their family's total disposable income after paying rent was $163 a month. To start with, you take $40 off that to heat the place; you're then talking about $4 a day for everything else. What kind of a society is it that we live in that's governed by a government that says everything is just hunky-dory?

Let's talk about another situation that exists in this building: a single mother with a 14-year-old son who is going to school and is quite active — the mother is considered employable under the new regulations. Her rent in September was $282 and it was in controls. To get it out of controls, the owner remortgaged the building. So there are new finance rates, which means he gets to justify a big rent increase. So he sends the rent up to $395 on November 1 — from $282 to $395 based on rent justification. Then, on January 1, he gets another 10 percent increase because it's been a year since they had the last 10 percent increase. So this woman — single, a welfare recipient with a 14-year-old child — has her rent go from $282 to $434 in the space of three or four months. What's her income? Her total income from social assistance is $540. She and her 14-year-old son have $106 a month left to live; $35 to $40 of that $196 goes to heat and light. How does she buy running shoes for the kid so he can play sports at school? And the Housing minister (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is proud of his actions and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is proud of hers.

[ Page 6642 ]

Let's take another situation: a single parent with two kids under 12, eligible for the extra amount that's been docked off because the two kids are under 12. Her rent in a two-bedroom apartment is $434 a month as of January 1 under the new rent schedule. Her total income is $595. She and her two kids get $161 a month to pay for everything else.

One parent with three children — here is a really tragic situation, as if the others weren't — is in a three-bedroom apartment. In September her rent — in the same building — was $325; in January it will be $501. Her income is $800 — $400 for shelter and $400, the other portion.... She is also on welfare. Her actual disposable income, the non-rent payment, drops from $400 to $299 a month in January. She loses $101 net because of the application of the government's program.

But let's not talk about welfare recipients. They're not popular, so nobody talks about them. Let's talk about senior citizens, whom the government loves to talk about, because senior citizens are politically popular to talk about, much more so than welfare recipients, even though they're all people. Let's take a single person over 65 who qualifies for the maximum — OAS, GIS and GAIN; gets it all. What's the income today? It's $483.24. What's a one-bedroom apartment? It's $377. That senior citizen, who has contributed to the economy of this province and this country for decades, gets from this government and from the federal government a total of $106.24 and is probably lucky to have $70 a month left over for food and clothing and maybe the odd newspaper and maybe a movie once or twice a year, but it's not likely on $106 a month. And these are real situations.

Then we have the kind of announcement from the Minister of Housing that doesn't even begin to deal with this crisis in our society; it doesn't even touch on it. He says, as quoted in the Vancouver Province: "Oh, that's a federal problem; I don't want to take away their jurisdiction." Nonsense. It's our problem, and it's your problem to do something about.

Let's look at the new policy in light of the kind of situation that I have described. Do you know what this policy is as announced by the Minister of Housing? It is the first housing policy announcement by any government in this country that is designed specifically and purely to generate income for the government, to make money. The whole foundation, the whole focus of the policy is an attempt to generate revenue for the coffers of a government that can't balance its budget. That's what it's designed to do and that's what it will do. I'll get to some of those specific examples of why that is so as we go through the housing.... I have the benefit of the press release, and that's all — plus the minister's press conference and what I've been able to glean from that.

First he talks about residential land supply and putting Crown land on the market. Good. We've argued for it for years. We've argued for the establishment of land banking like they do in Swift Current, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary and even in Prince George. They have sound, logical, rational land banking. Let's do it, but let's not do it in a haphazard or unplanned way — a little bit now and maybe later some more. All you do then is have booms and busts in the cycle. When you have a boom the price goes up, and when you have a bust it doesn't come down. You just drive up the price and add to inflation. But, yes, good. I am one of those opposition members who likes to try to be positive and give the government credit when I can. It is good that they finally accepted that there should be some land banking and some service land put on from the Crown reserves.

Number two is Crown land lease to purchase. Well, sounds good, but it's pretty absurd when you look at it. Let's take, for example, a piece of Crown land that costs $50,000 in an area that has a housing crisis. That's not out of line. Some are cheaper and many are more, but let's take the $50,000 figure. Under this plan for this Crown land the applicant would pay $500 a month in the first year and at the end of five years would have to pay almost $70,000 to buy the lot.

The minister shakes his head. The press release says if the value of the lot is $50,000 in the first year, the inflationary factor will be controlled at 6 percent. After five years, 6 percent compounded on $50,000 is $70,000. That's what the purchase price would be after five years. The minister's press release says very clearly that the inflation on that property will be limited to 6 percent. If he says otherwise, he can get up and make his contributions.

When you calculate what the cost to the applicant is, it turns out that it's 18 percent. In today's market it would be better to go to the bank and borrow to buy the lot today than it would be to take advantage of number two in the minister's housing policy. It's an absurd policy.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister wants to participate, he will have his turn, if he dares.

Mr. Speaker, the third item in his proposal is an expanded second mortgage program — doubling the second mortgage from $5,000 to $10,000. Good. I applaud him for that. I don't think it's going to have very much impact, because when you're talking about $100,000 being the average for a new home, the $10,000 doesn't make a lot of difference in terms of second mortgage in the kind of economic situation we have now. It might be better if that figure were higher. Good. I want to give him credit. The $5,000 was absurd and $10,000 is better, and I'll give you some credit for that.

Number four is conversion guidelines. I'll try to speed this up, Mr. Speaker. We agree with the conversion guidelines, but you announced it last year and we haven't seen anything yet. Announcements, announcements, announcements, and we don't get anywhere.

Number five is conversion loans. You're raising the amount of money available in conversion loans. Good. The minister doesn't have any idea about how many houses that's going to produce — the MURB-type incentive. They're going to take the $7,500 that MacEachen is promising and they're going to add $4,000 to $4,500 to it, hopefully to bring back the equivalency of the MURB benefits that existed before. And then he talks about that providing 10,000 more units. The federal government is only talking about 15,000 units in the whole country. Our share proportionately is 1,500. Maybe the minister will be lucky in his meetings with the federal minister and get a couple thousand or maybe even three thousand. It doesn't begin to deal with the problem.

Number seven in this scheme is rent-to-own. Here the minister is saying in an unspecified way that you can go into your apartment building where you're renting and you'll be able to end up owning it. Let's take a typical $80,000 townhouse. Under your rent-to-own program, that $80,000 townhouse — and that's not a price that's out of line; that's a typical price — is going to cost $800 a month for the first year. In the final or the fifth year, it will be almost $1,100 a month. We're talking about people who need housing who don't make that

[ Page 6643 ]

much money in total. Let's say you can afford it in year five. You can purchase that $80,000 unit in year five for $107,000, based on your 6 percent inflation. You have paid over $55,000 in payments in those five years, and you have no equity. All you have is the right to purchase the place.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go into details about alternative programs, but there are better ways of doing it. The savings and trust program that we propose, which members on that side voted for, would make sure that on that same building, a person paying.... Let's just go through the details. You'd get a savings and trust mortgage for $70,000. The buyer makes a $10,000 payment at 13½ percent interest, which I think would be lower now that rates are beginning to come down. The monthly payment is $950. At the end of the five years the mortgage outstanding is still about $69,000, but the unit will be worth $107,000.

Here's the important point. For a total payment of housing of $57,000, the buyer will have built up an equity of $38,000, compared to no equity under Social Credit — they don't believe in equity. What does the entire seven-point program cost? Press speculation has it about $5.7 to $6.1 million. My guess is that it's less than $5 million in total cost. Total commitment to the housing crisis in this province is less than $5 million of government expenditure. What's that? About one one-thousandth of the budget. The greatest crisis that we have in our society today, and that's their commitment.

We on this side are always accused of being negative. In the last two years or so, since I've been the housing critic for the official opposition, I've tried not to do what I've done today: not to present negative criticisms of government policies, but rather to outline what we would do, given an opportunity to implement our own policies. I have outlined those kinds of things consistently. There hasn't been any response from that side of the House. But I want to do it again very briefly in the five minutes remaining to me.

I don't expect you to implement this program, but we will beginning two weeks after the next election day. The first thing we're going to do is end the right-wing ideological blinkers that dominate the government today. We will put back into place a housing corporation in British Columbia so that we, too, like every single province and every territory in this country, can have a housing corporation that can begin to do some of the things required in the housing market.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't make me throw up.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Island has the floor. Let's not interrupt him.

MR. GABELMANN: I won't pursue it anymore. I would if it were a more honourable member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are all honourable members in the House.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, I agree, we're all honourable some more than others.

The second thing we would do, after establishing that housing corporation, is proclaim the savings and trust act that many on that side voted for, so that people in this province truly can once again look forward to the dream of owning their own homes becoming a reality,

The third thing we would do is assist local government in setting up an organized and rational land-banking system, which will abandon the boom-and-bust cycle so favoured by the government and its developer friends. We would do, as I said earlier, what some of the cities on the Prairies do and what Prince George does.

The fourth thing we would do is provide assistance for social housing by giving real assistance to co-op housing, by cooperating with CMHC in the various provisions that exist in the National Housing Act that would allow us to take advantage of federal money and put some effort into social housing in this province for the poor, the elderly and the disabled; and not — as I said earlier, when the minister wasn't in the House — tell pensioners on Vancouver Island that they can't have any senior housing on the Island because there is no more money left until 1983. That's what your office tells us. You should phone your office and see what's going on in your own ministry, Mr. Minister.

Number five, and finally, as part of a major housing program we would establish an effective and fair-to-both sides rent review and control mechanism which will truly protect tenants from disastrous and unaffordable rent increases — the kinds I talked about earlier that face so many of mv constituents and, I know, constituents in every riding in this province.

Judging again by the minister's inane behaviour when he sits in this House and listens to opposition speeches, judging by his lack of understanding at the press conference on Monday afternoon, and judging by the shallowness of the program he has implemented, it's clear that rational debate in this Legislature has not produced any result as far as he is concerned for developing a housing policy. Quite frankly, I've had just about enough of rational debate about the issues — because we haven't had very much.

I've tried to be rational. We on this side of the House have tried to be rational. We've tried to present alternatives. We haven't said that the alternatives are necessarily panaceas. We haven't said that there might not be problems with some of our alternatives. But at least, by God, we've proposed some constructive and some real alternatives, which they have totally ignored because they don't care about the kind of people I have talked about. They don't care about people who are poor, the elderly, those people on social assistance, and they don't care about that increasing number of people in our society who have considered themselves to be middle-class and are now knowing for the first time in their lives what poverty is really like. If members on the opposite side don't believe me, I would be delighted to take them on a tour of my riding and introduce them to hundreds of people in those situations.

But rather than any more debate, Mr. Speaker, I suspect the answer to this kind of issue is that we should allow the people to choose between their policy and our policy. I would be quite happy today, tomorrow, next month.... Sometime before July and sometime before the enumeration is complete, I would love to test our policy on housing against their policy on housing. Let the voter decide: I know we'd win that contest!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I must say that it's indeed a pleasure to see you back in your high office and in such good health.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

[ Page 6644 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you might suspect, I am going to speak against the amendment and very much in favour of the throne speech which was delivered on Monday last.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of interest to the two previous speakers, and as usual I was unable to determine from their deliberations in this assembly what the NDP policy would be all about. But there's one thing for sure, the NDP will never have to worry too much about a housing shortage. I want to tell you, it would be a very few months after the election — if, God forbid, they should ever form the government — they would be suffering from a housing surplus, the same as there was in 1975 when people were leaving this province by droves because of their economic policies.

It was interesting to hear the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) say that a theory must be proven. Well, their theory of economic policy, their theory of socialism, was proven to be completely a failure in the province of British Columbia in the time that they had.

I've listened not only to the debates here in the Legislature, but to what the members opposite have said and what the leader of that socialist group opposite us has said in the last few months. I've listened to find out what they would do to correct the supposed economic ills of the province of British Columbia. All I heard, Mr. Speaker, was that the socialist opposition, were they government, would buy up all the sawmills of British Columbia. I don't know where they'd get the money to buy them up, nor do I know what they would do with the lumber that was produced from the sawmills, but that is the sum total of their economic policy.

I could make a lot of comment about what the member for Prince Rupert had to say, but he really didn't say anything. I think that that was the poorest effort that that member has ever put forward in this Legislature. It just goes to show how devoid of ideas, how devoid of policy that group over there is. You talk about lack of planning. You know anybody can get up and take a sentence out of context and talk for half an hour on it and never say anything. Go to the library, and pick up a book, and read about some past economic policies. But I listened intently, Mr. Speaker, and heard not one word of what that socialist opposition would do were they government.

I'd like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has been planning for the economy, and that is one of the reasons that the province of British Columbia today, in a very serious situation in Canada and in the rest of the world, is weathering the storm far better than any jurisdiction that you will find in the free world. That just didn't happen; it happened because we did our planning. It happened because we had good, sound economic policies; that's why people are employed today in British Columbia. That's why there were 50,000 or 60,000 thousand jobs created in the last year, and there are more plans on the drawing table. Because this government had a plan, because we implemented that plan, and because the private sector responded to that plan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It wasn't the same plan you had, my friend from Prince Rupert. You talk about creating jobs and stand up here and preach economic policy!

Mr. Speaker, when that member was Minister of Highways, what did he say? He said: "Go home, Yankee, we don't need you." I want to tell you, when you think of the job we've done on tourism and the thousands and thousands of people who are employed in the tourist industry today in British Columbia.... That member has the gall to stand in this House and talk about economic policy. We've created thousands and thousands of jobs. Their idea of creating jobs is to have people sweep up after the soup lines and wash the soup bowls. That's their policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want today to talk about what is in the throne speech and where we are going in the future. I want to speak against this frivolous motion that these birds opposite always seem to bring forward. I think they think that somebody in the press gallery is going to pick up that they brought in a motion of non-confidence. Well, the strength of the economy of British Columbia today is due to our policy — of additional and diversified markets, our policy of diversified investments, our policy of diversification and strengthening our economic base away from total and sole dependence on the markets of the United States — great thrusts into the Pacific Rim, great thrusts into the European Economic Community, diversification of investment, diversification of our economic base and diversification of our markets.

We didn't go to Japan, Mr. Speaker, to play — what kind of ball was it? Rugby ball. We didn't play rugby ball. We went to tell Japan that British Columbia was a free-enterprise society again and they should come and invest and buy from us. You talk about results. In 1975 British Columbian exports to Japan were $863 million; in 1980 our exports to Japan were $2.18 billion. Why do I mention those exports, Mr. Speaker? Because the creation of those exports is the creation of jobs in British Columbia — jobs for the working people of British Columbia. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the working people in British Columbia can look to the future with faith and security, because they know the markets will be there, and they know our economic base is strengthened. They're not like many other provinces and jurisdictions in the world, where they don't know when their plants are going to be closed down. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we're suffering some problems in our forest industry, but in Japan there is a great market. The policy of this government is to diversify the market and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Let's take a look at another place in the Pacific Rim: sales to Korea in the last five years, Mr. Speaker, have exceeded our own expectations. In 1975 B.C. exports to Korea were $14.5 million; in 1980 they were $134.4 million — a 925 percent increase. Now that didn't happen by us sitting in our fat offices in our fat chairs; it happened because this government has an aggressive sales force and is out there helping the private sector to create new markets in the Pacific Rim, which happens to be the fastest growing market in the world. We didn't go there to play rugby; we didn't go to China to plant trees; we went to talk business. The results are there — make no mistake about it.

What else are we doing, Mr. Speaker, to diversify our markets, to diversify our investment and to diversify our economic base? We've had sales missions to Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Thailand. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they're coming here.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did it cost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, listen to the yap from the opposition. They're not interested in the results and in the jobs. They're not interested in the results, because

[ Page 6645 ]

they can't stand the results. They can't stand to see a prosperous economy in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Let's have the results.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you'd stay in your chair instead of being up and down in the coffee shop drinking coffee or up there trying to read books in the library about some theory that was written 14 years ago and get up to date, my friend.... Stay in the Legislature and you'd hear the facts.

What else are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We're exploring that great giant China. We don't expect immediate results. But I want to tell you that that is the policy of this government, not to plan from election to election but to plan from decade to decade.

We are continuing our efforts in the European Community. We are now selling lumber in the U.K., Holland, Germany, France and Italy. We will be pursuing the diversification of those markets with an even greater vigour and vitality.

People from around the world are looking to invest in the province of British Columbia, because they realize that this government has a sound fiscal policy and a sound taxation policy. This government has created a climate.... Oh, you can talk about the climate, but we have created a climate. Do you want to say that climate doesn't matter? The member for Prince George wants to say that climate doesn't matter. When they were government they created a climate that drove people away, a climate that would not bring anybody to the province; no investment to create future jobs.

We have an economic base that is becoming more diversified every year. Yes, today the forest industry is still our number one industry. I'd like to speak for just a moment about what is happening in our forest industry, about what has happened in the last six years in our forest industry because a climate was created in this province. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into new plants and modernization of plants. Had the socialists stayed in, the lumber industry would not have had the faith to make this investment, and today the lumber industry would be five times worse off than it is. It is only because of modernization that they are able to withstand this slight economic downturn.

New mines are opening all over the province, and have during the last five years. Many more are on the drawing board. What about Cominco's half-billion-dollar modernization? On the drawing board are new mines and new pulpmills in our two leading industries. On the drawing board are ferrosilicon plants, ferromanganese plants, aluminum smelters and a world-scale copper smelter, just to mention a few.

What I am trying to point out to the members of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, is that there are plans on the  for investment and for the diversification of our economy which carry us through not until the next election, not till 1985, but on into the year 2000, because we are working in advance and we are doing our planning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just mentioned a few to you, my friend, but you wished not to hear. I would suggest that you go back to your little cocoon in your caucus room.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Being presented to this government, very shortly, we have plans for a petrochemical manufacturing facility. Tell us we have no plans. This will be based, my friends, on natural gas. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when they were government what did they say? "There's no gas in the ground. Don't build any pipelines. Don't prepare for the future. Don't build any scrubbing plants, because there's no gas in the ground."

Now what have we got? Being presented to this government by 13 companies are 15 projects with a total investment of over $12 billion, diversification of our economic base, steady long-term jobs for the future; and the opposition tells us that we're not doing our planning. No, they're not going to be on stream next May. But I'll tell you, unless I'm wrong, by next June some of them will be under construction and providing jobs for the people of British Columbia.

Certainly there are opportunities in the overseas markets for liquid natural gas. I listened with interest to what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) had to say about liquid natural gas. He doesn't realize that liquid natural gas to the Pacific Rim will create five times more economic activity than it does by putting it in a pipeline and shipping it down to the United States. He doesn't realize that having two markets gives greater diversification to our economic base, instead of having one market, where they can turn the valve any time of the day they want to. He doesn't realize that the sale of gas to Korea and Japan will be a take-or-pay contract that brings long-term stability to the economy.

I don't want to talk about all the planning we've done for the development of our northeast coal fields, except to say that when the socialist rump group opposite tells me that this government hasn't done any planning, I have to take it with a grain of salt. because it is the planning that we have done over the last five or six years that brought the project to fruition when the markets developed. It will be one of those projects which will gainfully employ people in the coming year, when all other economies are suffering. People will be flocking here to seek opportunities and jobs which are not available in their own provinces,

We're opening up the north in the eighties as another Social Credit government opened up the southeast in the decade of the sixties. The southeast is doing very well, thank you. It has contributed to the economy of British Columbia, and is providing thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.

I remember not too long ago the socialists standing in the Legislature telling me that the northeast was going to steal all the markets away from the southeast. I want to tell you that today the difficulty with the southeast is not the markets. They can sell more coal than they can put over the transportation system. It is the responsibility of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the federal government to ensure that that transportation system is upgraded so that those producers and would-be producers in the southeast can continue to sell their coal, which is a world-competitive commodity.

It will be a sad and sorry day when governments fail to take a portion of their budget and invest it in the economy of the future. Governments must continue to plan for the future. They must take a portion of their revenue and invest in transportation systems and in infrastructures to open up this still basically pioneering province. When governments fail to do that, the economies of those jurisdictions which those governments serve usually fail in a very few years.

[ Page 6646 ]

Our manufacturing base has grown steadily. I don't think that the people of British Columbia are aware of the very sophisticated manufacturing base we have in British Columbia, but the beautiful part of it is that thousands and thousands of new jobs have been created in the manufacturing sector in British Columbia in the last five years, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in new manufacturing facilities.

I've listened to the opposition from time to time talking about job creation, and talking about adding further value to our natural resources. But I readjust recently that the NDP, the socialists opposite, made a submission to the Site C hearing. What are they saying in that submission? They are against further power development in this province. I ask you: how can you have manufacturing facilities, add further value to your metals, add further value to any of your natural resources without power? But that doesn't amaze me, because they were against the Peace River power dam and the Columbia River power dam. They have been against development and yet they talk in their swan song about creating jobs. I would say that the NDP have not changed in this province in the last 30 years. They're still going around with their heads in the sand, trying to catch on any little thing that they think will be popular to get them a few votes — appealing basically to the ignorance of a lot of people.

It amazes me how they can be so devoid of an economic policy. They harp about jobs; they harp about further processing. Maybe they think that you can run industry in this province with an Eveready flashlight battery contract. I'll tell you, you can't run industry in this province with an Eveready flashlight battery contract, because you can't run an industry, you can't have a strong economy, and you can't have a growing economy without power. You can't have it both ways. Those opposed to the orderly development of our province and to the broadening of our economic base had better realize that without a growing economy and without a strong economy, or the ability to invest in the future, there will be no taxes, and it's taxes that just happen to pay for all of the services that the people of this great province enjoy. I refer to health services and human resources services, and I want to tell you that you'd be hard-pressed to find any jurisdiction in the world that enjoys a higher standard of social services than we do here in the province of British Columbia.

Those services are only available to the citizens of this province because there is a strong economic base, because there are people in the private sector out there making money that we can tax. If you look five or six years down the road, without new economic development or a strong economic base, without a profitable private sector.... I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all of those enjoying the services that they enjoy today, where they think the money is going to come from to pay for those services.

The NDP have no economic strategy. They are devoid of any sound economic policy, and no matter how hard you listen, Mr. Speaker, you will come to realize they have no economic policy. They're listless and floating. I hate to be critical, and I wasn't going to be, but when they criticize a throne speech which looks to the future and outlines policies for the future.... When they condemn that, I just have to be somewhat critical in opposing the amendment which they have before us.

I want to make a small comparison. I remember when we used to talk to the socialists opposite about what happened in 1975. In defending the fact that industry was going broke, people were leaving the province, and there were no plans for future investment, they used to blame it on the world economy. Compare that with the year 1981, when the world economy is in worse shape than it was in 1975 — much worse. But look at the difference. What's happening in British Columbia in 1981? New plants are being opened, new mines are being opened, new facilities are being built.

AN HON. MEMBER: New hotels are going up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know whether it's going up or not.

New high-technology industries are being established in the province of British Columbia. New jobs have been created in this province in 1981 even with the lumber industry showing a slight decline. Now I ask you, in all conscience, to sit back and compare that with the dull, black days of 1975, when the province was going down the road on skids to economic chaos and disaster. They tell us that we've done no planning. We've done our planning, all right. That's why the province of British Columbia in the year 1981, even with the world economy as it is, was buoyant, vibrant and still able to carry on with new plans for the future — because of the planning that we've done.

Our policies are not from election to election but from decade to decade, so that we shall provide opportunities for those young people who will be entering our workforce. We're not hinging it on some theory yet to be tested; we're hinging it on basic economic policies and sound planning. I want to tell you that despite the problems that we are having, British Columbia has one of the soundest economies that you will find anywhere in the free world. That's in spite of labour problems, in spite of poor world markets for our forest industry, in spite of the high interest rates which the member for Prince George, in espousing socialist policies this afternoon, wants to be higher. He isn't for lower interest rates; he wants to shut out the poor businessman and shut out the individual who wants to build housing. The policy of the NDP is for higher interest rates — make no mistake about it — espoused by the member for Prince Rupert this afternoon. He doesn't seem to realize that higher interest rates feed the fires of inflation.

That group of socialists over there, Mr. Speaker, are not only for higher interest rates, but they're for higher inflation. They proved it when they were government, because we had the highest rate of inflation that British Columbia had ever seen in the three years that they were government.

MR. LEA: Not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is true, my friend, but you don't want to listen to the facts.

In spite of strikes and shortages of skilled workers, and in spite of the economic policies of the Ottawa government, this province is still the envy of the world.

This year the province of British Columbia will end up with a real growth of around 3 percent. But, Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen very closely, because we are on the wave of an economic development that will last into the next two decades. People are looking to invest in British Columbia. People are looking to bring their high technology industries to British Columbia. Why? Because we created the climate. Our research parks, established around our universities and at the British Columbia Institute of Technology have created a place for them to go.

[ Page 6647 ]

Talk about creating a climate — we make it easy, Mr. Speaker, for people to come here and invest. That's what we're talking about: climate. But research parks didn't just happen. They were two or three years in the planning stages. We had to work with the universities. We recognized that high technology industries are the industries of the future. All we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is doing what comes naturally. We can offer the scientists a good place to live. We can offer them sailing. We can offer them mountain-climbing. Those are natural resources.

What did the province of British Columbia do? They created the climate, made the land available, worked with the universities, built the buildings so we can rent. In my books, Mr. Speaker, that's called planning.

It's been said from time to time that all this government is interested in are the mega-projects. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we're very interested in the small business community, but I want to tell you that the small businessman cannot function and cannot grow in a stagnant or declining economy.

Because of a growing economy and because of the faith that people have in the future, we have created a vacuum in which the small businessman can grow and expand....

AN HON. MEMBER: And go bankrupt.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, some of them will go bankrupt, but not as many of them as there were when you were government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twice as many.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, when there's fifty thousand times as many being formed every year, my friend, you might expect a smaller percentage. Yes, because they're coming here in droves, my friend. Yes, some of them will go broke. Some of the socialists who come here probably don't know how to run a business; they'll probably go broke.

But what I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted is that we have created a climate in which the small businessman can thrive and flourish and expand and in which new small businesses can be established. Just to give you some idea, the Federal Business Development Bank in British Columbia, because of the opportunities created here by the climate this government has created, has over 8,800 loans in the province of British Columbia. It has over $515 million outstanding. What does that mean in relation to the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker? It means that the Federal Business Development Bank has 25 percent of all its outstanding loans in the province of British Columbia, which has only 11 percent of the people. That is because there is an opportunity here in British Columbia in our growing economy for them to expand, because the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development is helping the small business community with its trade missions to seek out new opportunities in that great Pacific Rim — leading the small manufacturer by the hand, identifying markets, taking him there, assisting him in making contacts. That, Mr. Speaker, is planning. Yes, it's planning for the future. Every time you help a small businessman into the international marketplace and get him on his feet, so he knows how to compete in the international marketplace, he can go on, and he can hire more people — he can expand his business and employ more people. That's what it's all about. That's part of the planning.

MR. LEA: Then why is manufacturing down?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Manufacturing, my friend, is not down in British Columbia. But I'll tell you, the kind of stuff you manufacture over there is not down. As a matter of fact, you're spreading more and more of it around British Columbia, but the people aren't buying it. You keep right on manufacturing that hot air, my friend, because that's all you've ever manufactured. All you've ever helped to create is hot air.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I was somewhat disappointed, to say the least, with the federal budget. At a time when we should be giving incentives for the individual to invest in Canada, or in the province of British Columbia, we have taken away the incentives and put in disincentives. You talk about economic cooperation. "Oh, the federal government is going to sit down and discuss economic policy with us." I don't think that they really care about country Canada, or its future.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

At a time when they should be providing more incentives for people to build rental accommodation, more incentives for job creation and more incentives for investment, in one fell swoop of the pen they take it away, they do the entire opposite. Who have they hit the hardest? Not the multinational corporations. Not the giants. They have hit the individual small businessman the hardest of all. They are doing what the NDP did in British Columbia in 1972-75. They are driving business south of the border, when they should be creating a climate to bring people in. It's a disaster because this country lacks faith in the future; they lack the courage to invest and they lack faith in the stability of the policies of this government.

It seems to me — and I hate to be critical, but I'm speaking on behalf of the small business community in British Columbia which I represent — Ottawa becomes more insular, more isolated and more insulated every day of the year, to the detriment of the small business community. How can they be so aloof? How can they be so narrow? How can they be so illiberal in these trying times? All of this in a very difficult time for Canada!

All I can say is, thank heaven we live in British Columbia, where the government has for the last seven years had the ability to plan for the future, the ability to build a strong, stable economy. It's even able to withstand not only the rigours of the economic world but also the policies of Ottawa. I want to tell you, we shall continue to plan for the future, we shall continue to have policies which will provide stability to our economy, we shall continue to open up this great province of ours. Let it never be said that this government didn't plan for the youth so that they will have the same opportunities that we had.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment presented by my worthy colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I know the minister is confused in almost everything. He is even confused with respect to where members reside and whom they're representing. He

[ Page 6648 ]

kept on making accusations about the member for Prince George, and the poor, innocent member for Prince George has said nothing and done nothing. I don't know why the minister's ire should have been directed at him.

I think it really is very, very sad that that particular minister should stand in the House today and tell us that we are beset by international problems that are beyond our control — "however, we probably are the best of the starving," etc. That minister, when we were government — and there was a world recession on at that time — blamed us not only for everything happening in British Columbia but for everything happening from here to darkest Africa and middle Asia and, of course, Dawson Creek.

I kept hearing that word that the minister has suddenly discovered. Had he really meant what he was talking about, and had this government of six years been doing something about it, we would not be in the tribulation we now enjoy. He's been talking about planning for the last 40 minutes, and that's where we suffer, Mr. Speaker: a total, utter lack of planning. The minister's expense account indicates to all of us that he has taken a lot of trips. He's gone to Asia and all over the Pacific Rim, but the problem is that obviously that's where he's done his planning, and he's left his plans behind him. Those plans, if they were meaningful, would be meaningful today to the young people that he talks about. The young people in this province are without jobs. From the ages of 19 to virtually 30 — certainly 19 through 25 — is where you find your largest number of unemployed. When times are tough, they are hit hardest. For the last four years that age group has been suffering. Were we planning for that age group, which we should have been, I'm sure that there would have been far more of those people gainfully employed today and paying the taxes that the minister indicates we clearly all need in order to see to it that the services are paid for.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we have really seen no signs of real planning. We have sat on this side of the House. We have begged, cajoled, asked for what the public should have access to — and that's just the simple plans for the northeast coal. We get nothing. We get stonewalled on that, as we get stonewalled on everything that is asked by an opposition in the Legislature of British Columbia. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.

We know we're going broke, Mr. Speaker, but we don't know how badly. The minister is talking about all the markets that we're serving in the Orient. The way we serve those markets from British Columbia, and increasingly so, is to ship away jobs as quickly as we possibly can. If we really were serious about planning, we would at least take some of our major industries and see to it that we made them more job-intensive. Take a look at Ontario and how they treat their lumber business. They get something in the order of two and a half to three times as many jobs per cunit as we do here. Why? Because they insist upon job-intensive resource development — in other words, some secondary and tertiary manufacturing. We prefer to ship the logs. Last summer when there was an anticipated strike in the lumber industry and there was a shipment of wood due to leave for Japan around July 15 to July 30, all of a sudden there was a crescendo of work. There were trucks moving to and from that dock in New Westminster — carrying what? Timbers, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). If anybody knows what that means that member does, because he's been around British Columbia for a long time. They saw off four slabs and ship the "timbers" not for timbers at all. They ship them to Japan, they are placed on the docks, picked up in Japan and moved to sawmills, where they are cut into boards and then manufactured into products, homes, etc.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we continually get outsmarted by our customers because of a lack of planning here. We have demanded to know — getting back to the northeast coal — on behalf of the taxpayer, who has a perfect right to know, just how much British Columbia is subsidizing Japan.

Forget about what we're doing in terms of the mining companies, Denison and Teck. We ask what we are paying in subsidization. The minister gets up today and does a marvellous job of saying that a province has to provide transportation, access to resources, etc., in order to become rich. It is also his obligation, as the minister responsible, to tell the folks at home just what they're paying for that service they're providing for this resource development. We've heard nothing of substance since the announcement and we still go on asking.

We all want to create jobs, but we want some of those jobs to be here in this province. That's where we want those jobs. Mr. Speaker, we're not doing a very good job of that. I admonish the minister to really do a job of planning and then be open enough with the Legislature to which he is responsible to tell this Legislature precisely what he's planning. Maybe we can support many of the things that he's doing, but no opposition with any kind of decent direction can possibly support a program that isn't properly outlined and spelled out in detail. That's our problem. So let him do his planning and just show exactly what he's doing.

I had to smile. One of his suggestions was: "There are plans on the drawing boards." Now he's talking about plans for some other development. We're always interested in hearing about plans on the drawing boards and, incidentally, we're not particularly expectant of seeing what those plans on the drawing boards might be. But what our expectation should be and is is that the plans that are on the drawing board now, once completed, should be made public through this Legislature — not the way we're doing it at the present time. I just don't think that that minister has really got a handle on his ministry. If he had, he could have got up today and given us a report of where we are in the province. One of the things he said is that manufacturing is up in contrast to what the member for Prince Rupert said. The problem is that his own reports say they're down. So that's the kind of a handle, Mr. Speaker, that he has on his ministry.

I'd like to talk about an area that the minister was critical of, and that was the whole question of the Site C. Oh, the NDP opposed this and the NDP opposed that. A former colleague of that minister said in a public meeting.... I am referring to Ralph Loffmark: he was part of the government then part of Treasury Board. An admission at that level, Mr. Speaker, is quite an admission. He said it was a mistake that we made and that if we don't want to continue that mistake we had better renegotiate when the time comes. There has to be a ten-year notice of that renegotiation. He said that the NDP and the CCF in those days were wrong in our criticism.

It didn't take us long to know what we had done with the Columbia River power after the downstream benefits became available to the United States. One of the heaviest consumers of electrical power anywhere is aluminum smelting, and we saw aluminum smelter after aluminum smelter built where? Where did those jobs become available? Washington, Idaho and, I believe, even Montana. That's where the jobs became available. Oh boy! Our water and our power going down to

[ Page 6649 ]

the United States. The former minister says we got milked and continue to get milked. What does it provide? Low cost power and tons and tons of jobs for people in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, that is not planning. For that little minister to stand in his place in the House and continually blame the NDP for all the terrible things that have happened in this province in the last six years, when we were government for three years and four months and they have been government for some thirty-odd years.... Mr. Speaker, this province suffers from a lack of planning and a lack of direction. That's why we've got young people unemployed in this province. That's why we've got people in the ages 45 to 65 unemployed in this province. Those in jeopardy continue in jeopardy. Oh, sure, we're weathering the storm to a better extent than some jurisdictions, but, Mr. Speaker, it's not that government's fault. It's because of the fact that we are a rich province — rich in resources, rich in people and rich in transportation corridors.

Yes, we are rich, and that's why we weather the storm. But we're not rich in terms of direction; we're not rich in terms of planning. They have goofed it, continually goofed it. They're so terribly preoccupied with convention centres, and a B.C. Place with great developments up in the northeast that may or may not be a millstone around our neck. Mr. Speaker, what a colleague of mine, the member for Surrey, just said is true. They are now more preoccupied with their own survival than anything. They are bringing out the blue machines to do us in. The blue machine tried to do us in on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I say that this minister and his explanation of our direction and his condemnation of the opposition for our position vis-à-vis development of northeast coal or development of power.... We say: "Fair enough." Give us an opportunity to review the material and we'll tell you whether or not we think it's a good deal on behalf of the people of this province. We're not getting it.

I want to refer you for a moment to the quarterly financial report. What do I see in there? I see $982 million of borrowing in this last period, the six months ended September 30, 1981. Of that, guess how much Hydro borrowed? It was $750 million of the total $982 million, without a word of substance or an explanation from the minister across the floor of what's going on out there.

We want development of power if necessary and when needed. What happened today in our Times-Colonist? "In a study commissioned for public hearings which began Tuesday into Hydro's proposed $2.64 billion Peace River Site C development, consultants" — not us, not the NDP — "Columbia Pacific Resources Group suggest forecasts by both B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Energy ministry contain weaknesses which makes them unreliable."

He's telling me about planning. He's telling me about thoughtful government, and yet they continually get this kind of criticism. Is it any wonder that the opposition has to say: "What are you doing?" If we didn't, the people in this province would have the right to condemn us. We must get the answers. We're tired of being stonewalled. We're tired of being stonewalled when we see situations as outlined by my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — people who can't afford to rent, who can't afford to buy. The minister said that we're in favour of high interest rates. What a crock! A party such as ours, whose base is planning, that says that we should never have got off the original planning and control of interest rates.... When that was lifted years ago we started going down the tube; we started doing the Friedman thing of fuelling inflation. If there's anything close to Friedman in British Columbia, it's the Socred mentality.

I'd just like to give you one more little example of this planning. When the Social Credit government sold Panco Poultry to that international conglomerate known as Cargill, we warned them at the time that they would not only jeopardize the jobs, they would also jeopardize the agricultural industry. What has happened with their great planning process? We see that plant in the process of going to the wall. Cargill couldn't care; why should they? That same plant was closing down in 1974. We decided to help the agricultural industry, together with preserving jobs, and made a profitable enterprise out of it for the province. In 1975 my colleague from Surrey was condemned all over the place by every Socred who could wield a pen or open his mouth for having suggested.... Bring the Socreds back and down goes Panco. It took you longer than he expected, but who are the losers? We're all losers.

Lack of planning! I wonder if the minister would just maybe stay in his office long enough to sit down and be advised about where we should be going in terms of our economy. Our young people need jobs, our older people need jobs, and there is a huge group out there who are at the edge of being put out of their shelter.

Anybody who can get up and give the kind of speech that he gave today in defence of this government's planning.... Really, the first minister should think in terms of a cabinet shake-up, and he'd better be shaken out of his position, in my view, and put in a less sensitive cabinet post. There was a lot of loud noise from the minister, but as usual no substance whatsoever. I implore this House and this government to seriously consider some real planning around the development of our resources to produce a greater degree of job intensification.

I'll just give you an example of job intensification — and this is a multinational. Think about Scott Paper in New Westminster. In the first place, they use a weed in the woods — cottonwood, known as a weed. They bring that weed in and they take it through that entire process, not just producing pulp but producing paper products. Now the difference between that and just producing pulp, for instance, is the difference of thousands and thousands of jobs in terms of the industry. In New Westminster at Scott Paper alone I guess they must employ about 600 people, because they produce the end product. We've got to see more of that in this province. When you own the resource you had better do something a little bit better with it than what we are doing. It takes planning and cooperation, and we haven't seen enough of those.

There's one other thing, Mr. Speaker. When the forest industry is in such trouble now, I can tell you where we can produce some jobs: through a cooperative effort today between this government and the forest industry in getting out there and doing some weeding, fertilizing, thinning and planting. Even when they get back to work, our forests are in jeopardy. We had better learn from the Middle East and from China what happens to your forest if you don't husband it properly. What an opportunity to create some jobs in that industry right now. Nobody, but nobody, is more responsible than the industry and the government. The initiative has to come from the government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 6650 ]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister of small business and economic development, or economic development of small business or whatever his title might be — he's so hard to recognize — is in his office now calling a meeting of some people who can give him some advice on planning for the future of B.C. So far, we've heard nothing of substance. On behalf of the people of this province, we hope that something can be produced by that minister and his supporters.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I welcome you personally, sir, back to the assembly. My sincere best wishes for continued good health. Also my best wishes to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election as Deputy Speaker.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against the amendment. We have a motion of non-confidence, and a motion of non-confidence, strangely enough, based on the economy. Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in our economy. The people of British Columbia have confidence in our economy. That's why we're government. We win elections because we've done a good job of maintaining that confidence in the economy. Where the people don't have confidence in the economy and where you won't have a successful economy is when you have a socialist government. As a matter of fact, maybe the hon. members opposite might name a socialist country that is economically successful. Just name one, if you can.

MR. NICOLSON: How about West Germany, for starters.

MR. STRACHAN: Are you for their policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do you know what it is?

MR. STRACHAN: Would you wipe out craft unions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair, Mr. Member, and perhaps hon. members would not interrupt you.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure if the NDP took over the Sahara Desert, Mr. Speaker, there'd be a shortage of sand within a short time.

MR. HALL: That's what Sterling Lyon said.

MS. BROWN: He's not saying much these days.

MR. STRACHAN: We'll get to Sterling in a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed to the debate, please.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to sincerely thank the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) for his kind words. He said: "We have seen no signs of planning." He also admitted he didn't know too much about northeast coal, which I find rather strange because members of his caucus know about northeast coal. The plans are extremely well known. I'm sure if you had any serious questions about the development of northeast coal, in fact you could find them out. They've been in the paper and they are well known to a certain committee of our government.

We have planning. We have highways planning. I suggest, hon. members, that you spend some time reading the throne speech. We have highways planning. We have job creation planning. We have northeast coal. We have gas and oil exploration and coal liquefaction planning. We have economic planning in the case of the CP Air development in Delta by the B.C. Development Corporation. Just thumb through the budget, hon. members, and I'm sure you'll see lots of signs of economic planning: solar, wind, biomass, coal liquefaction, the Geothermal Resources Act, offshore resources — many mentions of how our government has planned investor initiatives.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: It's in the book, hon. members. Public transport, ALRT, commuter rail, highway improvement, the safety program, health-care improvements — all planning initiatives. Community care, education financing again, good social initiatives by our government.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) went on at great length about lack of planning. He said we need an overall plan. It reminds me of a very interesting statement made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), and I wonder if the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has heard this one: talking about planning, the former Economic Development minister, the first member for Vancouver Centre, said that the NDP's long-term goal was a planned economy, which is inconsistent with free collective bargaining.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm not.

Vancouver, June 12, 1976 — free collective bargaining is the planning initiative by the New Democratic Party, as articulated by the first member for Vancouver Centre. That is very interesting planning.

The member for Prince Rupert gave us a nice speech on economics. If I can use a simile, Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that having a socialist speak about economics is like inviting Roman Polanski to be a block parent. You know there's something to be suspicious about. You guys can look that up later.

And then the member for Prince Rupert went on at great length about protecting the consumer — maybe. The member for Prince Rupert dealt at great length with the rights of the consumer, and how important consumers are. Then he dealt with our megaprojects, and said we're leaping all over and doing megaprojects. Aren't the men and women who are working at B.C. Place consumers? Don't they deserve a good break? How about the men and women working on northeast coal? They're consumers. And what about all the people who had to leave British Columbia when you were government? Weren't they consumers?

The member for Prince Rupert went on at great length, reading out of a book about monetary theory and how it causes a deficit. I thought that was very interesting, because he's the first New Democratic member in British Columbia who's agreed that we should have a balanced budget. It's nice to hear him agreeing with Social Credit philosophy.

Then, with respect to the federal government cost-sharing, you ask us about sharing costs and yet you have articulated programs which would give everything away. There'd be no share of anything if we followed the NDP policy. Under your policy it would all belong to Ottawa.

[ Page 6651 ]

Research in small business development. I'd like to stray for just a minute from the main throne speech and tell you about a small business in Prince George, an outfit called Northern Airborne Technology, and how they've been assisted by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. Northern Airborne Technology was begun about five years ago by two avionics experts who had worked for another helicopter firm and decided that they could corner the market — or at least have a good comer of the market – for helicopter avionics, which are sophisticated, have to be lightweight and are unique to helicopters. These fellows have started out and in the last five years have developed a very good shop. They are now doing business right across Canada. On a grant last year, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) sent a sales crew from Northern Airborne Technology to Singapore, and now this firm has begun a very, very good business in the Southeast Asia market.

That's the sort of thing our province stands for, Mr. Speaker. We do have good small business development. We are in fact assisting the research and technical industries, and that's the type of thing that I'm very proud of as I look at the atmosphere that our B.C. businessmen are in right now. It's extremely good.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talked about failures. He said: "Only someone who has failed can explain failure." Just for that, I would like to remind you of another statement by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), who used to be your Premier, talking about failure. His particular failure was the mining tax policy that was blamed for the flight of the mining industry from B.C. Here is the first member for Vancouver East talking about failure. He said: "That was a disaster. There can only be one Titanic, and that was it."

We know all about failure. The first member for Vancouver East said that. The interesting consistency in the first two speeches this morning was that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) decried the downturn in the lumber sector, while the member for Prince Rupert is upset because we are trying to diversify our economy. There certainly seems to be a rather inconsistent train of thought there. Perhaps the members should get together. As we enter this fourth session of the thirty-second parliament, the government members note that the opposition debate once again is full of sound and fury and thunder, but is once again characterized by very little in content and very little in the way of opposition policy. Of course, by never stating policy, the members across the way are safe in the knowledge that like a shadow boxer, they can never be hurt. But also like a shadow boxer, you're never really in the ring, either.

His Honour articulated government policy in the throne speech Monday last. The throne speech clearly puts the government up front, puts the government in the ring and demonstrates to the people of B.C. that we can carry the fight for them and that we do have policy and planning that is in their best interest. As we read through the throne speech, we can understand the reasons why the loyal opposition hide from any current policy statements. For example, the first two items in the throne speech, of which all British Columbians can be justifiably proud, are the energy agreement and the constitutional accord. I'm sure both NDP positions on this, when articulated, which I will do, must cause the members opposite sincere embarrassment.

Firstly, the energy agreement, which was reached through long and hard federal and provincial negotiation. British Columbia achieved a good agreement with the federal government. As a matter of fact, with the inclusion of the incentive agreements, it’s a better deal than the province of Alberta got and a far better deal than the NDP government would have secured for British Columbia.

On the issue of the energy agreement, Mr. Speaker, the NDP had policy — a "Give B.C. Away" policy. Give it away, lock, stock and barrel and barrel and barrel. Sell out to nationalism so that PetroCan can drive Canada further into dependency on foreign oil — like Mexican oil, which PetroCan buys but can't even refine due to the high sulphur content.

MS. BROWN: What's he talking about?

MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll tell you. The NDP had policies on the constitution. They were to make B.C. a second-class citizen in our own country, to betray our heritage, to betray our role as a full and equal partner in Confederation and to betray us all and turn our province into a colony of central Canada. That was the NDP position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell you who wrote that. It's written by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). He said: "I see nothing wrong with Mr. Broadbent's support. I think his guarantees achieved are excellent for the west, and I think it augurs well for building Canada." That's giving everything to Mr. Broadbent and the NDP, and selling B.C. out as a colony of central Canada. That was from a press conference by the first member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, on October 22, 1990. Sell out, sell out — turn us into a colony of central Canada.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour addressed the housing crisis that will arise out of the latest federal budget, and I would like to speak to that concern. The federal budget was extremely political, and will cut B.C. off at the knees. The federal budget is a disaster for our lumber and construction industries and is ruinous for those who have to rent.

I would like to run through some projected costs for new partment buildings in 1982 and preface this by saying this is based on Prince George land prices and on about a 16 percent mortgage, so it's based on land prices lower than the rest of the province and on a pretty nice interest rate for this period.

MR. LEA: Socialist landbanking, eh?

MR. STRACHAN: No, it was done by a very good city council. Why didn't yours? You should have talked to them.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, a small apartment block, wooden frame, 900 square feet per unit, with the Multiple Unit Residential Building program in place, could be put on he market for $475 a month. Without those MURBs in place, for investor confidence and for an investor even to get into it, that unit will have to rent for $675 a month. What I'm saying is that Depression MacEachen has just taken $200 a month out of the pay pocket of someone who is going to be renting an apartment. The projected increases on a highrise concrete are even more devastating. With Multiple Unit Residential Building assistance, a developer could put together a concrete-constructed highrise with a few amenities

[ Page 6652 ]

such as a games room and a sauna, and a 900-square-foot suite would rent for $750 a month. Without the MURBs, that same unit will rent for $1,500 a month — a doubling of rent. I'm delighted that our government has introduced housing initiatives that will assist renters and assist the construction forces.

The federal budget was written to assist a very privileged few, and you can think this one through. If you're a middle-aged bachelor making over $60,000 a year and living in a paid-for home, say, in the Maritimes, it's a fine budget. If you don't meet those conditions, you're sunk. But where is the opposition policy, Mr. Speaker? All we've heard so far from the opposition is that the throne speech is for those who are millionaires or for those who are rich. That's an interesting twist of the English language that I couldn't quite figure out. "The speech is only for those who are millionaires or those who are rich." I don't know of too many millionaires who aren't rich, but I guess that under socialism there are different categories of being rich.

There was policy this afternoon, which we haven't analyzed. Then, of course, there was the 2 cents on a bottle of whisky that would raise a billion dollars' worth of money for mortgage assistance. Well, we thought that one through, worked it out, and a $10 bottle of whisky with those few pennies on it to raise the billion dollars would in fact end up costing you $21 for a crock.

Hon. members and Mr. Speaker, the only one who is going to get a mortgage out of that is going to be a Washington state or Alberta bootlegger. They'll be the only people buying homes with that type of policy.

Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the Pacific National Exhibition report and financial statement dated March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.