[ Page 6669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Brown: social assistance changes –– 6669

Oral Questions

Assisted rental program. Mr. Barber –– 6670

Special employment programs in forest industry. Mr. King –– 6670

GAIN cheques. Ms. Brown –– 6671

Projected provincial deficit. Mr. Howard –– 6671

Travel restrictions on public servants. Mr. Lea –– 6672

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Finance annual report, December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6672

Ministry of Labour annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6672

Human rights branch annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6672

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment.

Mr. Brummet –– 6672

Mr. Hall –– 6674

Mr. Davis –– 6676

Mrs. Dailly –– 6679

Mr. Ritchie –– 6682

Mr. Mitchell –– 6684

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6687

Mr. Hanson –– 6689

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6691

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6692

School Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6692

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have one of British Columbia's best-known journalists, who has recently retired from the news editor position of radio station CKWX. He's an active commentator and he is here in the capital today with his lovely wife, Leila. I'd like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Roy Jacques.

MS. SANFORD: Members of the IWA from various locals on Vancouver Island are outside today demonstrating on the lawns. Some of their representatives are seated in the gallery this afternoon, and I would like to introduce them to the Legislature.

First of all, there is Roger Lewis, who is the president of Victoria Local 1–118. Then there is Roger Stanyer, who is president of Duncan Local 1-80, and Henry Nedergard, who is the third vice-president from Port Alberni Local 1-85. In addition, there are a number of workers here from Western Forest Industries — the mill that's been shut down at Honeymoon Bay. Also seated in the gallery is the person who addressed that group out on the lawns today, Jack Munro, president of regional council number one of the IWA.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to welcome the delegation. While I was away from the buildings during the speeches, when I returned and found they were here, I was able to very quickly arrange a meeting with Mr. Munro and representatives of the demonstration. Certainly we share the concerns expressed and the problems that are being created for many British Columbians both in and out of the forest industry, and I think we've agreed to try to work together on this resolve. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank them for coming here today and welcome them to the buildings.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like the House to welcome Alderman-elect Len Nelson of Port Alberni. He is secretary of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council and a member of the Canadian Paperworkers Union. He is here today with the delegation.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to recognize the president of the Douglas College Student Society, Mr. Kevin Hallgate, who is here on behalf of his students' council today, concerned about education.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Minister of Education for introducing Mr. Hallgate. Mr. Hallgate asked me to present the Minister of Education with a tuition fund that was collected among the students at Douglas College and a chain that the minister can use to lock the front doors after the recent cutbacks.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a little unusual.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like the House to recognize the presence of four residents of Richmond who are visiting the Assembly today. They are Mr. Barry Wright and Mr. Ted Brandon of the Richmond Optimist Club, along with two students, Mr. James Enns from Richmond High School and Kevin Boyce from McNair Secondary in Richmond. These two young men have been selected by the Optimist Club to receive the Youth Achievement Award for the year. I'd like the House to offer their congratulations.

HON MR. SMITH: I want to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is always sartorially correct. I had not expected to receive his watch chain today.

HON MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a lighter vein, the members of the House have on their desks today some beautiful B.C. apples. They are the compliments of the Naramata Co-op Growers. I guess they are wishing you good health during the session.

I might say that the Naramata Co-op is owned by the growers in the Penticton area. I recently attended an opening of an expansion of that co-op. I just want to take a moment to compliment a man who has been with that co-op for some 30 years, Mr. Jake Danderfer, the manager. Through his enthusiasm and ability he has made that co-op one of the most successful fruit-packing houses in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The apples, of course, will be consumed in the corridor.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it's a delight for me to see so many members of the IWA here today. I do not know where they're from, but if there are any from my constituency, welcome. Good friends and honourable citizens every one, I'm delighted that they're here.

However, I rose in my place to introduce two good friends — the others are good friends too — Miss Viola Katinen of Vancouver and Mrs. Myrtha Beamer of San Francisco. Mrs. Beamer is a former Canadian who married an American. We lost one more, but we're bringing some others back. I would be pleased if the House would bid them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's hardly likely that any of our friends from the forest industry would come from my constituency. However, if they do I'd welcome them. I'd also welcome some comments from some of our friends in respect to the speech that I made in this House last Tuesday concerning the labour situation in our province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may I interrupt the proceedings. We are in the segment of our orders — this is actually before we enter upon orders of the day — in which we traditionally welcome guests to the chamber. There have been occasions when we have had some departing from that strict observance, but I think that by the time we start debating matters and welcoming people and speaking directly to people who are actually not here.... Any further introductions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've had other politicians in this country who spoke to people who weren't here.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to introduce a brand-new and first-time alderman-elect — my executive assistant, Carol Gran of Langley.

Presenting Petitions

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

[ Page 6670 ]

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: It reads as follows:

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned, Leni Hoover, Alan Hoover, Jane Nordstrom and 814 concerned citizens of lower Vancouver Island humbly showeth that the action of the Minister of Human Resources in reclassifying single parents of small children denies these parents the freedom of choice to raise their own children at home. Wherefore, your petitioner humbly prays that your hon. House may be pleased to support these three petitioners and the 814 other concerned citizens of lower Vancouver Island in their request to rescind this policy on the part of the Minister of Human Resources."

Oral Questions

ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The British Columbia Housing Management Commission currently provides some 856 units of affordable housing through a program called ARP, the assisted rental program. I am advised that the B.C. Housing Management Commission has been instructed by the government that this program is to be phased out, that the five-year leases upon which it is based are also to be phased out, and that in fact several of these leases have now been phased out altogether. The practical consequences, Mr. Speaker, include poor persons and seniors who are resident in this accommodation being now required to pay a commercial rent that they cannot afford. This means that they will be evicted, because they can't pay it.

Can the minister in the first place confirm that this is the new policy — to phase out the five-year lease agreements by which BCHMC manages and makes available for persons in its clientele roughly 850 units of affordable housing in this province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice. I haven't given any instructions to BCHMC, relative to ARP.

MR. BARBER: Well, you may not have given them, but they certainly received them.

Can the minister confirm that BCHMC itself currently has a zero vacancy rate and could not possibly take up the slack if these 850 units are made unavailable and the persons within them have to look for alternate accommodation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be inclined to think that that's correct.

MR. BARBER: Might you also take on notice and bring back to the House some advice as to what plans you are prepared to make in order to accommodate the people who will be effectively evicted when the subsidized rent is no longer available, when the commercial rates cannot be afforded and when BCHMC cannot take them in either.

MR. SPEAKER: That's inquiring into future action. The minister wishes to respond.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. The member is making a suggestion which could quite conceivably be erroneous, so I'll take the question as notice. I'm not aware of the issue that he has raised. I haven't issued any such instructions. I want the member to be clear in that respect.

SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Forests. On October 29 I wrote the minister a letter requesting that he initiate some special employment programs in the silviculture area of our forest industry — thinning and that type of thing. At this particular point the unemployment situation in the forest industry is worse. We have 12,000 workers unemployed in the forest industry — 12,000 members of the IWA at least, possibly more in the unorganized sector — and that represents about 22 percent of the workforce. Can the minister tell me why he has not provided me with the courtesy of an answer to that letter of a month ago, and can he advise me whether or not he has taken action to set up some special employment programs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, at which time my ministry and I were already engaged in attempting to determine whether or not there were forest management projects which could be either accelerated or initiated over and above those many thousands of man-days of jobs which have already been created this year by the much-expanded forest management work that we have undertaken. That review work is still in progress. As a matter of fact, there are still a considerable number of jobs being maintained in forest management which would not have been in place had we not taken this initiative several years ago.

We have certain funds with which we have to work in the ministry. These funds are being applied in a manner proposed in the budget last year. I'm afraid that forest management work is not something that you can instantly turn on and off. By simply throwing money at a problem in an attempt to accelerate certain things, you could actually do more harm to that forest, which is needed in the long run by these employees, than if you had not done anything.

However, we are still trying to find out if there are ways we can increase that work now. I don't have the answer yet, but when I do I will certainly be happy to share it with that member and answer his letter at that time.

MR. KING: The minister has known for some time that we have a sluggish economy and a declining forest industry. I wonder why he has to wait until there are over 12,000 workers unemployed before he anticipates any action.

I have a further supplementary. I want to point out that on April 22, 1975, page 1579 in Hansard, the minister's colleague the now Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) asked this question:

There are 12,000 IWA members out of work at the present time; there will probably be more due to the pulp market happenings. There are millions of acres of public land which are not reforested because they are taken over by non-productive weeds. There are miles of fishery streams that can be cleared of obstruction. What specific programs will the minister initiate to put these out-of-work citizens back to work for the benefit of the public land?

[ Page 6671 ]

I ask the minister: if that policy made sense in 1975 and his colleague was convinced it made sense then, why doesn't it make sense now?

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we proceed, I would remind all present of the standing orders and of the traditions, practices and procedures of this House. Guests in the public galleries are always welcome. Interruptions or noise of any description from the public galleries have always been met with, first, a quiet reminder that it is unorthodox. Secondly, the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff are alerted that if it persists the public galleries must be cleared. I wouldn't wish that to take place here today. So I recommend to all present that they abide by the standings orders of our House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to the question by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, that member has been seated in this Legislature since that date in 1975 which he mentioned, and having been present here, I'm sure he is very much aware of the very aggressive forest management programs that have been initiated by this government.

The question made sense at the time. We are doing just what was suggested. We are expending a great deal of tax dollars and effort, and we are doing an awful lot more in our forests now than we were during the term when that member was on the government side of the Legislature. We have a very aggressive program spelled out in the five-year management program, which that member has copies of. However when debate comes up on my estimates during the Legislature each year, he chooses not to talk about real forestry things but rather to make political comment about things not really related to forestry and forest practices and that very important resource.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, in further response that we indeed have a very difficult time in our forest industry in British Columbia, and I know that most people in the industry — including our IWA friends — throughout the province recognize what the root of the problem is. We know that the root of the problem is a lack of housing starts in our major market area of the United States. And we know what is causing that. The cause of that is interest rates which cannot be afforded by the people there who want to buy homes.

Mr. Speaker, the revenues of the government are suffering drastically as a result of the reduction in sales for our forest products. The revenues of the industry have become non-existent and in most cases are actual negative revenues. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that pain is also being shared by those who are employed in the industry. I have no slick, easy, pat answer. One thing I guarantee you I will not do is use that as an excuse to nationalize the forest industry, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in further response to this member's question, I'm sure he is aware of the tremendous lobby taking place in the United States. I understand he appeared on NBC television last week. The threats that are underway there now to put embargoes against the importation from Canada of forest products is a very, very serious matter. And if such measures are taken, as have been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, all of the other IWA members in this province will not have any market for their goods, and there will indeed be some serious times.

GAIN CHEQUES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. On November 13, the Minister of Human Resources assured those people in receipt of GAIN for the handicapped that their cheques would be dated December 22 and would be mailed the same day to assure that they would arrive before Christmas. In conversation with the Post Office today I was informed that the very latest date that they would guarantee delivery before Christmas is December 17. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the disabled people receive their cheques prior to Christmas Day?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby-Edmonds for the question. I'd like to tell you that the cheque which she is discussing is the January cheque for GAIN for the handicapped, which will be sent out early in order that it should arrive in time for Christmas. I'll certainly be pleased to take her suggestion regarding the mailing dates and discuss it with my ministry. If there is some question as to the delivery date, our ministry will address itself to that problem.

PROJECTED PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In a statement on November 9 the minister forecast a deficit for the province for this fiscal year of some S36 million. At about the same time — a few days before that — the minister affixed his signature to a document filed at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission saying that the projected deficit was $176 million for this fiscal year. Can the minister advise the House why he tells the United States Securities and Exchange Commission one thing and the people of the province of British Columbia something entirely different, and which of those two figures is the true one?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the bulk of the question as notice; but neither figure is at variance. The reference to the Securities and Exchange Commission prospectus — I assume he indicates a prospectus — would be as of a particular date. I would like to take the whole question as notice, because that member frequently has great difficulty understanding precisely what is going on in the Ministry of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: Supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a new question, hon. member. We can't accept a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. HOWARD: It's a new question. Is the minister going to give us the same irresponsible answer to this as he did to his attempt to borrow $100 million in Europe, when he told bald-faced lies to people in this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the reference to lies.

[ Page 6672 ]

MR. HOWARD: I have no hesitation whatever, Mr. Speaker. But we know what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter is closed.

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS
ON PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. On August 4, following the release of the first quarterly report, the minister is quoted as saying that he would impose travel restrictions as a psychological measure to make everyone in government aware that times are tough. Well, it's had some effect in my riding — I don't know whether psychologically — and in other ridings, I suppose. It means the health inspector cannot get from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlottes. It means that the biologist from the wildlife branch can't go out and check to see if there's any damage to fish streams.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the question, please.

MR. LEA: Yes. I'd like to ask the minister, if those kinds of services to citizens are curtailed, why the trip to the Kootenays — $100,000 for the cabinet, a political trip — wasn't curtailed. Why was the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) allowed to go all the way over to Europe during B.C.'s Agricultural Week? I'd like to know why it is that services to people are cut, but political junkets are not.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have some concern about statements contained in the question which suggest that travel within the province of British Columbia by public servants carrying out their duties on behalf of the people of B.C. have been curtailed. There was no such directive verbally or in writing with respect to....

MR. LEA: What about psychologically?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly to the question, Mr. Speaker.

There was no such directive from my ministry or from anyone in the Ministry of Finance with respect to travel by people employed in the public service of British Columbia, carrying out their duties within the province of British Columbia. I reject the inference categorically.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite, urgent public importance. The matter is dealing with discrimination against women. The federal government today is still unable to ratify the 30-article United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women unless it has the approval of all the provinces.

Today, British Columbia still remains one of only two provinces which have failed to give their approval. It is sad and shocking that as a result of the failure of the provincial government to support the federal government and the other provinces on this very important issue, Canada may not be able to be a member of the United Nations committee, setting standards and monitoring discrimination against women throughout the world. The provincial government earlier this week reneged on its commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, which will ensure and guarantee the continued discrimination against women in British Columbia. A debate is urgently required by this assembly since the deadline is fast approaching for a final decision on this matter and we want to ensure that this government's actions do not further penalize the women of Canada.

I am raising it at this time because I have just been in contact with the social policy and international relations person for the Status of Women, as well as with the Secretary of State's department in Ottawa, and they both assure me that they are still awaiting the final word from this provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will review the stated matter to see whether a matter of urgency exists according to the rules, and we will report to the House without prejudice to the member.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Ministry of Finance for the calendar year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Labour and the 1980 annual report for the human rights branch.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Peace River.

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have silence in the chamber until the offending members are escorted to the door.

MR. BRUMMET: This morning, at the end of the sitting, I had made the point that I was speaking against the amendment because, in kind words, in my opinion it is balderdash. The amendment was suggesting that this government's policies are not promoting economic development and job opportunities. I think on both counts that is very, very wrong. I'm not going to repeat what I said. I was just trying to summarize and bring it up to the point where I left off.

This government is stimulating the economy and is creating job opportunities. Many projects in this province which are the whipping-boys of the opposition are either initiated by, encouraged by, or assisted by this government. Those projects create jobs and revenue, and even in difficult times, the policies of this government have made this province one of the places that stand out in the way of job opportunities and other opportunities.

Despite the bad-mouthing that we get in public and in various ways from the members of the opposition who try to paint the picture of doom and gloom in this province, people have kept coming to this province because the opportunities are here for them. Investors have continued to invest in this province, not out of any charity but simply because they

[ Page 6673 ]

believe that the investment climate here is good, the future is good and this will be good for all concerned.

Despite some of the bad publicity that has been attempted, tourists keep coming to this province because it's a good place to visit and they get good service here. And industry in various forms keeps coming to this province because industry builds for the long term; they build for the future, and the long-term future is greatest in British Columbia.

Many jobs are being created in this province, as I've mentioned, through the various projects. It's interesting to note that while the opposition is castigating this government for not providing economic development and job opportunities, we have to look at what they are against. They seem to be against all forms of energy projects in this province. At least from what I have read and heard, the opposition is definitely against any further hydroelectricity developments in this province.

They seem to be against the Hat Creek coal project. I find it's a slight turnaround there, because during the 1979 election campaign power dams were out, but Hat Creek coal was the way to go. And then I find, after having been here for a couple of years, that they have discovered acid rain is a problem and so now they're against Hat Creek coal as well. They seem to be against nuclear power. Just this morning....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BRUMMET: Well, a few of them may be in favour of it, but they wouldn't dare say so. This morning, one member was questioning our right to even allow anybody to talk about the possibility of nuclear power. And we have the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who is against any further natural-gas development because we might run out. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we do not encourage the market for natural gas, if we do not have markets, then we will not have gas or oil discoveries. That has been proven over and over again. So we must encourage those through the liquefied natural gas plants, through the methanol plants and various other petrochemical uses of natural gas — even the widespread use, I would hope in the near future, of methane as a motor-vehicle fuel, because that would encourage the use of natural gas. We seem to have an opposition that is against all energy projects. Yet anywhere in the world people will tell you that available energy is the key to economic development.

We have suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition to buy the sawmills, and, of course, the problem comes up: where do you sell the lumber? The major objective is to keep that forest industry strong and to keep it going. If in the short term we buy up the sawmills, nationalize them and pile up the lumber, I would ask any members who know anything about the forest industry: when you're not selling any lumber, how long can you stockpile it? When it is stockpiled, a year down the road, six months down the road, then you have a real crash where you have no possible sales. The other thing is that you have money that has been taken from the taxpayers' pockets, money that could go to create further projects, further investments and further services to people — that money would have to pay for lumber that is sitting there stockpiled. So you have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition is advocating for short-term political expediency that the government spend money. The government does not spend any of its own money: it spends public money, and the public, in the long run, contributes.

If there is any fault in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, it is that it has not resorted to empty promises and has not resorted to creating false expectations for the sake of political expediency. I mentioned this morning that a lot of things are not in the throne speech because if all the good projects that have been created in this province by this government were listed in the throne speech, and all those items that are planned for the future, it would take far too long to read in one day.

I'd also like to comment briefly on the throne speech as it points to education and training, which in turn creates more opportunities for employment. I think it's generally understood that it is the unskilled people who have the least opportunity for employment. So in the last few years we have had a tremendous expansion of community colleges. In our own region one new campus has been built in Fort Nelson, another one has been started in Fort St. John, renovation has been started in Dawson Creek, and these campuses are being utilized and are much appreciated in the area. For the future, of course, in the southeast district, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge are being considered for expansion of college services. These community colleges are good in the sense that they not only provide an academic education; they also provide vocational training and skills training and job training. The apprenticeship programs have been expanded.

One of the concerns I have there is that enrolment is limited in many courses — artificially limited — because of a theory that you must not produce too many skilled people in a particular trade. I think that has to be changed. I don't think we can produce too many skilled people in this province, because when the crunch comes, over and over again development is hindered not by a lack of willingness, not by a lack of investors, but by a lack of properly trained, skilled people. We should train people in advance. There is nothing wrong with a person getting a training in one field and being trained and working in another field. That does not mean that that person's educational training has been wasted, because when the opportunity comes along for mechanics, if we have plenty of mechanics or welders they are there. If we wait until the need for welders has actually been established, and we limit the enrolment in welding courses so that we create only up to that need, then when any expansion develops we cannot possibly train these people in time to be available. So then we have to import.

I think a fair amount has been said about increased opportunities for women in the workforce, colleges and training courses. I don't know of any courses that are restricted — in other words, the courses are open to all persons. Vocational training has been increased and improved vocational counselling is also going into the schools.

One of the things that I am quite concerned about in this province is the almost abrogation of the democratic procedure. We have a great deal of talk and support for the democratic process. Yet we have over and over again encouraged in many ways groups who are trying to get us to run this province from a pressure point of view — by anarchy, if you like. We have groups that seem to have the implicit support of the members of the opposition. When they feel that that support is implied, then we are going to have those types of problems. We have the opposition making statements that increased funding and services are readily available, but they don't mention where the money is going to come from. So these groups are encouraged, with these false expectations,

[ Page 6674 ]

to believe that it's simply a matter of political pressure and chanting in unison in order to bring it about. I would hate to see that day come, because if it does, we are returning to who has the biggest club, and we have moved a long way from that in our democratic system. I think we've got to go back to democracy.

I would like to suggest this as an example. Last weekend we had the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, who organized a parade, or protest march, at the Social Credit convention. That, I would say, is a democratic right. But when the people were almost encouraged, by what many people have said, to resort to violent and unacceptable tactics, then we're approaching anarchy. I think it's a sad thing when people want to resort to that. When I'm making these implications, I'm referring to, for instance, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who on a television show when the students locked the doors of Douglas College, and we had a chain introduced here, trying to put levity into the situation.... To me, it's a very serious matter. That member went on public television and spoke to the students, and did not say: "Take it to your member. Take it through the democratic process." He advocated that maybe the answer was to come and lock the doors of this Legislature. Yet that same member will stand up in this House and talk about the rights and the freedoms and everything that we must preserve. Surely our parliamentary system must be preserved, and surely the answer is not to encourage students to come and lock the doors of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer, around May, a couple of members of the opposition actually advocated civil disobedience in order to accomplish what people wanted. Then we had the Downtown Eastside Residents Association pulling a hoodlum stunt like printing some pornographic bills to distribute in order to try to accomplish something, and putting their name on it. That sickens me. People have seen that. And we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) standing up at a convention and saying "We will have violence in this province if people don't get their way." And then you wonder why some of these groups are encouraged to resort to violence to try to accomplish their aims. When you encourage hoodlumism, and use hoodlum tactics, you're going to invite hoodlums to take part in these demonstrations.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member to please relate his remarks to the amendment.

MR. BRUMMET: I guess I was getting carried away because the amendment more or less implies that there is a viable alternative to responsible government in this province. Judging from the actions that I've been describing, that is certainly not a viable alternative.

Let me conclude with this item. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made a statement in public.... We have a new image. We have pin-striped suits, worn not only by the leader but by others as well. We have this image of "we are different; now we are responsible, reliable; we've learned our lesson," and so on. Then at the convention we have the Leader of the Opposition saying: "No, no. That's only what I'm trying to tell them to get votes out there. Please remember that philosophically and and politically I am still the same person." Then at another convention he said: "We are headed for the bitterest, dirtiest, most vicious election campaign ever." I would think that we have had some of the signals of how this is going to be accomplished.

This group in opposition is saying that we are not dealing with economic development in this province, yet they are blocking every possible route to economic development. If they had their way they'd shut down the energy project. They don't want us to develop and sell our resources. If you do not have a market you certainly cannot produce. Yet that is their view. They are blocking everything that is being done to create economic development and jobs in this province, yet they hold themselves up as the great white knights, supporting the working people in this province. If you take away the development of our natural resources and if you take away the investment that must come in — because government itself has only the taxpayers' money to spend, so you've got to attract other money — then you do not create jobs and you do not serve the workers.

I'm going to suggest that the policies of this government do create services to people in various ways, and that we must not yield to the short-term political expediency of accepting the policies that are pushed at us by the official opposition.

MR. HALL: Following on the last contribution, I'm reminded of a childhood poem that goes something like: "Frightened of shadows and things that go bump in the night." It seems to me that the previous speaker is more frightened of his own shadow and of things that go bump in the night. He's spent more time in this research department searching out things that we may have said — he certainly was brave in choosing moments when neither of the two members he attacked were in the chamber — to castigate the opposition. He says that we've stopped economic progress.

He says that we've done this and we've done that. I've been here for three years since my re-election. I don't remember us winning a vote. I'm sorry we haven't, but I don't think we've won a vote. I don't think we've stopped that huge majority over there from doing anything they wanted. So I don't know how we can be blamed for anything that's gone wrong. I don't know what's worrying him, except his own fears, and those are the worst things of all. That's what's really got him going: things that go bump in the night up in North Peace River. When the member first came here in 1979, I told him that the most common practice in North Peace River and the things that go bump in the night most often are members themselves because they get replaced. So I guess he must have been counting the membership rolls in North Peace River again.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here debating this throne speech? I see you're wondering. We're debating an amendment to the throne speech debate. It is in my view a vacuous, long, well-written instrument. It was written by strangers — written by Ontarians, I presume. Cecil B. DeHeal. Abbott and Kinsella. I think it was written for the perusal of British Columbians, and it was written, I think, for the benefit of anybody who lives outside British Columbia, particularly if you happen to live in Japan.

It certainly has got nothing to do with meeting today's problems. Now I'll tell you why I'm a little bit cynical, Mr. Speaker

The amendment seeks to point out those major shortcomings. But you and I know — because we've been here long enough to really know — that we'll be out of here about next Wednesday. We'll be out of here next Wednesday after this throne speech debate is all over. We won't have passed any legislation. We'll have gone through an exercise in which we'll have sent back an illuminated address to His Honour

[ Page 6675 ]

thanking him for coming in here and reading this speech very nicely. The government could have done whatever it's going to do without bringing this Legislature into session at all.

That shows to me, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure it shows to you, that it has no real plans at all. It doesn't want, and it shows it's got no need for, the Legislature, no need for legislation; and we'll be out of here, as I say, by next Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

This is an exercise that's being carried out here for one reason and one reason only. In the Premier's mind, by having the throne speech now, we foreshorten next year's debates by about ten days — by about six to ten days. That's the only reason. There's no program. There's no plan. There's nothing in the works. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) still has his unlisted postal code number, and we're carrying on just the same way — no plans, no nothing.

I listened to the previous member, who has now left, who is from North Peace River, who just told us about all the bad things that we've said about this buoyant economy. He said that only the members of the opposition are complaining, that bad news is equated with socialism. Well, who else, Mr. Speaker, is talking about British Columbia the same way that every speaker on this side of the House has been speaking these last two days? That raving socialist, Calvert Knudsen — same language expressed. That Marxist-Leninist, Bruce Howe — same language. Every editor of every bank letter — same language. They're worried about the economy of British Columbia. And the member for North Peace River says anybody who knocks it must be a socialist.

Who else has been criticizing the economy? Bill Hamilton, paid-up member of the NDP. Who else has been talking about the economy in exactly the same terms as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), the very member who the member for North Peace River and the member for Little Mountain have been criticizing as being doom and gloom. I'll bet you they voted for him. Who else has been talking in the same language that we've been using about British Columbia? Joe Clark. Now you can't have it both ways, Mr. Member for North Peace River. You either vote for Joe Clark and believe what he says, or Joe Clark is saying what he's saying for political expediency. Now which way is it, Mr. Member for North Peace River? Is it the truth, or is it political expediency? Is B.C. buoyant, or is it somewhat faltering? Mr. Member for North Peace River, you'd better go back to the research and do it properly.

Since we were here doing this same kind of exercise a year ago, in Surrey, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the effects of the various criticisms that this amendment points out. Housing. Employment. Employment, just to mention one thing, is the closure of that famous — if not infamous — poultry production unit called Panco. Termination notices were served this week to every one of the workers. The last 225 workers had 18 years and 15 years service in that plant and received termination notices this week for December 15, December 31 and January 22. Eighteen years service in that poultry production plant. That plant was bought for $4 million and sold for $10 million, so you've got $6 million profit, and you won't lift a finger to help the people of Panco Poultry. The last time Panco was in trouble, in August of this year, the Minister of Agriculture was out of the country. The next time it was discussed was during Agricultural Week, and the Minister of Agriculture was out of the country. This week, we want to discuss Panco Poultry, and the final notices are being put on the desks and the work tables and in the production lines of that plant. Where is the Minister of Agriculture? He's out of the House. For the first time in living memory, in recorded history, a responsible bunch of farmers have passed a vote of non-confidence in a Minister of Agriculture in this province.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but in a private meeting those self-same farmers have asked the Premier to fire him. What do people say when you go around my district? You travel through my district, Mr. Speaker, as I travel through yours. The first thing they talk to you about is housing and the second is jobs. The third is often gasoline and the prices. What are people saying about the farmers in the Hazelmere valley and the truck farms in the southern part of my riding? What are they saying about ICBC and that self-same Minister of Agriculture and the stiff-arming and the double-crossing that ICBC pulled on many of the small businessmen in this province when all the people went back to work after the strike? What are they saying around your community, Mr. Speaker? What are they saying around the district of Langley, Mr. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)? Are they saying how ICBC double-crossed the deals they shook hands on at the beginning of the strike? What are they saying about that Crown corporation? What are they saying about Panco?

What do the ministers do? Some of them go abroad. My own colleague in Surrey, who is a minister, buys a heritage farm on the one hand, in Langley, and the next minute he buys a quarter of a million dollar house on Rockland Avenue in Victoria. That's no help for the people in Surrey. Buying a heritage farm in Langley and moving out to Rockland Avenue in Victoria with a quarter of a million dollar home is no help to the people in Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

The hospital cuts. I didn't think the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was good Minister of Health, because I was very fond of the previous Minister of Health. But in comparison he's the best of the ones the Social Credit Party ever had, because it's got worse and worse and worse. I suppose that's a back-handed compliment, but at least he knew what was going on in his department. Now we find out that in Surrey, what with cuts and broken promises at the Peace Arch Hospital, we've got petitions going to the department and we've got petitions going to the deputy minister to restore cuts in employment and get people back on the payroll. In a district I share with you, Mr. Speaker, for public health inspectors, we have the worst ratio of public health inspectors to population in any urban area in British Columbia, and we're the fastest growing district. It's worse since that man left office, so I guess he was the best that they could produce. We now have one inspector to 30,000 people. Other districts in an urban area have one inspector to 17,000 people. That means that routine inspections aren't taking place. That means that food processing plants.... Maybe that's why Panco's being closed down — they can't inspect. Just get rid of everything.

Schools are only being visited once every two years in my district, because public health inspectors have such a workload. On top of that, the two programs that have been the cornerstone of this province's health delivery system are now under serious attack. One of them is the home nursing program. In my district, to follow up a discharged patient from an acute care hospital costs $23 a visit. It costs $23 a visit. In

[ Page 6676 ]

order to make cuts and prevent the employment of these people....

[Mr. Davidson in the chair].

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, the amendment mentions that the speech "fails to recognize economic policies of the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and, further, fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy...to provide full employment opportunities...." I don't see where it mentions hospitals or public health workers or home care programs. I would say the member is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The member could possibly remember the remarks that were made earlier by himself.

MR. HALL: Yes, I'm talking about the government laying off its own people. If that's not unemployment, I don't know what is. Your colleague, Mr. Minister, has sent a notice saying that unless 18 part-time nurses are dismissed from the Boundary Health Unit by a certain date, there will be no more money. If that's not unemployment, I don't know what is.

Those 18 part-time nurses, whose names I have in my office — you can have them any day, and you should know them — have been told they have to be separated. Those 18 part-time nurses help to fulfil a function which costs $23 per visit. If you or I come out of an acute-care hospital, Mr. Speaker, it costs $23 for that visit. If we stay in hospital, do you know how much it costs per day? How much does it cost, Mr. Member for New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: Two hundred and fifty dollars.

MR. HALL: How much does it cost to stay in Dr. McGeer's hospital, Mr. Member for New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: Six hundred and eighty dollars.

MR. HALL: Six hundred and eighty dollars, if you stay in Dr. McGeer's hospital, Mr. Speaker, but in Surrey it costs $250. That's a saving of about $220. This government can't even recognize $200 when it sees it. It can't even understand the saving of $200.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm never going to stay in order again.

MR. HALL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that if it was saving money I could applaud the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I think he tries his best, but he just doesn't understand that it's false economy.

There are demonstrations. In Surrey three weeks on the run I attended demonstrations about the stagnating economy that this amendment refers to — mobile-home owners, interest rates, lack of heat in our generative economic engine in British Columbia. While that was going on, while there is protest all over the place.... There was once a member who sat over there for a while called Wenman. He had 400-and-something people out at a protest rally about landlords, interest rates and everything else. Another member, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), praises landlords in today's society. Well, I don't know whether he can count.

However, I've dealt with the Boundary Health Unit employment program. I want to finish up by pointing out the hollowness of this exercise we're going through. We've been called together with no plans in front of us, and I know as surely as you sit there and I stand here that we'll be out of here by next Wednesday with nothing passed. All the programs that are being announced in the corridor can be done without legislation, as I've understood up till now. What bothers me, and what affects me as a British Columbian and one who is concerned about my citizens, regardless of politics, is the uselessness of the exercise, from your point of view, in getting the thing going.

All 31 of you are totally concerned now with your own survival. You're not concerned at all with the province. You're not concerned with getting us back to work. You're simply and solely concerned with your own personal, political survival. You won't listen to the public, obviously. It appears — although I wasn't there, but I've spoken to people who were — you don't listen to your own party. I think that's a very great mistake. If I may address myself simply to those who sit on the Treasury benches — and I'm not telling tales out of school — I understand you're not listening to your backbenchers, even though they stand up and make some brave speeches here. I'm saying, through you, Mr. Speaker, it really is time for you all to go.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, don't take that last member's advice personally or seriously.

I'm speaking against the amendment, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons — first of all, the accomplishments of the past year. This year, 1981, has been a banner year for Canada, it's been a great year for British Columbia, and it's been a very important year insofar as federal-provincial relations are concerned. We've put our imprint on a Canadian constitution, made in Canada and amendable in Canada; we've stopped warring, temporarily at least, on the energy crunch. Reference to both of these important matters is made in the Speech from the Throne, and rightly so. They are achievements of which we can all be proud as British Columbians and as Canadians, but they're only a beginning. They mark the start of what our first ministers have referred to as the "renewal process" — the renewal of Confederation. Renewing our Confederation, however, calls for a more popular input than we've seen here of late.

Talking about input, Mr. Speaker, what about this Legislature and what about the MLAs? Unlike the House of Commons in Ottawa, where bills have been presented, committee hearings have been held, bills have been presented again — much of it involving debate that went on for weeks on end — we in this House had little to say, indeed heard little about the constitution. Most of what I've learned personally I've gained from the newspapers, radio and TV. This is not legislation at the provincial level in any ordinary sense, it's legislation by the executive, of course. I think that in the case of a constitution which is just as binding on the provinces as it is on the national government, this matter should be debated at some point and should have been debated earlier in this House. Mind you — and this is part of the point of my remarks — we're dealing with no ordinary law. It's a law above all other law; it's our constitution, which stands when other laws fall. Neither the Commons nor a legislature can pass a law which is in conflict with it. So the formulation of

[ Page 6677 ]

our constitution, together with its passage into the supreme law of the land, must be taken very seriously indeed.

Not only should we legislate federally but we should legislate provincially. A resolution phrased by this government should be put to this House even now. Not only should it say substantially what has been agreed upon by nine of our ten provinces, and by them in turn with the federal government, but we should also be told what our own executives' reservations are. We certainly should know what the provincial over-ride means insofar as our Canadian charter of rights and freedoms is concerned. Why were women's rights left out initially? And what about mobility? I, frankly, don 't think that any province should have the power to limit the movement of Canadians from one part of the country to another.

There is another thing which concerns me, Mr. Speaker. This government started out on a different tack: it was against the infringement of a charter of rights and freedoms; it also had different priorities. It put Senate reform, reform of the Supreme Court of Canada and provincial representation on federal Crown agencies ahead of everything else. It also wanted B.C. to have a veto like that which Ontario at an earlier stage deemed it had, and it was in a different way the constitutional amending process was concerned. These matters have either gone by the board or have been dealt with differently in recent weeks. Why the change? And where are they now? Have we given up on some of these things? If not, what are our priorities today?

As most hon. members know, I personally have always favoured a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms — individual rights and individual freedoms — a special law; as I said earlier, a law above all other laws which guarantees us our individuality, our God-given opportunity to be ourselves and do our own thing regardless of our sex, colour, creed or place of origin. This is essential if Canada is truly to be a free land, one in which government, corporations, unions and other bodies and agencies exist solely as servants of their membership — of the people, in other words — not as their masters.

We're going to have a charter of personal liberties, a full-fledged recitation of individual Canadian rights and freedoms, it now appears — too long perhaps, too verbose, too fuzzy around the edges, too full of loopholes, too easily exploited by those of a collectivist mentality who, typically, would put the group ahead of the person and sometimes divide us into racial, cultural, economic or other enclaves for their own selfish purposes.

Let me dwell on this basic conflict between individualism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. I'm for the person, as opposed to the group. I'm for putting individual rights and freedoms ahead of collective rights and corporate initiatives. They all have their place, but when I have to choose between the two, I choose liberty of the one over the purpose or intent of the many. This is why I've always believed that we should have our own Canadian Magna Carta — our personal declaration of independence to protect us all individually from the ganging up efforts of others, especially of big government now and for as long as Canada exists as a separate political entity on this earth.

To qualify as a democracy we must have the security of our own person. We must be free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as the United States' Bill of Rights terms it. We must have freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of worship, and we must have something else which our charter now ignores. We must have the right to own property as individuals and not have that property taken from us in an arbitrary way or without proper compensation for our loss.

Unfortunately the word "property" has disappeared from our charter of rights and freedoms. I'm sure that the socialists are happy with that. True socialists don't believe that people should own property in their own right. The state can own property, of course. Government agencies and cooperatives can own property, but not you and I individually, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: My point of order is that the member is not debating the issue before us in any way, shape or form. We were quite prepared to listen to his debate but certainly not to take his insults and untrue remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members of the House have been made aware on numerous occasions of the rights and obligations of a member, and it is not for the Chair to determine whether what any member says is right or wrong. Nonetheless, the amendment before us is the one we are debating. I'd ask the member to bear those remarks in mind in continuing his speech.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the textbook definition of a socialist is: one who believes in common ownership of property. Perhaps the hon. members don't agree with that. It would be interesting to hear them individually say what their thinking is in that regard.

I believe that personal ownership in the proprietary sense is a concept foreign to socialism. It's foreign to the collectivist mentality. It's something which must be kept out of our Constitution — the law above all other law, as far as the socialists are concerned. Otherwise — and this is the situation which we could face under a government of another stripe — governments wouldn't be able to take over personal property. Ottawa, acting on its own, also wouldn't be able to take over personal property without proper compensation. This is the first thing which socialists do when they gain power at any level, and certainly it's what the textbook socialists want to do if they can.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, it would be improper for me to debate with the member on what he's talking about at this moment. But I don't think it's improper to have Mr. Speaker again remind the member of two things, because in my opinion he's breaking the rules of our House in two different ways. One way is that he's reading his speech instead of using notes, and the other is that he's not speaking to the amendment, as was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I would be willing to overlook it, but this is the third time I know of that that member has come in on an amendment, either on the budget speech or the throne speech, and just carried on as if as an individual he had no responsibility to the collective, which is this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bearing in mind that we are on an amendment and that the member is familiar with the wording of the amendment, I would ask that he continue.

[ Page 6678 ]

MR. DAVIS: Speaking in the economic area, let me say this: why, given our free enterprise inheritance, don't we have the individual right to own our own property in our own Canadian constitution? That's the greatest source of energy and drive which can possibly be harnessed to generate more economic wealth in the country. Essentially the reason is that property and civil rights have been the first and foremost power of the provinces ever since Confederation. It tops the provincial list in the British North America Act, which was signed 114 years ago. It's something which no province and, indeed, no provincial Premier in his right provincial mind would surrender easily to Ottawa. It's something which our first ministers from coast to coast instinctively wanted to keep to themselves and unto their own separate provincial jurisdictions. It has to be seen to be part and parcel of our own Canadian version of provincial rights as in the past.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a further point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's the same point of order. Again, the member is reading his speech, and he's made no attempt whatsoever to talk to the amendment. He threw in economics and then went back to reading his prepared text. It seems to me that part of being an individual is to understand that there are rules that are going to govern the collective of this body, and it seems to me that he is just thwarting the rules and throwing them in the face of yourself, sir, and the members of this House. You can't get around it through the back door. I mean, he either has to adhere to the rules or remain seated.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I strenuously object to the opposition taking four shots at our member for no reason at all. If he hit a sensitive nerve, let them be strong enough to sit and listen to it. I am disgusted with their attitude.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, and again to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, we are on an amendment to the throne speech debate, dealing primarily with economic matters. If the member could relate his remarks more directly, then he would be, in fact, in order in the debate. Insofar as the reading of or referring to notes is concerned, Beauchesne's fifth edition, section 310, clearly allows a wider latitude in throne speech debate. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll simply finish in a few short paragraphs what I basically wanted to say about individual initiative, about the right to own property being elevated to a Canadian charter, and then switch to a few comments about resource ownership, resource development and provincial jurisdiction with respect to resources, and conclude my remarks this afternoon.

I think in essence what I am saying is that I believe that an appropriately worded resolution should come to this House — the sooner, the better — saying that the individual right to property should be in our Canadian charter. Being passed, certainly with weight of the majority of this House, it would be the position of the government of the day in British Columbia. Hopefully, those of like mind could convince at least seven other provincial legislatures to do the same. I would trust that the House of Commons in Ottawa would pass a similar resolution. Given our new amending formula, this then would mean that the individual right to own property was in our Canadian constitution and in our Bill of Rights dealing with individual freedoms. This is an initiative which I hope this government will take and an initiative which I hope other provincial governments will take.

I think it's too bad that property rights weren't in the charter of 1981, but hopefully it will be in the charter as amended in 1982 or 1983, because it's one of the fundamental rights and freedoms which people in this country, and certainly in this province, think they enjoy. They believe that those rights stand above all other law and shouldn't be taken away easily or readily. I think it's very important that an initiative of that kind be taken here in this Legislature. We should start the ball rolling and encourage other provinces and the national government to do likewise and amend the charter in this way.

I'll switch to resources. The hon. member wants me to say a few words about economic matters, and then I'll sit down. There is a passage in the Speech from the Throne which states: "The formula for future constitutional change ensures that no future constitutional change can challenge British Columbia's ownership of its natural resources." That bothers me for several reasons. First of all, the formula for constitutional change itself says that given the appropriate majority of provinces — seven — and federal agreement, any change is possible. In other words, B.C.'s ownership of its natural resources is not necessarily guaranteed forever. It can be changed by constitutional change. The second concern I have is the wording of a notice of motion now before the House of Commons in Ottawa and currently being debated there. It says that while each province may make laws in relation to the export of a resource from the province, "such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada — or abroad."

Further it says:

"Nothing in the preceding section derogates from the authority of Parliament" — i.e. Ottawa — "to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to earlier" — i.e. trade and resources — "and where such a law of Parliament and the law of a province conflict the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict."

This says in effect that if B.C. exports a resource to another province or abroad, it loses control of the quantities to be exported and cannot set prices either.

The third reservation I have in this area of resources is the wording of the November 5 accord signed by nine provincial Premiers, including our own Premier of British Columbia. It says that equalization payments made to the provinces by Ottawa will take into account provincial income from resources. In a backhanded way this amounts to a redistribution of resource income across the country with the resource-rich provinces paying the shot for the poorer ones.

Finally, there's the recent B.C.-Ottawa agreement on energy. It turns the administration of oil and gas production incentives in this province over to Ottawa. In the Alberta-Ottawa Agreement, Alberta administers the incentives. Alberta does the job in Alberta. Ottawa does the job of administering oil and gas incentives in B.C.

So I can only conclude that we have a joint responsibility for resource development in this province, not an exclusive provincial responsibility, at least insofar as energy is concerned.

[ Page 6679 ]

This matter of resources, Mr. Speaker, is a difficult one. A resource essentially is not a resource unless it has value. It doesn't have value unless there's a market for it, unless it can be sold. Most resources that we have are sold preponderantly outside the province, and usually abroad. That involves interprovincial trade and international trade. That is governed under the BNA Act, and I assume under our continuing constitution, by the trade and commerce clause, and the trade and commerce clause is federal. So while we may control supply in the initial sense in the province, certainly trade in the sense of quantities moving, pricing and so on is federal. Resource development is like a coin: there are two sides to it, the supply and the demand, the production and the marketing. The marketing side, the demand side, is substantially governed by federal law, and I assume this will continue to be the situation for a long time. So resource development, no matter how we like to express it, no matter how much we like to think of it as being purely a provincial prerogative, is really a shared responsibility. It's federal and provincial. Certainly we're going to hear more about resource development and the sharing of the profits, the values of resource development, between our two levels of government.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and in an attempt to sum up, I'll say I'm an individualist from a political philosophy point of view, and I'm certainly not a socialist. I'm for decentralization as opposed to centralization of political power in this country. I'm for less power at the centre — namely Ottawa — and I'm for the provinces passing on more of their power, their substantial power, to the people. I'm all for the provinces administering more of the people programs — especially people programs like health, education and human resources — a power, incidentally, which they had under the British North America Act, but which has been exploited because of the financial competence or ability of Ottawa. And I'm all for involving our citizens as much as possible in our constitution-building and constitution-amending process.

This is why I, personally, would like to see us use the referendum process on occasion. This is why I'd also like to see us pass a resolution in this chamber relating to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — a resolution which confirms that this province endorses the new charter, as it's evolving, but also a resolution — or a separate resolution at a later date — which insists that individuals can own property and that the right of individual Canadians, male or female, whoever they may be and wherever they may reside, to own property — and if their property is taken away from them, for them to be properly compensated — be part of the highest law of the land, namely in our charter. This is the right thing to do at this time.

I personally think that our legislatures are remiss — and this is not addressing my remarks purely to this Legislature, but across the country. They should also, in parallel with the national government, be passing at least a resolution confirming that this is our charter, this is the charter we endorse, this is the charter we agree to work with and esteem. We'll try to improve it as time goes by, but it's sacred as far as we're concerned.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see you back in your chair hale, tanned and hearty. We are very pleased to have you back, and I think all of us have probably mixed feelings about returning in the pre-Christmas season.

When you sit on this side of the House and you listen to that inept throne speech.... I think the opposition realizes how important it is for them to be here and to do their duty as members of the loyal opposition, to point out how absolutely incompetent the Social Credit government is — increasingly so — and to use, hopefully, our opportunity and our rights as members of the opposition here to deal with some positive things, we hope, Mr. Speaker, which will point out to the people of British Columbia that it is time to turn to a party that seems to have a grasp on some of the economic problems which we are all facing today.

If we judge by the last speech which we just heard, it's quite clear that the emphasis from that member is entirely on the Charter of Rights. We are all very pleased it's reached the stage it has, although there are some problems still existing. I think the people of British Columbia expect to hear a little more from the Social Credit members in debating the economy of this province at this particular time.

Just before I get onto that, I would like to digress for one brief moment and relate something that I don't think was too appropriate to be said today in this House. I as a member of the opposition have resented the remarks by a member of this House today who usually is not a member who insults the opposition, and that is the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who seemed to leave an impression in his speech.... And I think more than an impression, he almost stated. Mr. Speaker, that the opposition encourages violence. I consider that a highly insulting thing for any member of this House to accuse another political party of encouraging.

I would like to point out to that member, who is no longer in his seat, that the implication that any suggestions of violence that the Social Credit members face means that the NDP must have been behind it.... We can follow that analogy through to the days when the NDP were in government, and those of us who experienced personally some forms of violence at no time walked into this House and accused Social Credit of being responsible for it. I, myself, can remember standing on the steps of the Legislature having cans thrown right directly at me by a group of people who came here to demonstrate. At no time would I have walked back into the Legislature and said that the Social Credit Party had provoked that violence. Therefore, I consider those remarks really not appropriate, and I am very surprised they were made. I am sorry the member is not here, because I would like to make it quite clear that we on this side hope that we don't have to listen to that kind of condemnation, which I consider most unfair.

Mr. Speaker, to go into the actual debate before us, we are debating the economy. We are debating the failure of the Social Credit government to deal adequately with it. When one looks through the throne speech, when one listens to the speeches we've heard to date from the members of the government, it certainly doesn't give us much encouragement for the very serious, critical times that we live in today.

I would like to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, the words of a member of this Legislature, who spoke, I believe, today — or yesterday, I'm not quite sure. His words were: "It is not the time for irresponsible spending that would plunge this province hopelessly into debt, as has happened once before. The people have good memories. Mr. Speaker, and they're not interested in the pie-in-the-sky promises that would make their personal tax burden unbearable." Well, I think we on this side of the House completely agree with those words. They happen to have come, mind you, from a member of the government, the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond).

[ Page 6680 ]

The member for Kamloops just referred to the quote that he made, which I would have to agree with. I would have to agree with him from the exact opposite angle, though. That member, when he says we need a government which is financially responsible and which won't make our tax burdens unbearable, must be referring to the great need to get rid of Social Credit and return the NDP. Let me give the member for Kamloops a short financial history of his own government since they assumed office and within the last year.

In the very last session the Social Credit government sought and received approval for $625 million in tax increases. These included a 2 percent hike in sales taxes and increases in gasoline taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, medicare premiums, hospital fees, nursing-home fees, ICBC rates and ferry rates. Since I'm reading this, there has been an added increase in the last two, Mr. Speaker. Need we talk about school property tax and the effects of the Social Credit policy of dumping more and more of the taxes on the local taxpayer, and the increase in corporate tax...?

MR. LEA: None of them.

MRS. DAILLY: No. Isn't that interesting? I wonder why. He left that out, I think. I don't think he referred in his speech to the corporation tax and what the Social Credit government had done with that compared with the average working person — no increase. In addition Social Credit secured passage of legislation allowing them — and I hope the member for Kamloops can hear this, Mr. Speaker — to borrow an additional $2.5 billion. Yet this is the government of members who go out on the campaign trails, wherever they be and whenever they start, and say: "We do not believe in debt. We believe in a balanced budget." They fail, of course, to mention that there has been an additional borrowing of $2.5 billion. When added to the debt outstanding at the beginning of the year, Social Credit will have the taxpayers owing a staggering $10.5 billion. This amounts to approximately $3,900 per man, woman and child. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? This is nearly three times the amount since they took office from us in 1975. That member stands up there and says: "Oh, we can't return the NDP, because with them the taxes will go up." The record speaks for itself: the debt has gone up over three times since the Social Credit became government, with increased taxes and increased borrowing power. At the same time, on top of all this extra money that they're bringing in, apparently through taxes, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) says he can't make ends meet. Well, I'd say there is something incompetent — would you not, Mr. Speaker? — about that government on the other side of the floor. I'm sure that the new member for Kamloops, perhaps after hearing these facts on the true record of his government, when he has a chance to vote on our amendment will support it.

I do find that it is rather appalling that a government can still go on with the tired old talk about the NDP record when, as the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) said, they became government in 1975, and yet they are doing such a poor job that all they can do is talk about the NDP record.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have members like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who continues to talk about non-government intervention. You'd think that by now all the Social Credit members who keep talking about that would have learned their lesson by looking to see what is happening in the United States under Reagan, who has followed Friedman's policy of non-government intervention. Every government that follows that — the Thatcher government, the Reagan government and, of course, the provincial Social Credit Party of British Columbia — is creating stagnation, because they believe that no matter what's happening out there, government has nothing to do about it.

Of course the biggest area where we see this weakness in the Social Credit philosophy is housing. It was interesting that the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) or someone else — I don't mean to pick on him today — said: "Why don't we hear anything positive from the NDP?" Our member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) gave an excellent speech yesterday in which he outlined some very positive areas of housing for this province. I think it's rather sad that the members over there, after listening to a speech like that, could really get up and say that the NDP offers nothing positive. I intend to repeat those areas of positive policies in housing, which our housing critic from North Island listed yesterday, but I'm going to leave that because I want to end on a positive, high note.

I intend to continue with some of my criticism of some of the things that are happening, first, with the Social Credit government's policies. I noticed the member for Central Fraser Valley was praising the housing policy enunciated in the throne speech. If I may quote, he actually said that everybody should be encouraged by his government's initiatives:

I'm excited by the special emphasis that will be placed in the area of rent-to-own. How many times have you heard someone say. "I cannot afford to buy, I must rent"? How many times have you heard it said paying rent does nothing towards building equity in a home? For the first time in the history of our province, and possibly Canada, a government with this imaginative approach will remove that concern of never owning a home or building equity in a home....

It really sounds great when you read that speech and you think to yourself: that sounds like this government have finally come to their senses and they're going to do something about helping everyone own a home. Let's just break down and analyze very briefly this new rent-to-buy policy which the member for Central Fraser Valley has endorsed. I think we're all aware that it starts off with the government making available additional Crown land for housing. Mind you, this is rather laughable, because that Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), ever since he has been minister, has talked about how many lots he was going to release from Crown land, and the numbers have stayed about the same; in fact, we've hardly seen any movement. However, he has said he'll release them now.

First-time home-buyers will be able to lease lots for 12 percent of their fair market value. At any time during the first five years of the lease the homeowner will be given the option to buy with the guarantee that the price won't increase more than 6 percent a year. The bottom line is that the homeowner who has been paying a mere 12 percent rent on his — we'll say — $50,000 government-owned lot will at the end of five years be able to buy for about $70,000, after the initial price of $50,000, the lot for which he has already paid the government some $30,000 in rent. The previously paid rent will not be applied to the price.

Mr. Speaker, you'd have to really question that and say to yourself: what if I had that opportunity? Would I endorse what this government has brought out as this revolutionary housing policy? Or, when I stop and think about it, what am I really gaining, and is not the government gaining something?

[ Page 6681 ]

I consider this a farcical scheme. It's going to make money for the government, but the average person who can put out that kind of money would probably be better to put it into the bank. I think the program is sad, because the sound of the program is that it is building up the hopes of the young people of this province for their first homes, and yet when you analyze it, when they themselves go to really work on this program and look at it, they're really going to sit back and say: "I'm not gaining anything, but the government is."

I cannot understand why an intelligent member like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) could endorse this kind of scheme of his own party. Maybe you didn't have an opportunity to be part of it — I don't know — but I do hope that you will accept the points I'm making. In all seriousness, perhaps he will go back and help his Housing minister devise some housing policies that aren't going to just make money for the government but are really going to help young people get a home. I'm really quite serious. I hope the member will be able to disabuse me of my interpretation, but that is the way it appears to us at this time.

Speaking of the Minister of Housing, I found it absolutely appalling.... I happened to be listening to CBC this morning, and he was again quoted as saying at some housing symposium he was attending: "There will be no government intervention in housing, and most of the fault is the federal government's." You know, that really gives a lot of hope to the people of British Columbia who are suffering from the housing crisis. There will be no government intervention, and it's all the federal government's fault — the same old story.

Even more appalling was listening to the quotes of his deputy minister, who was on a panel at the symposium. This deputy minister — and I don't know who it was — was speaking on behalf of his minister. That is the point I'm trying to make. He actually said at this symposium on housing and high rents that there really was no problem in British Columbia when it came to rents. He said that most people were able to find places to live and most people could afford to pay the rents. That is what I heard this morning on CBC, and unless somebody can tell me otherwise, I have to assume that that was a proper quote.

Mr. Speaker, for the record and for the edification of the Minister of Housing, I simply must enter this into the record. For anyone to stand on any platform today and suggest that there is no rental problem makes you wonder where they have been. Do they ever leave their offices in the parliament buildings? Do they ever go out and talk to people in the province? I'm sure that most of the Social Credit members over there — the few who are here listening at this time — know that in their own constituencies there are some serious problems with rents.

Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quoting from an NDP source. I'm quoting from the Red Door agency, sponsored by the YWCA — the housing registry in Vancouver. One of the personnel people there was recently quoted, and she deals every day with the housing and rental crisis. She says that her Red Door agency gets about 500 registrations each month — 500 people or families looking for a place to live. They are able to place about 75 of those 500. That means 425 people have to be turned away monthly because they cannot be helped by the agency. Actually, they are trying to discourage anyone from moving unless they are living in such a deplorable scene that they have to get out, because they have nothing to offer them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They say that the acute shortage of rental units is not the only problem they are dealing with. They are also dealing with discrimination in all its ugly guises, tenants' lack of information, their inability to pay current rates, low incomes, low morale, etc. Red Door gets about 200 listings each month — 200 landlords calling in to say they do have a place to rent. But about half of those landlords will not allow children, and of that 100, many are offering accommodation in the $800 to $900 a month range.

The recent report that came from the Social Development ministry of state in Ottawa pointed out the desperate situation when it comes to incomes versus these high rents. It says close to half a million low-income renters already pay well over 30 percent of their income, and it's now expected that with the rent increases and the other increases that will be inflicted on them, most low-income people will end up paying 40 percent of their income for rent. Some of these places that people are going into at even $500 a month — I don't know if any of you have visited some of them; I have, and they are deplorable — I don't think any of us would want to live in them ourselves, or have our children or anyone we know living there.

Yet the Minister of Housing has a deputy, reflecting him and his policy, who actually said yesterday at a public symposium: "I do not believe there is a rental problem, and most people can find rents that are acceptable to their incomes." Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is no positive, good housing policy coming out of that minister. If he actually believes there really isn't a problem, that government shouldn't intervene and that the federal government alone is responsible, there is no hope for the people who are suffering through this housing crisis.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have listened carefully to the few Social Credit members who have spoken and we have listened to our own members, and I want to end up, I hope, on a more positive note by repeating again that we do have positive policies. The NDP is not standing up here just taking on the role of a carping critic; we are trying to assist this government. We've been trying to assist them for the last four or five years in this housing situation and we have received no response at all. This new throne speech doesn't make us feel as if anyone has been listening to us. Our member for North Island (Mr. Gablemann) has again done some very excellent work in his role as housing critic, and he today reiterated to the Minister of Housing some concrete policies. I'd like to get them in the record again. Maybe someone sitting over there will get to that Minister of Housing.

First of all, re-establish the Housing Corporation. We're still one of the few provinces in Canada that doesn't have one.

I found something very interesting the other day. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was quoted as saying, at the time in 1978 that government sold off the B.C. Housing Corporation to the private market — one of the worst moves any government could ever make; and they have shown what's come out of it: no proper housing in this province.... When the Minister of Housing — who was, by the way, Hugh Curtis, the present Minister of Finance — sold off the Housing Corporation to the private market, he rationalized his position with the following statement: "If the housing market tightens up. as it could at any time, there is still the capacity within the ministry to do what was originally assigned to Dunhill." There is a cabinet minister holding an

[ Page 6682 ]

important position in that government.... That Minister of Finance actually said in 1978 that if the housing situation deteriorated, that government would have to look at perhaps re-establishing the Housing Corporation.

I would like to ask — and I'm sorry he's not here — if he still means that. If he does, will he please use some influence on his government — on the Premier and the Minister of Housing — to re-establish the Housing Corporation. He himself knew that that is absolutely essential, and yet for some reason or other he got his orders to dismantle it.

In my own area in Burnaby I saw the ludicrous situation of land that had been bought by our Housing minister when we were in government — land and homes that were built for people on low income to rent — being turned over to the private market so that developers could come in and charge whatever they want. The result was that many of those rental accommodations turned into expensive condominiums and did not sell for a couple of years, until the housing situation got to the point where some people, I imagine in desperation, decided to give up most of their income to move in. That's the kind of stupidity that the housing policy of the Socreds has created.

The other point we've made is — and I'm just repeating what our housing critic said yesterday: we want to have that savings and trust act proclaimed, which the government members, who were opposition at that time, supported. We want to really organize land-banking. It was interesting that one of the members referred to Prince George yesterday. We've been asking for that to be repeated all over the province, and yet nothing has happened since.

We also feel it's absolutely essential, as our housing critic has enunciated before, that every government must, and has a responsibility to, intervene and provide social housing. You cannot sit back and just wait to create rich condominiums so that the developers alone can make a profit. That's fine. They have a right to. But do they have a right to make it entirely at the expense of the low-income people who have no place to live? Yet this government seems to think the whole thrust of housing is to create tax shelters for the developers. Fine, but what are you going to do about the people that it doesn't help and who still don't have housing? The other thing is, where is the encouragement for co-op housing? There is absolutely nothing coming out of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I think my time is about up. I thank the House for their kind attention. I just hope that I have convinced some of the members on the government side that this motion we have presented must be supported if we are going to get British Columbia out of its present economic crisis.

MR. RITCHIE: I have to go on record as saying that that's the best speech so far from the opposition — not a good speech, but the best. It's the best because the back bench has at last been recognized as working. We're very pleased. As a matter of fact, our back bench members have asked me to express our appreciation to the member for Burnaby North for that recognition.

I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak on this amendment and explain why I oppose it. I had a few notes prepared, but after listening to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) I got them mixed up because she gave me so much more ammunition.

First, it would seem to me that we have a very confused opposition party in respect to policy, particularly housing policy. It seems to me that that terrible split in that party — those who are part of the right and those who are part of the left — is again showing up. In responding to the comments, I think it would be fair for me to say that I know more about the ideas of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), as far as he is concerned with housing, than does the member for Burnaby North. I will quote from the record exactly where the member for North Island stands as far as housing is concerned. This is how he replied to the throne speech debate on September 24, 1973. I hope he's listening and will come into the House.

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building houses. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately.

I'd like to repeat that line. He said:

Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested that air should be owned privately.

Then he went on to say:

Air was given to us by God, or whoever we believe gave it to us. And so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned. I believe that it is going to take us decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this society, and I have it too, that we all think we have to own a chunk of land, and until we own that chunk of land and until we own a house we've actually not made it.

Madam Member, do you support that position, as far as housing is concerned? If you do, I have been very badly mistaken. I don't think you do, nor do I believe that those in the right wing of your party do, either.

The member for Burnaby North talked about stagnation. If anyone knows anything about stagnation in a country, I should, because I came through those depression years back in Britain. I came through those war years back in Britain. Then I came through the years whenever the socialist government took over and made all sorts of wild promises to our troops, who were out fighting the war on our behalf, and what did they get? They got a stagnated economy. All you have to do is take a look at Britain today and see the mess it's in. All you have to do is take a took at the emigration roll and see who left there to come to this country for opportunity. If you want to see stagnation, you go over there.

There was another mention. The member talked about rent-to-own. Yes, I'm proud and excited about that program. I can only assume by the remarks that you have made, Madam Member, that you oppose the program of rent-to-own.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the amendment, which really has been based on a lack of planning. I would like to respond to two speakers in particular in this case. One is the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who moved this motion to amend. I tell him that the citizens of this province tried your planning, and in a very short time they felt the effects of it. What were the effects? I think it only took about 1,200 days for you to get the effects out. What were the results? Well, just to name a few: there was almost total closure of the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. There was socializing of B.C. industries.

We hear the ranting from across the floor about Panco. You know, if some of those members keep shooting off their mouths about Panco, it would do them good to talk to me about Panco. I know what went on there. I know how that government went out in those days and told the people who worked for Panco: "If you don't vote for us, you're going to get fired." Ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). It's on the record, Mr. Speaker, on government stationery: "You'll get fired if you don't put in a socialist

[ Page 6683 ]

government." Ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He said: "We will buy it. We don't care what the producers say, we will buy it; and we'll buy it at any price, because it's not our money. It's the taxpayers' money; why worry about it?" And they did. And they paid a price, Mr. Speaker, much greater than was being offered and much greater than the company, the seller, was prepared to accept from the producers. They went in and they bought at a price much greater than the seller was prepared to accept from the producers....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's observe the rules in debate.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the economy, that type of economy, that type of planning also saw the producers of this province in the turkey industry lose their freedom. When the member who hasn't been in his chair for this sitting so far — I'm not sure, possibly....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry to hear that too, and I hope that you will convey that.

That particular member, Mr. Speaker — on the instructions, I believe, of the Minister of Agriculture at that time — went before the producers of this province and told them that the government knew better than they did themselves what was good for them, and they were signing away their rights to produce turkey in this province. That wasn't enough, Mr. Speaker — they went a stage further. Because they had control of the Pan Ready plant in Coquitlam and because they had control in Panco Poultry, then they said to the producer: "We don't care what your cost of production is, you'll take what you get." That's in the record of the turkey producer board of this province. I know that this is a fact, because I am the one who fought them tooth and nail, toe to toe. But we won in the end; the producers won. Any time you want to talk about Panco Poultry or agriculture in this industry, get your facts right.

The member from across the floor, Mr. Speaker, who spent part of his time — I don't know how long — on the beat, shoots across the floor of this House continually: "How about Panco Poultry?" You don't know what you're talking about. What were the results? Exodus of British Columbians. How many were leaving British Columbia? Unbelievable — just packing up and going. Someone said: "Would you please put out the lights when you're finished."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for the outburst; I intended to be very brief, but when I listen to that razzmatazz from across there, it just gets my Scottish blood up.

I want to be more specific here, because things are said in this House that just make me sick. I said it yesterday, the member quoted me, and I say it myself: it makes me sick, sick, sick. I refer specifically to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann); I'm sorry he's not with us. Mr. Speaker, he talks about poor, starving children in his constituency. Let's deal with his constituency. I'm quoting that member; he says in Hansard in 1979: "When I look at the alcoholism rate in my constituency and when I look at the prescription rate for Valium in some of my communities...." And he goes on. He apparently has an alcohol problem in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, again I can quote Hansard, March 13, 1980: "Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that makes me angry, because kids are dying in this province."

I would also like to quote from the Vancouver Sun, page A-14, March 14, 1980, when he said the lack of money for the Human Resources ministry was directly responsible for the beating death of a three-year-old child in Port Hardy. You know, Mr. Speaker, when I listen to this sort of politicking and this type of speech-making, it really disturbs me very deeply.

But let's look at some figures that I've put together. This is the personal disposable income for 1980. In one area of that member's constituency, Mount Waddington, it records the average disposable income as being 28 percent higher than the average in Canada. It shows that Comox-Strathcona is approximately 13 percent higher than the average in Canada.

In his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he also said that I did not see my constituents — that I didn't spend time in my constituency. I'd like to tell him that I do spend a fair deal of time in my constituency, with my people too. The average annual disposable income in my constituency is about $2,000 less, according to this record, than it is in his.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear of those troubled people.... We have the odd one with a problem, there's no question about it, no matter where you go. I have them in mine. As a matter of fact, only last week I had occasion to take a very tough stand on behalf of a husband and wife and three children on welfare who were about to be turfed out of their home because they couldn't make their rent payments on time. I took care of that. But I don't use that in my speeches, and it hurts me to hear this sort of speech being made in this House or anywhere else, when I know what his background is and what his thoughts are.

Who was it, Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago who was joked about, and the story went that he made his political speeches from a manure spreader? I would much rather have some politician make a speech from a manure spreader than have someone use the backs of poor children or senior citizens or handicapped people. That disturbs me immensely. That's not what those people want. They want help. They don't want to be used as political footballs, not at all. But that's what's happening over there — not all of your members, but this one in particular. That disturbs me immensely.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that I've said it many times in this House, and I'll say it again and I'll keep on saying it. I left a country that came down to a state of affairs that this opposition party would like to have in our province and in our country, as their Waffle Manifesto states. Believe me, I will work towards preventing that.

As I go ahead and do my research, I wonder it is that this member has such a bitter attitude. Why is it that he will use young people, senior citizens, handicapped? Why would he even talk about children dying, when he must know that in his constituency he has one of the highest rates of disposable personal income in all of Canada? Maybe the problem is not government, but rather the problem is that they have alcoholism, as he's already stated. I would venture to say that they have another problem, and that's their member. He's not doing his job right.

As I searched into the background of this particular member, Mr. Speaker, I see that he too was born and raised in the Old Country. I can't say exactly when he emigrated, but he was born in Britain and I give him credit for that. Some of us left Britain because we wanted the opportunities that this

[ Page 6684 ]

country offered to us, and we were prepared to work for them. But then, others came to perpetuate the mess that they had created in Britain. I suspect that that member, Mr. Speaker, as I study his speeches.... I'm not speaking only of the speech here today. I'm thinking of speeches that have gone on and on and on in this House. There isn't any speech that irritates me more than to hear that member stand up here and use our children, our handicapped, our senior citizens and any vehicle that he can get ruthlessly for political gains. Disgusting! I hope that you people will talk to him about it if he's not listening to this. I think it's absolutely disgusting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps a passing remark from time to time about a member in this House may even be tolerated, even though it has a tendency to be disorderly. But to make an entire debate on the performance of another member in this House would certainly be out of order, particularly on this amendment. I'm hoping that the member will soon relate his remarks to economic policies, economic stagnation, the strengthening of the economy and those measures provided for in the amendment. Please proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will, because it was economics that brought me to this great land, and it's economics that are going to keep me here. It's economics that will make me continue to speak out against the rhetoric that we're hearing from people like that member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). Only I and people like me know exactly what I'm saying and how I feel here today. I had no intentions of speaking, because I had my opportunity on Tuesday, but I couldn't hold back.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you care to repeat that remark that you made, Mr. Member? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that that member will take what I have said seriously. I hope, too, that the people of North Island will correctly judge his political motives at the next provincial election. I'm definitely opposed to your amendment to this resolution.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to read into the record the amendment we were discussing so I can be sure that what I have to say is in accordance with your ruling and the amendment. It appears that some of my opposition on the other side of the House feel that this Legislature should be used for personal attacks, to run by an election that was held in 1975, to read over and over the garbage written in their speeches that have been handed to them as they come into the House. I feel that we should stick to the amendment and what we are here for.

Our job as elected legislators is to bring policies to this government — to bring suggestions and to help improve on and decide what we are going on to.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I take exception to what the member said. He said the speeches are handed to members when they enter this House, insinuating that the speeches are made. That is not true. It's false and I want a withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The matter raised by the member is not a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: They hand them to them before they get in the House. I would like to withdraw one point. No one could write the speeches that the hon. member for Dewdney gives.

I would like to read to the House what the amendment says: "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 as to provide full employment opportunities for all our people."

I feel that in the short time I have to talk I cannot deal with all the problems. But I would like to bring to the attention of this House some of the problems that are facing the people in my riding and some of the proposals that this government should have made and problems this government has failed miserably to attack. They have failed to bring in any type of long-range programs that are going to solve the major problem facing each one of us as an MLA when we answer our mail and our phone calls day after day. It is the complete lack of affordable housing. A complete lack of it. The NDP came into power after 20 years of Social Credit rule — 20 years of inaction in land banking and inaction in providing low-cost housing. In 1972, we had exactly the same situation we have today: a complete shortage of affordable rental housing in this province.

When the government came into power at that time they set up the B.C. Housing Corporation. For those who have been involved in housing and construction, one of the most important segments of a proper housing program is a proper land banking program to provide land at affordable prices so that builders, owners and the construction people can build on it. What did they do in my riding? The NDP bought 300 or 400 acres to provide affordable land, and what has this government done since they have come back to power? What have they done? They have embarked on a systematic policy of selling each and every piece of that land to various private developers who are sitting on it.

Right now in my riding lots are selling for $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000, and who can afford it? But what did this government do? One hundred and fifty acres of prime land for housing which had been purchased.... The Dunhill Housing Corporation had started to lay out the plans to bring in affordable housing. They sold it to a private developer who is sitting on it now for $2.5 million. Would you like to read the record of that company, Happy Valley Timber Ltd., who bought the property? They have not done one thing with that property as far as making it available for affordable housing.

Right now we have builders coming weekly to my office asking what this government is going to do and what the NDP is going to do to bring this kind of land onto the market.

I'd like to read into the record a letter from a group of professional builders who are not and have not been in the past great supporters of the NDP. They are not the organized trade union movement; these are professional independent builders, the small contractors, the person building a house and providing shelter for the rest of us in society. They are so frustrated, hurt and destroyed because of the inaction of this government that they are taking action now and are standing up and bringing to the attention of this government the problem that exists out in the rest of the province.

I will read into the record a double-registered letter which was sent to the Rt. Hon. W. Bennett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. The letter starts:

[ Page 6685 ]

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"I would herewith like to ask you if you perhaps could introduce legislation as a personal favour to me, and in return perhaps I could favour you with my personal vote in the next provincial election. I should appreciate to see legislation passed whereby land zoned for residential, industrial and commercial use — not agricultural land — which at present are not occupied by buildings with a value of over $25,000, are taxed by the province at a rate of $200,000 per acre. Let owners of such land have one year's grace to start construction of such buildings and from two to three years grace to complete construction.

"The reason for this unusual request is this: I cannot at the present buy an ordinary building lot for much under $50,000, and when I put an ordinary house on top of such high-priced land — for example, a 1,300 square foot home, which costs approximately $65,000 to $70,000 to construct — the final price of a lot plus structure will be approximately $115,000 to $120,000.

"Such a high-priced residential house is next to impossible to sell to the ordinary working man at the present for the simple reason that he just does not have, nor earn, that kind of money to be eligible for mortgages. If I cannot build and sell houses at, for example, a final price of $70,000 to $80,000, I will become unemployed and go on welfare. At the same time, I will be dragging many thousands of people along with me, because I will no longer be buying any building materials or employing people like the bankers, the realtors, the lawyers, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the drywallers, the roofers, the floor-layers, the cabinet-makers, the insulators, the excavators, the bricklayers, the stucco people and the landscapers.

"You must also realize that when I stop building because land prices are too high and when I make all these people unemployed, those people cannot pay any taxes to either the federal or provincial governments. When no revenues are coming to the government, you and the bureaucracy cannot get your wages any more, and that is bad.

"I feel if unoccupied building lots are taxed, as I propose in this letter, we will most likely see a lot of building sites being put on the market all of a sudden, at around $20,000 for an average lot. That means that I can start building and selling houses again. Furthermore, this kind of proposal will also mean that rental property and residential housing will once again come within the economic means of the average man.

"I am taking the liberty of forwarding copies of this letter to opposition leader David Barrett, as well as to other people who may be interested in the economic welfare of this province."

I say, Mr. Speaker, these are builders; these are the people who are working day after day to produce homes and rental property in this province, and these are the people who are suffering because of the inaction of this government, the lack of any land-banking policies, the lack of any development of affordable property so that they can work. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I will be voting for this amendment because of this type of inaction.

What did Mr. Balther J. Jensen get in answer from the Premier? He wrote a letter, and he represents a large body of people, and what did he get in answer? From the Premier, dated October 28, 1981.

"Dear Mr. Jensen:

"This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter of October 23rd, in which as a house-builder you outlined your proposals regarding taxes levied on unoccupied building lots. I can understand the concern which prompted on to write and wish you to know that I have forwarded a copy of your letter to my colleague the Honourable James Chabot, Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, under the jurisdiction of whose portfolio the matter comes. I am quite sure that Mr. Chabot will welcome the opportunity to respond to your suggestion, and you may expect to hear from him in the near future.

"Thank you again for writing and sharing your ideas with me.

Yours sincerely,
William R. Bennett"

I met with these builders, and I've met with a number of them since the last session, and they are still waiting for an answer from this government. They are still waiting for an answer from the Minister of Housing. In complete frustration, because of no answers from this government, this group over the name of Mr. Balther J. Jensen, professional builder, has sent the following letter to the Premier. I would like to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that what they expressed in this letter expresses the opinion of many people in this province.

"Hon. W. Bennett.
Premier, Province of British Columbia,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"In response and acknowledgement of your letter dated October 28, 1981, in which you felt sure your Minister of Housing, the Hon. James Chabot, would respond to my letter of October 23, which has not been the case, I should appreciate it if you would bring the matter re taxation of vacant land to the attention of the Legislature in this sitting, in person.

"In the opposite case I feel it would be appropriate and in the public interest if you and your cabinet resign and call an election forthwith, since our economy is now in such a state that drastic measures and legislation would be in good order and save the economy.

"In closing, I am taking the liberty of forwarding copies of this letter to opposition leader, David Barrett, as well as some other people who may have an interest in the economic welfare of this province."

I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, through you to the back-bench members, that there is a very drastic change out in the economy in what is happening, not only to the poor people, but to the middle income people, to all those who have been working, who have held jobs, and nothing is coming from this government to relieve the problems that they are facing. Unless this government takes some action to provide land that people can build houses on, that builders can work, it is going to get worse and worse and worse.

[ Page 6686 ]

Another problem which has faced my riding since my election in 1979 — and each year in the throne speech I bring it to the attention of this government — is the dire problem of the mobile-home owners. Since 1979, Mr. Speaker, there have been nine mobile-home parks closed in my riding alone.

MR. BRUMMET: You need a new MLA.

MR. MITCHELL: Now there is a very snide remark from the member for North Peace River, and I bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker. He's not even in his own seat. Nine parks have been closed down and nine groups of people have been thrown out into the street, and we have the member for North Peace River making these snide remarks, as if this is a big joke. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the people out there say about people with their snide remarks. I'll tell you what the people in the mobile-home industry and the mobile-home associations say about these snide, cheap shots that they make when there are people who have been denied a place to live.

A place for their home is something that every Canadian must have. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all humility, that you should talk to a family. You should talk to a war widow who has just received a notice, someone who has been retired on a small pension, who has invested everything she has for shelter in a mobile home. Granted, it was only $20,000, which was her total investment for shelter. Because that land was worth more to build townhouses, she was given 119 days' notice to get out — 119 days to move. The mobile home that she bought, when it was set up in a park.... Because it was built before 1974, it was worth $20,000 for shelter, but when that park was closed down she could not move that house. She could not move her home, and she lost $20,000, because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you cannot move a home that is built prior to 1974 into other parks, because of the CSA ratings. Other parks that have been developed will not take an older home, because they are only being developed because they are dealers who must, or want to, sell one of their new units. When we have the member for North Peace River make snide, cheap remarks, Mr. Speaker, you should ask him to go out and talk to these people, to watch what's happened.

I've called on this government consistently to bring in a program of providing mobile-home parks that will have a permanent zoning, so people like my friend who was denied a place to live and lost $20,000, when they move into a mobile-home park — when they invest all the money they have for shelter — it will be protected. I know that I have asked this government to take the leadership in building mobile-home parks.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) told me: "Well, you go to your regional boards, you go to your municipalities, and attempt to rezone land."

The Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) brought in a program of assisted mobile-home park development for which they offered 15 percent money to municipalities and regional boards to develop parks. So I took their advice, Mr. Speaker. I went and appeared before the Capital Regional Board of Victoria, and I took the message that I was given by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Municipalities, and I pleaded for somebody to give some leadership to providing something that was affordable for people to live in. I'll tell you the answer I got from Mr. Bob Wright, who is an alderman for the city of Victoria and a member of the capital regional board. Mr. Bob Wright is not some NDPer, because he keeps being appointed to all the various boards that the present Social Credit government sets up. I believe he is a member of B.C. Steamships. They ran the Marguerite. He's a very vocal, outspoken, upstanding Social Crediter. What did he say? He said "Well, you tell the provincial government that the job of providing mobile homes and the job of providing housing is the job of the Legislature. It's the job of the provincial government; it is not the job of the regional boards. It is not the job of the municipalities." On behalf of Mr. Bob Wright, who is no longer an alderman, I am happy to bring that to you.

This government has to give some leadership. This government must show some innovation, and for the last two and a half years this government has not given that leadership. They have taken trips to Holland, Europe, Australia, and to Japan many times, but they haven't provided homes for the people in my riding.

When you talk about jobs, Mr. Speaker, I think it's really important that we who sit here as elected MLAs realize that this economy will not go unless there are jobs out in the community — jobs to provide the homes I'm talking about, to provide the food and keep the rest the economy in operation. Every time one industry shuts down, we are eroding our economy.

One of many problems that have arisen in the Greater Victoria area is the closing of the Labatt Breweries in Victoria. It was a small brewery that had been in operation in the greater Victoria area for many, many years. There were 80 employees. The average length of time on the job for them is about 23 to 25 years. They took pride in their product and time after time have won awards for the brew that comes out of that operation. That particular brewery provides the beer for Vancouver Island. Because it is part of a large brewing conglomerate, and because of the new technology in the large breweries that they have, that brewery was shut down. The employees were taken into a room without any warning or indication, and they were told they had their notification that the plant was going to close down.

You understand the shock of people who have bought homes because they had a job, who have committed themselves to mortgages because of their employment, who have their children enrolled in schools because of the security they felt they had. They were shocked. So my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and I met with these employees. We met with their union. We met with people who were concerned in the greater Victoria area, of what effect the loss of 80 jobs would have on the economy. It is estimated that the effect on the economy of the loss of 80 jobs.... Because of the products that were bought locally, and the spin-off effect of each job of four to one, it cost the economy of Victoria $10 million.

We were really concerned, Mr. Speaker. We were really concerned as human beings and as individuals, because we know what it would be like if we had that same shocking experience. So we made an appointment with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). We expected some assistance from the minister, because shortly prior to that he was saying how he wanted true competition within the brewery industry. Because he was going to have true competition, he took the price of beer off the restricted list and it was to rise in competition. It rose — it rose exactly 60 cents a case for all three major breweries.

[ Page 6687 ]

The employees of Labatt made an offer to purchase Labatt Breweries. To create and continue employment, they were prepared to give true competition. They are very much like the small builders that I talked about earlier. They were prepared to make a study and take over the operation, as similar employees had done in Ontario when Carling O'Keefe closed down four breweries. They took over the operation and provided employment and true competition with worker ownership and management, something that many people from both sides of this House support.

We went to meet the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because we felt that there was going to be honest and sincere support. All they asked — which I thought was very minimal — was for the minister to give a 90-day moratorium on the closing down of this operation, to keep the brewery in operation, to keep the jobs on the line, to at least carry those people to Christmas. Was that unjust? Was that really something radical, that they wanted to protect their jobs for 90 days, at least until Christmas, so they could study the economics of buying a brewery and going into business? They honestly believed that the minister would give them support, because he had said: "I want competition; I am going to encourage competition."

I hate to bring it to the attention of the House, but we got absolutely nothing from that minister as far as a sincere involvement in protecting those jobs for the 90 days, or a sincere offer from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to have a study made, to bring the experts in and say: "This is what is needed, and this is what has to come about." This is at the time they were at their lowest. They had just had that shocking information dropped on them. All they needed was some consideration, protection and involvement from all levels of government, and they would have had faith in this government. They would have had faith like the small builders used to have in the Social Credit Party. The independent construction industry is losing faith in this government, and the employees of one operation, Labatt Breweries, have lost faith in this government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We're not just blaming the government for everything. I say that if you're going to make suggestions like this, you must at least must be prepared to back them up with support similar to that which was given by the NDP when it was in government. When the NDP was in government and they were closing down Can-Cel and various other industries throughout British Columbia, the NDP government took a firm stand; it gave help and leadership.

I see that my good friend, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), has left. I'm no expert on Panco's turkey farm. I'm no expert on the economics. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says that he is an expert. He got a vote of confidence, they tell me, from the poultry industry in that area. They voted a vote of non-confidence in that minister.

But let's not get on to the personalities that were dragged into this House by the speaker before me. Let's just look at the actual facts and figures of what the NDP did when they were in power. When the previous owner, Mr. Cohen, owner-manager of Panco back in the early 1970s, was going to close that operation down, they were going to put 450 employees out of work — when the turkeys were backed up in the farms and losing their value, because, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food will tell you, when a turkey reaches his maximum weight, that is the time he goes to the packer. This particular operation was going to be closed down, Mr. Speaker. But the NDP didn't allow it to be closed down, not because they wanted to get into the turkey business, but because there wasn't one buyer to take over this operation. There wasn't one buyer that would provide protection for the 450 employees. There wasn't one private buyer that would take it over and give protection for the farmers.

The government went in with independent assessors and they made an offer of $4 million for this operation, $4 million of taxpayers' money that was invested in an operation that proved to be viable, proved to be profitable year after year that it was operated by the people of this province, providing jobs and protection for the farmers. It must have been a viable operation because it protected those jobs the member for Central Fraser Valley said it wasn't. From an investment of $4 million, it was sold for $10 million; it must have been viable, and the decision that the NDP made then was a wise decision. It was a human decision, and protected farmers and workers. So what has happened to our private owner now, since they closed it down? Now they are closing it down again. Again, from a high of 500 in August, the final 250 employees have got their notices that their jobs are to be terminated.

This government made a profit of $6 million, profit that they brag about. They are a profit-hungry group that believes in making profits. Well, they made a profit on an investment, and I say this government is doing absolutely nothing to protect jobs. I ask this government to protect 80 jobs in Victoria, 80 jobs that mean nearly $10 million to our economy in the greater Victoria area. I have asked this government to provide affordable land that the small builders and homeowners can build on and sell at a price that people can buy. I've asked this government to provide mobile-home parks so women like the war widow I spoke to you about can have some security and a place to live. This government has not provided any of these things, and I say in closing that it's with great pride that I am going to vote for the amendment.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I want to open my remarks and the debate on this motion by extending to the Chair my welcome back. It's a pleasure to see both the Speaker and the Deputy in their accustomed places.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's most important that I immediately follow the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) so that, with respect to the issue of the closure of the Labatt plant in Victoria, the facts may be set forth for the record. I think it's very important that all members of this House know the facts of what took place and the facts of the help given by this government to the representatives of the union when we met with them. I think it's regrettable in the extreme that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew failed in his remarks to mention the fact that within two hours of my meeting with representatives of the union this government secured action on the major concern raised by those members at that meeting.

MR. MITCHELL: They shut it down. There was no moratorium given.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Member, you had your chance to speak, and I listened, so why don't you just sit there

[ Page 6688 ]

quietly and listen to me and listen to the facts. It's going to do you some good, Mr. Member. You know the facts. You chose not to mention them, so I want you to listen to them, because you were there.

Fact number one, Mr. Speaker, is that within two hours of the union requesting a meeting with government and this minister, that meeting took place. There was an immediate response to the opening request from the union for help. At the meeting held in these precincts, the union made clear to me that their first and major concern was that productive machinery and equipment might be immediately moved from the site, thereby making it much more difficult for the union to explore the possibility of acquisition of the site, if, for example, the machinery and equipment had been removed. This was clearly put to me as the major concern of the union. Within two hours of that meeting, I had secured from Labatt's Breweries their undertaking not to move a bolt or a piece of equipment from that plant for 45 days.

Socialists would advocate that you take out the big stick and club somebody over the head without even talking to them. The member conveniently failed to tell this assembly that when approached by government in a reasonable tone, Labatt's were quite willing to say: "Fine, we won't move a piece of equipment for 45 days." Within two hours of that meeting, there was delivered to the union representative a letter from myself confirming that that moratorium on moving any equipment or machinery out of the plant had been obtained. That fact, Mr. Speaker, should be on the record, and I find it regrettable that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew could not find a place in his remarks to acknowledge that prompt assistance — selective amnesia.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if I heard him correctly, made the assertion that members of the union wanted to buy the plant and had an agreement to do so. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the case.

MR. MITCHELL: They wanted to study it.

MR. HYNDMAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked those union members at the meeting if they had talked to Labatt's about buying the plant, and I was advised they hadn't. Obviously, they wanted time to do so. But to infer that they came to the meeting with an agreement of purchase in hand is certainly not correct.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I said that they wanted a 90-day moratorium to study purchasing the plant. That's the fact.

MR. HYNDMAN: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it will assist the memory of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew if I read into the record the letter of October 8 which I delivered to Mr. Wainwright the afternoon of the morning of the meeting.

"Dear Mr. Wainwright:

"Re: closure of Labatt's Brewery.

"I do want to acknowledge your letter of early this morning requesting a meeting and, of course, we have now met to discuss your ideas. I am now writing to advise that, in pursuance of my undertaking to you, I have now contacted Mr. Freeman of Labatt's to convey my request that Labatt's meet with you at the earliest opportunity to listen as sympathetically as possible to your proposals.

"Further, I have obtained from Labatt's its undertaking not to remove any production equipment from the plant prior to November 15. This should remedy one of the serious worries you outlined to me."

Further, in addition to securing a moratorium on the removal of machinery and equipment from the plant, I advised the union members that following their meetings with Labatt's, if they were seriously in a position to pursue a purchase, I would be more than happy to meet with them again and discuss their progress and to see if there were ways in which the government could help. I have not yet heard from the union representatives requesting such a further meeting. I certainly stand ready to meet with them. Most assuredly — and those members were told in that meeting — this government does not propose, itself, to be directly in the brewing business; therefore we did not propose directly to buy the brewery. But we certainly stood ready, and we stand ready, to meet with those representatives or any group who have a viable plan to acquire that brewery and keep it in operation.

I think it is also regrettable that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew failed to mention in his remarks any of the details of the cash-and-notice settlement offered to the employees of Labatt's as part of the settlement package: a financial proposal which provides for almost a full year of cash-flow income to the affected employees. The settlement proposal has been described in various quarters and in the press as extremely generous and fair.

The member had some general things to say about jobs in the beer industry in British Columbia. Regrettably, he failed to point out to members that the beer industry in Canada is in no stronger and better shape than it is in the province of British Columbia; he knows that. All the brewers in Canada look to British Columbia as the place where the beer business is the best and the strongest and where jobs are most secure. Two of the major brewers in this province are in the middle of planning plant expansions. British Columbia has the highest-paid brewery workers in the country. British Columbia does not have the highest beer prices in the country. Saskatchewan has higher beer prices than British Columbia and lower brewery wages.

As for competition in beer pricing, we are seeing something take place today that did not take place between 1972 and 1975. When the socialists were in power there was a single price for beer; it was regulated and administered by government. Under our policies of deregulation, today we are moving to price competition. Today in British Columbia you find a significant variation in the prices of beer. It was not the case from 1972 to 1975 that the northern brewery offered its beer at 60 cents a case less than the rest; that's the case today. It was not the case when the socialists were in power that the major brewers offered at least two lines of regular beer at 50 cents a case lower. It was not the case when the socialists were in power that premium-brand beer of our domestic brewers sold for the same amount as regular; that's the case today. That's just the beginning. In fact, if the member wants to talk about jobs and incomes in the brewing industry, the brewing and beer industry in British Columbia is strong. We have the strongest brewing industry in all of Canada; that's a fact of life. We have the highest-paid brewery workers in Canada; we do not have the highest beer prices in Canada. We are moving into price competition in a way that's not been seen before in in this province. That's progress.

[ Page 6689 ]

In closing I want to reiterate, with respect to the closure of the Labatt's plant in Victoria, firstly, that within two hours of the union requesting a meeting with this government, such a meeting was held. Secondly, within two hours of that meeting this government delivered an answer and help to the union on its most serious concern — the worry of immediate removal of plant and equipment. Thirdly, as we said that day and as we continue to say, if the union or any other group has a viable plan negotiated with Labatt for the reopening or the sale of that plant, and this government can help put that into effect, we're happy to meet so to do — and that still stands.

To be certain, Mr. Speaker, this government is not a government of socialists, and we don't propose that this government involve the taxpayers directly in the brewing business by buying the brewery. We made that very clear at the meeting and very clear in the press. It's unfortunate that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew did not find it possible to state a few of these facts of the case. It's regrettable indeed that he would leave the impression that the government did not meet and act, when in fact it did.

I think it's also regrettable that when Labatt Breweries, in deciding to close that plant, offered the generous 12-month compensation package they did, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew could not find a word or a sentence of fair comment on a very generous settlement offer.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to speak today; but listening to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his comments, I feel I must rise and correct the record.

I have been intimately involved in the discussions with the brewery workers. In fact, I was in attendance with the brewery workers when we met with that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That minister absolutely failed us in the kinds of discussions we were having with him. We went to that minister and asked him if he would represent the other part of his portfolio — the consumer part. He is undoubtedly the finest minister that the corporate division of our economy has ever had. He completely neglects the consumer aspect.

Let me illustrate. That particular brewery had been in operation for 114 years. Up until July of this year it was operating with 130 employees on two shifts and they had 47 percent of the market share of Vancouver Island. Labatt, because of moving to an economy of scale, preferring to serve all of British Columbia and Vancouver Island from New Westminster, decided to move to one shift. Even with one shift of 80 employees that plant was producing 12,000 dozen bottled beer — packaged beer, as they call it — and half that amount in draft beer. Serving only Vancouver Island, guaranteeing 80 jobs for the greater Victoria area....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, there is a member over there who is interjecting and he doesn't happen to be in his seat.

My point is that the remarks of that minister are incorrect. We met with him to ask him if he would contact Labatt Breweries and assist us in getting a moratorium. He gave us no undertaking at that meeting to have a moratorium on the removal of the equipment. Once the equipment was moved out of the brewery there would be no possibility of finding joint participation with private individuals to share in the continuation of that particular brewery. His only undertaking to us was that he would phone Labatt and ask Labatt to meet with the brewery workers. They're perfectly capable of doing that on their own, in any event.

I'm saying that that minister was an absolute failure when it came to trying to secure employment here in Victoria and trying to maintain the viable operation that presently exists. When the corporate breweries pointed their finger at him, he rolled over and said: "How many times should I roll?" It's as simple as that.

Many things have been tried in the latest period of time to try and secure that brewery and enter into joint participation — some experiment in worker democracy. Various individuals have been approached. Some companies, both Canadian and....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, these people don't seem to be interested in the facts, but I'm going to outline the facts and not in the way the minister has previously outlined them. The brewery workers of Victoria, which is a separate local — it covers Vancouver Island and is a separate union — have tried very hard by approaching various individuals to try to secure jobs that are rapidly becoming extinct in this area. There is no reason whatsoever that Vancouver Island shouldn't have its own brewery. There is no reason whatsoever that a Vancouver Island brewery, serving 47 percent of the market share, is not a viable operation. But that is not part of that minister's mandate as he perceives it, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't see his role as guaranteeing employment, securing the economic stability of southern Vancouver Island and making sure that Vancouver Island isn't on some kind of umbilical cord to the mainland. We want to see our own jobs here. We want to see our own viable industries maintained here.

You know, that minister rolls over so fast.... He talks about price competition in the brewery industry. Do you recall when the three major breweries increased the prices all at once and just by coincidence happened to come up with the same price? He called them over and they dressed him down in his own office. We have to tremble when we see a minister.... I think we should delete "consumer" from the title of his portfolio. It should be Minister of Corporate Representative. He's just entirely a corporate representative. Members on that side of the House are always talking about economic stability in jobs. When you look at my riding and look at Vancouver Island and see the lack in diversity of 30 years of Social Credit rule, it's just a shame. It's a terrible, terrible shame. Lack of innovation, diversity, jobs....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor. I would ask members to afford him the right to make his remarks during this amendment debate.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were fulfilling his obligations, he would have held tripartite discussions with the industry and with the brewery workers to try to secure employment here, to try to make sure that economy of scale for the major multinational industries was not the only rule that must be followed. There are other dimensions to these kinds of problems. There are the human dimensions. There is

[ Page 6690 ]

employment and all the social spinoffs of these decisions. Does he perceive that as part of his mandate? No, he absolutely does not.

Nor does the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). When Mortifee Munshaw left, did we hear from him? Not one iota. When Labatt left, did we hear from him? No, not at all. You know, when the RCMP were moving their headquarters.... "That's Mr. Kaplan, that's the federal government. We're not interested in $7 million payrolls in this area. We're not interested in $5 million for Labatt, or $1 million for Mortifee Munshaw."

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that member, the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, rise in his place and tell this House that somehow he had contributed in some positive way when Labatt was closing down, in some way assisted the brewery workers, in some way assisted this community.... That is an absolute and utter.... He's misleading this House in that way. He did not assist us whatsoever in getting a moratorium on the removal of the capital equipment there.

You know, it really is a shame, because there's no reason why Vancouver Island couldn't have its own brewery. There's no reason whatsoever that Vancouver Island couldn't have 80 to 130 good secure jobs — well-paid, organized jobs.

I know first hand, Mr. Minister, what those particular individuals are going through — going for jobs now that are unorganized jobs, minimum-wage jobs, or having to look, after 20 years of service in this area, having to move to Toronto, to move to the bottom of the seniority list, to move to New Westminster and work half-time or part-time at the bottom of the seniority list, or to now, after 20 years of employment, drive an 18-wheel truck up and down the Island, when they're almost ready for retirement.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You know, there are interjections from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, Mr. Speaker. His commitment to this region is so completely inadequate that he won't even properly fund the Economic Development Commission of the capital region. You know what the funding is? It's 50 percent of their income on a one-year basis.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I have to ask the member to withdraw the remark that we're not properly funding the commission and the Capital Regional District. We initiated to try to help bring industry in, and every suggestion we make.... The members try to drive it out. They can't have it both ways.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. As the member is aware, that is not a point of order. There has been quite a bit of that today. Hon. members, the second member for Victoria has the floor, and he will be afforded an opportunity to finish his remarks.

MR. HANSON: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development alluded to the fact that the capital region's Economic Development Commission is properly funded. Let me tell this House how it's funded. In the first year it was funded at 75 percent, the second year at 50 percent, the third year at 25 percent, and now it's year by year. They never know whether they're going to get money or not. What kind of planning is that, Mr. Speaker? That's why we're losing jobs all over Vancouver Island. That minister, who can stand in his place and tell this House that he has properly funded the Economic Development Commission....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. May we proceed?

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out earlier, I rose in my place to correct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because he was not of assistance when we were attempting to save Labatt Breweries here in Victoria, and unfortunately I don't think we're going to be able to save it.

At our own initiative we have an extension till December 15 to try to find people who are willing to enter into some joint venture with the brewery workers. They are willing to put in their own severance pay because they believe in Victoria, and they believe that those 80 jobs are important to our local economy. But, you know, it's that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the kind of financing of the planning and the development commissions that he does here that doesn't allow them the security for long-range planning. That's why places like Mortifee Munshaw had to leave — because of the transportation policies adopted by that government. Labatt's is leaving; the forestry industry is not diversified, and we have no diversity in our food production from our maritime resources. You know, it's a disgrace. It didn't come overnight, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't result from the NDP; it results from 30 years of Socred mismanagement in this province.

These people weren't in government just yesterday; they were in government in 1952, with a brief sojourn of three and a half years. The NDP's program is like a beacon to the future: the agricultural land reserve, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, you name it — on and on and on, progressive legislation to secure stability.

What we need very desperately in my area and on Vancouver Island is some commitment to long-range planning. Look at the possibilities — and the possibilities and the potential are very great. We have some of the finest softwood forests in the entire world; we have some of the finest maritime resources and resource potential for mariculture in all of the world. When you go to Safeway or to the supermarkets and you walk down the shelves of all the seafood products — all the smoked oysters, the crab, the abalone — do you see things that come from British Columbia? No, you do not. You see them with B.C. labels, but they come from Korea and Taiwan; they come from Asia. That is a very great shame. For example, there's a proposal that has been before the government to fund a horticultural institute. It would be a multifaceted centre in Saanich that would encourage horticultural industry — food production. It would be a showcase for the Pacific Rim countries. They would come here and look at our techniques. It would be a stimulus. They can't make up their mind. Do you know what it's hinging on? On 110 acres of Crown land up by Camosun College. They're waiting for a decision on that.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 6691 ]

MR. HANSON: The interjections from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.... He's solely responsible for this. He funds this planning commission. When the planning commission comes forward to him and says, "Would you please make the allocations and make the necessary arrangements with Lands, Parks and Housing so that we can have the 110 acres and have the funds necessary to start this project to secure food production on Vancouver Island?" where do they get? Nowhere. The Waddling Dog gets the money because they are the good.... They put up the signs while we were in power; they get the grants.

I dream of the day when there's going to be planning, because Vancouver Island is a wonderful opportunity to look at an area that is boundless in resources. It has various biogeoclimatic zones and it has an abundance of land-based and maritime resources. Almost a quarter of British Columbia's population resides on Vancouver Island because of the things that I mentioned — an abundance of world-calibre softwood, prime maritime resources of fish, mariculture and so on. The recreational potential is fantastic. Do we get leadership? No, we don't; we get "Smile" buttons, "Good show" programs and planning commissions that are inadequately funded — funded on soft money. They have to wait every year to find out if they're going to be funded. What does this planning commission have? A tiny staff, space with the Capital Regional District, one researcher.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They have an excellent staff. They're trying very hard. If it wasn't for this government they could really do something on Vancouver Island.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think that the practice of debate in this House has been that we can tolerate an odd interruption. It's out of order, for sure, but we have tolerated it by practice. But as soon as an interjection becomes a constant interruption, it is the duty of the Chair to interrupt. Hon. members, I have to remind you that it has reached that place. Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the reason that the government is energized over my comments is that it hits them where they really live. They're ersatz businessmen. They're not really businessmen. They don't know how to run business. Look at, say, Japanese business. They took at long-ranging planning. That's why this government is always getting hosed by the Japanese industries. There is no planning and without planning there isn't a future.

I just want to make sure that that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) knows that he was of no assistance whatsoever in attempting to keep Labatt's here in Victoria. When he stood in his place before he did not tell the whole story. When we met with him and the brewery workers he didn't offer assistance. All he used was one dime to call Labatt's, and that was all.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it has been some months since this Legislature has convened to hear debate on the issues of the day. During that period of time, the members opposite have had a good opportunity to study the issues of the day, to consider the many problems that beset the economy of the world, to take advantage of this legislative session, to reform from their practices of past years and present to the Legislative Assembly and to the press and the public their positive ideas on how they might be able to hold the reins of power in British Columbia, and perhaps redeem themselves from that disastrous period of 1972 to 1975 when they had the opportunity to tinker with the levers of power and to create despair in British Columbia at a time of plenty.

That's why I have listened with great care to the arguments that have been presented, and I'll be going through some of those in some detail before I sit down. But I want to say that I was dismayed to find that the members opposite had driven the media out of the chamber and had driven the public out of the chamber. The one thing that I think desperately needs to be told to the people of British Columbia is exactly what these NDP members have to say. The public needs to understand their arguments, their policies and to become aware of what you people are saying and thinking. They weren't aware of that in 1972, and they had to discover it the hard way. We don't want the public of British Columbia ever to face those difficulties again. We want them to listen carefully to what you say. We want the members of the great fourth estate up there to report in consummate detail what your policies are, what each of you stands for, because that way the public will realize why the province of British Columbia was in a power dive from 1972 to 1975. How fortunate they were to get you out after only three years of damage, and how disastrous it would be ever to have these policies implemented again.

May I give some examples, Mr. Speaker. I know you'll want to have this review. Today we had the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) — he's not here now — tell us he was against producing power dams in British Columbia. He didn't want the Iskut River dammed, the Stikine River dammed, the Liard River dammed. Yes, I say that I think those developments can and will come. Mr. Speaker, they don't want the Hat Creek coal development in British Columbia because they're afraid of acid rain.

They don't want to sell surplus power to the United States — they said that today. We had heavy rains this spring, and rather than spill the water over the dams and waste it we sold $100 million of that to the United States. Mind you, they want more expenditures. They want more on housing. They want more on education. They want more on health, more on this, more on that. But they'd rather spill $100 million worth of water, which would have been wasted, than sell it to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, listen to what these people say. And I plead with the members of the fourth estate: tell the public of British Columbia what they say; let them know. They're against damming the rivers. They're against building thermal-electric power. They're against nuclear power. They'd rather spill the water than sell it to the United States.

Just exactly what do they plan for British Columbia? How do they expect the wheels of industry to turn? How do they expect jobs for all the people who come and demonstrate in their favour here in the halls of our Legislative Assembly? No answer to any of those questions. Months to think about it. Years to present cogent and intelligent arguments in this House. Any amount of time to prepare for your non-confidence motion, to present your programs. Your leader doesn't even show up here in the Legislative Assembly to direct debate, to coordinate this disparate group of people who have no coherent policies at all and only want power, not realizing the amount of damage they did when they were here

[ Page 6692 ]

in office before, and giving every indication by the arguments that they present in this non-confidence motion that they not only haven't learned but that they are incapable of learning.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is another day and it may just be that the Leader of the Opposition will deign to appear in the Legislative Assembly tomorrow, perhaps draw together this little band over here, and somehow be able to give coherent policies — something that he's been unable to do in the six years that he's been the Leader of the Opposition. He was unable to provide direction when he was Premier of British Columbia for three years, but at least he could come and direct his group in opposition. At least he could coordinate the debate and try to present some logical alternative for the people of British Columbia. Maybe tomorrow he will come, and in that hope I move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the afternoon sitting on Wednesday, November 25, the first member for Victoria rose on matter of privilege relating to an incident which occurred in the House on Monday, November 23. The incident complained of related to remarks attributed to a visitor seated on the floor of the House during the opening day proceedings — which remarks were directed to the first member for Victoria.

This House, as recently as March 6, 1980, has examined these rules in considerable detail when the matter of privilege was raised. An examination of the authorities indicates that the Chair must direct its attention to two distinct areas when considering matters of privilege. There must be compliance with the requisite rules to permit the matter of privilege to be brought forward. Secondly, the actions or words complained of are examined to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been established.

In considering the actions and the words complained of, it seems to the Chair that there is evidence of a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Were there not the necessity to consider the formalities related to matters of privilege, the member might now be called upon to move his motion.

But it must be clearly understood that the Speaker's authority does not extend to deciding the question of substance — whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed. It is a question which can only be decided by the House itself, according to May's nineteenth edition, page 347. The Chair must, however, consider the rules relating to matters of privilege. It is necessary that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity and the proposed motion be tendered at the same time. The motion was properly tendered in accordance with rules, so it remains for the Chair to consider whether this matter was raised at the earliest opportunity.

The offence complained of occurred on Monday the 23rd, and the matter was raised in the House on Wednesday the 25th. The matter was also discussed by the hon. member with Mr. Speaker shortly before the House adjourned on Tuesday the 24th. The hon. member has observed in his remarks that it was not until the 25th that he learned the identity of the person complained of and therefore the matter had not been raised earlier.

It seems to the Chair that the member should have brought the incident to the attention of the House immediately to preserve his rights and then pursued his investigation as to the identity of the party. The procedure would have conformed with the authority in this House, which states the proposition that: "A matter of privilege may be raised to satisfy the earliest opportunity rule, even though complete detail upon which the matter is based is not available at the time." That is from B.C. Journals, July 1980.

The matter complained of here, having occurred on opening day and being founded on privilege, should, in my respectful opinion, have been raised on the same day, in accordance with our standing order 26, which reads as follows: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

I would also refer all hon. members to the Journals of this House of July 6, 1981, which quote several decisions from the Parliament at Westminster. Firstly, a matter concerning an article in a newspaper published on May 6 was refused precedence because it was not raised until the 14th. Secondly, a speech reported on a Saturday, because it was not raised until the following Tuesday. Thirdly, when provincial newspapers appear in London on the morning of issue, the complaint should be raised on the day of issue.

I would also refer the hon. members to the Hansard report of the proceedings of this House on Thursday, May 21, 1981, when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a matter of privilege at 10 a.m. relating to a television newscast which he stated had been broadcast the previous evening, after the House had risen. In that instance, the hon. member for Skeena had clearly taken the first opportunity available to him to raise this matter of privilege.

Because a motion based on privilege is given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, strict compliance with the rules has invariably been required. I am unable to find any authority which would permit the Chair to allow this matter to proceed when it has been raised in the House on the second sitting day after the event complained of. Even had the matter been raised in the House at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, the 24th, it seems to the Chair, based on the existing authorities, the matter would have failed to satisfy the earliest opportunity rule.

There is no doubt that the onus on the member raising the matter of privilege is a heavy one, but the Chair has no authority to relax these rules, even though the Chair may well be satisfied that a prima facie case exists. Thank you, hon. members.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1982.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.