[ Page 6709 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kinsella appointment. Mr. Barrett –– 6709

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 6711

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6711

Ms. Brown –– 6713

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6718

Mr. King –– 6722

Mr. Mussallem –– 6726

Mr. Lockstead –– 6729

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6732

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6732

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 6732

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the House welcome Mr. and Mrs. Dave Battison from the city of Penticton. Mr. Battison is an alderman-elect of the city of Penticton. With the Battisons today is Isabel Harris, the sister of Mrs. Jean Battison. I'd like the House to give them a welcome.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have three representatives from the United Native Nations: Bob Warren, Vic Wells and Debbie Hunt. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

KINSELLA APPOINTMENT

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if Patrick Kinsella, from Ontario, and former campaign director in that province, has been appointed to a high-ranking position in the civil service by posting of qualifications first, or was he just hired ad hoc?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella was hired by order-in-council to my office, as all my staff are.

MR. BARRETT: Oh a supplementary, could the Premier inform the House if there is a written job description for this post and, if so, what does it contain? If not, perhaps the Premier could give us a verbal job description.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to deal with that in my estimates. No, there is no written job description.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary question. Could the Premier give us a verbal job description?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Could the Premier give us a verbal job description today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Administrative.

MR. BARRETT: Is it normal to hire through order-in-council for a simple administrative position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT: Could the Premier inform us as to what difference there is between the Premier's office and other ministers' offices relating to administrative positions being appointed by order-in-council or being posted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all deputies and assistant deputies are hired by order-in-council.

MR. LAUK: Could the Premier outline what qualifications Mr. Kinsella had that British Columbians might have had?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was highly recommended as an administrator.

MR. LAUK: During the time that Mr. Kinsella was the Tory campaign director in Ontario, the Tory government spent over three quarters of a million dollars on political polls. Has Mr. Kinsella the authority to use British Columbia taxpayers' money for political polling in this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Kinsella was not hired on a political basis. He's been hired in the Premier's office and is in charge of administration.

MR. LAUK: I'll just have to repeat the question; I don't think the Premier heard it: has Mr. Kinsella got the authority from the Premier or the government to use B.C. taxpayers' money for political polling in the province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella is hired as the deputy minister in charge of administration and would have contact with all other departments of government — ministers and deputy ministers — and as such would become familiar on a day-to-day basis with the business of all aspects of government.

Your direct question was whether he will be initiating polling. The answer is no, but it does not preclude the fact that the government does, and will in the future probably, seek public opinions, as we have in the past, in trying to develop policies that respond to the need of the people in this province. It is a useful and modern tool for government, which is used by most governments now.

MR. LAUK: So he will be doing polling. How much money has been set aside from the treasury for this purpose?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect. Mr. Kinsella does no polling.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, an editorial dated November 22, 1980 in the Globe and Mail, in discussing the way the Tory party in Ontario handled the campaign by-election, said of Patrick Kinsella: "If the Progressive Conservatives are so confident of their position, why did they choose to fight the campaign in such a shabby way? Kinsella used the sort of literature which gives campaigns a bad name and which disgraces everyone concerned."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope it's a brief quotation.

MR. LAUK: Did everyone hear that? The question is: did the Premier discuss this editorial with Mr. Kinsella before he was appointed deputy minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't discuss the one part of his life that was partisan in nature — when he worked for a political party. When he came to British Columbia, he came as an employee of the Premier's office. As such, the role he undertakes for the Premier and the people of B.C.

[ Page 6710 ]

would be far different than that undertaken as someone working for a political party.

However, it is important to have people in the Premier's office who are aware of these types of things, and certainly attacks will be made on the government or personalities in the government by members who are politically partisan, in order to know what they have to expect in the way of a personal attack, as part of being surrounded by government. That's a very important aspect as well, when many politicians, particularly in an appearance such as this, have questions of urgent public importance asked. There are unemployed people and high interest rates. The question period might better be used for personal attacks, rather than dealing with the public's business. I think no other incident illustrates to a greater degree why the people in the Premier's office should be prepared for such conduct, rather than the discussion of the public's business.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would just remind you that questions ought not to be asked which go beyond the scope, certainly the 15-minute time limit, and answers should always be kept within the bounds of the limits of the question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella was of the view that spending almost a million dollars of the taxpayers' money on political polling was irrelevant, too. In Ontario, Mr. Kinsella was a member of Premier Davis's public-appointment committee, which was to recommend "political appointments to the Premier for public service." Has the Premier given instructions to Mr. Kinsella to form such a committee in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I might make it clear that the role Mr. Kinsella played there was working not for the government but for a political party. His role here is different. Yes, Mr. Kinsella in the Premier's office will be aware of all aspects of public business, including knowing who's going to be working for British Columbia. I think this government has a good record of appointment, and that good record of appointment is seeking out the strongest possible British Columbians to do the job. Why, we've even appointed to some aspects of public appointment such great British Columbians as Tony Gargreave, for whom I have great respect.

MR. LAUK: The Premier answered in such a way, Mr. Speaker, as to indicate that Mr. Kinsella's role in Ontario was strictly partisan. The nature of my question clearly pointed out that Mr. Davis of that province put Mr. Kinsella on a political appointments committee. The Premier has admitted that such a role for Mr. Kinsella is perceived here. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think discussing the way Premier Davis conducts the government in Ontario could be better done by the opposition in Ontario. But I would say that the members of my staff that work for government are going to do the best possible job, whether it's Mr. Kinsella or any of the other members, in trying to make sure that the government functions in the best possible way and that the public business is conducted in the best possible manner for the public to receive the benefits of good responsive government. Mr. Speaker, to deny any question that Mr. Kinsella would have no knowledge of that would be to say that he and my office would not be undertaking what I hope they will do: that is, to involve themselves in conducting a better public administration and providing an opportunity for the Premier's office to do a much better job.

MR. LAUK: In his job as deputy minister and advising the Premier on political appointments to the public service, has Mr. Kinsella prepared what is known as a blacklist of those people in career positions who may or may not support the Social Credit philosophy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect when he suggests that Mr. Kinsella will be dealing with political appointments to the public service; the public service goes through the Public Service Commission. I want to deny categorically the allegation contained in his question that the government is making appointments to those boards and commissions on any other basis. In our judgment, they have the highest possible qualifications, and I want to deny categorically the allegation contained in his question that such a blacklist would be made or even considered. I can only consider that if someone would have to think of that in order to contain it in a question, then that's the way he thinks, not the way we think.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's not the way the Premier or I think; I'm talking about the way Mr. Kinsella thinks. He was on a political appointments committee that appointed Tories to public service appointments. Has Mr. Kinsella received instructions from the Premier that he is not to do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. It would be highly unlikely that I would give any direction to Mr. Kinsella that he appoint Conservatives to government boards and commissions, and he has had no instruction to undertake any role of that nature in which the political party is of consideration in any aspect in government but to provide the best possible government. Again, I would suggest that to try to draw a parallel between the last job he held in Ontario and the job he's doing in British Columbia would be very foolish, because they are totally different. This one involves working in the Premier's office, and in the others, as part of his career, Mr. Kinsella worked in the political system for the Conservative Party. To my knowledge, he's never been a member of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, is not a member now and, to any knowledge I have, may not be a member in the future.... They find that amusing on the NDP side. They may have made that a requirement when they were government. It's not a requirement of this government that to get a job you've got to join the party. Let me make that very, very clear.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly that Mr. Kinsella is not a member, in my view, of the partisan politics that seem to be a large part of the public life in British Columbia. He does come from another part of Canada; yes, he's a Canadian. One of the arguments in the recent constitutional discussion is the right of Canadians to seek employment in any part of the country.

Now if the member for Vancouver Centre is suggesting that other Canadians aren't welcome in British Columbia, then let him clearly state that as policy. It may be the first announcement of NDP policy that we've heard in the last three years.

[ Page 6711 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. In the runup to the spring election in Ontario in 1981, Mr. Kinsella was quoted as saying that Tories were returning to "big spending, media-blitz style, with emphasis on the leader's profile." Has the Premier decided that such a thing might be appropriate in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if I'd wanted Mr. Kinsella to undertake that role, and if I had the power to do so — that is, to interfere with the party organization — he would have been hired by the Social Credit Party, not by the government of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, he certainly should have been hired by the party and not by the people of this province. Even that's bad enough — the same bird, different feathers!

I have a question for the Premier. In the Ontario spring election over $20 million of taxpayers' money was used in the runup to the election for promoting the Tory party in government. Is the Premier going to do that here?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of how the Conservative Party in Ontario conducted either of their elections. The only fact I know is that once again they completely demolished the NDP.

Introduction of Bills

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Geothermal Resources Act.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next next sitting of the House, after today.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: In proceeding with the remarks I made on Friday, I would just like to compliment the mover of the motion regarding the Speech from the Throne, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), for his excellent speech, and also the seconder, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). I thought they presented well their thoughts on the throne speech read by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I would also like to compliment the Premier of this province for the job he did in bringing together the ten provinces of Canada and the federal government to discuss and reach constitutional accord in this last month. I think the effort that the Premier of this province went to will go down in history as a major part of seeing Canada come of age.

For the past six years the opposition has criticized our throne speeches. It's the normal opposition's role, we know, to oppose the government. I think John Diefenbaker said it best: "The role of the opposition is to oppose." It seems that that's been going on now for several years, even though we have achieved some tremendous advances in the past six years under the economic activity and policies of this government. So I have to think that the opposition, in opposing the throne speeches that have gone on in the past and this one, haven't really looked at the track record. Possibly they should be getting up and complimenting us on what we've done. If you look back as far as 1975, when we came into office, I believe the unemployment figure was something like 9 percent unemployed in this province. In 1981 we had one of the lowest unemployment figures in Canada; that's because of the policies set by this government.

If we look back to 1975, the mining industry of this province was virtually at a standstill. They had literally driven the mining industry to its knees. Now in 1981 that mining activity has expanded. We have new mines and new exploration. Tremendous participation in the economic growth of this province has come from the mining industry because of the sound economic policies of this government.

I remember 1975, when the then Minister of Highways, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), told the tourists to go home. They used to call him the minister of pot-holes. Now in 1981 we've got a tourist industry that generates over $2 billion in economic activity in this province; that's because of sound economic policies.

If you look at the financial history that's gone on since 1975, this province has achieved an AAA credit rating as a province because of its economic soundness, as opposed to what it was when the NDP were in office.

Last year we had over 40,000 people come into British Columbia because of job opportunities, because of an expanded economy. I can remember in 1975 there was a slogan going around: "Would the last one to leave B.C. please turn off the lights." We've come a long way since 1975. Because of that economic activity we've had, because of the job creations we've had, we've been able to take out of the economy of British Columbia those dollars, through taxation, through royalties, through economic activity. We've been able to create hospitals; more hospital construction has gone on in this province. We've expanded home-care services and services to our seniors. We brought in such programs as the SAFER program. We brought in dental care. All these things have happened not because government has got a money tree in the backyard, but because we've got sound economic policies and we've been able to achieve in the past six years economic stability, stability that provides services to people, after inheriting a nearly bankrupt province in 1975, from just three years of government under the NDP We've come a long way.

This throne speech outlines future direction for this province in energy security — the development of our alternative energy sources, our exploration for oil and natural gas, our coal reserves and our hydroelectric power development program — to make sure we are not dependent on the world supply of energy, so that we can become more self-sufficient in energy to ensure that our province can provide jobs for our young people. We've moved in this throne speech to talk about job creation. BCDC is working with CP Air to provide an engine-overhaul plant in the lower mainland. In Kitimat the Ocelot development is looking at a new, further processing of our natural gas resource. In the northeast, of course, we're developing the megaproject, if you will, of northeast coal, and at the same time expanding activities in the southeast of this province. All this is aimed at creating jobs for our young people, and it is all the result of a political climate in which the private sector can grow and can develop our natural resources.

[ Page 6712 ]

The other problem that's addressed in the throne speech deals with housing. If you recall, a few years ago we brought out a $200 million housing program which made housing available to people of the province, but at the same time gave stimulus to our forest industry and our contracting industry. This year in our throne speech the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will be making more Crown land available, will be giving assistance to first-time homebuyers, and will be providing a program where people can rent with the ability to purchase their homes when they have the financial wherewithal to do it.

The opposition has criticized the Lands, Parks and Housing minister's housing program, but I can tell you their alternative would be state-owned housing. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement a few days ago in this House: "We don't agree with this kind of society." Those few words give a pretty good indication as to what kind of society the second member for Vancouver East would want. He's looking at a society with government control, more government involvement in the business sector, whereby the government would buy such things as sawmills, regardless of whether they were viable or not; they would move into buying turkey plants and chicken plants, whether they are viable or not, all under the guise of saving jobs.

They make their case because they feel that here are going to be 200 jobs lost here or 300 jobs lost there. But they do not realize and they never have realized that it takes an economy that is strong and growing to create jobs. If you move into an area where you buy jobs regardless of their viability, if you buy plants under the guise of saving jobs, then I think that's part of a master plan and a plan where they want total government involvement in business and in the financial sector of this province.

I can tell you what kind of society that is. I'm sure the member for Vancouver East will nod his head, because he's very familiar with the word. It's called socialism. That's the kind of society that party is aiming for. The people of British Columbia should be very well aware of the policy and the philosophy of the NDP. They will promise everything and anything. They will buy the mills; they will buy the farmland.

I should mention that recently I was at a convention in Cranbrook, and the Leader of the Opposition was asked: "What would you do if I wanted to sell my farmland? Would you buy it?" The Leader of the Opposition, figuring that this was another way of getting a few votes, said: "Yes, of course we'd buy it; it would be our policy to buy the farmland." After the Leader of the Opposition had left the stage, the farmer turned to me and said: "You know, it's a nice solution; it's nice to know that I can sell my farmland when I want to retire, because I can't subdivide it. I will just be able to sell it to the government." The only problem is that they won't have any money left to buy it. That's exactly the way it will be, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have the policies or the philosophy to allow the economy to respond to the marketplace; they figure the easiest way is for the government to buy everything. When the government owns everything, I'm not sure where you go from there. But they paint the rosy picture. They say to everybody: "Just let government do it and all will be well."

Well, Mr. Speaker, they did that from 1973 to 1975. They let government do it, and I'm sure people will remember what it was like at the end of 1975. So before the people of British Columbia ever consider letting the government do it again, I would ask them to remember the old adage which goes as follows: "Government is never a source of money or goods. Everything produced is produced by the people, and everything that government gives to the people it must first take from the people."

Mr. Speaker, before I close I want to move on to a few items that really occur outside our borders but have tremendous impact on the economy and the well-being of British Columbia. That is the federal fiscal policy. I want to give two examples of the impact of this policy on the province of British Columbia and on the policies of the government of British Columbia. First, Mr. Speaker, is the Canada savings bond issue that came out several weeks ago and closed on November 7. The rate on that bond issue was 19.5 percent for 1982. That was a policy determined in Ottawa, and it set the rate for Canada savings bonds at 19.5 percent for the next year. Mr. Speaker, that rate on that prime savings certificate sets the base for all money lenders in Canada. Five days after that issue closed off, the Bank of Canada's rate was 16.31 percent. Where the federal government thought they would raise some $2 billion to $3 billion in Canada savings bond issues, they actually raised in the vicinity of $10 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the difference between 19.5 percent and 16.3 percent is a little over $300 million, and that will be the cost to the government of Canada to pay interest next year. That will be the cost to the taxpayers of Canada to pay that interest next year — in one year. What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that the impact on the financial institutions and the impact on industry and on commerce because of that policy, which changed within five days of the Canada savings bonds sales closing off.... The rate dropped by the Bank of Canada — an arm of the federal government administration — was a drop of over 3 percent, and as a result the cost next year will be substantial. That policy, Mr. Speaker, was short-sighted, it was poor planning, and some economist in Ottawa should get his walking papers. It was inflationary, because the outflow of that $10 billion came out of the banking system — banks, trust companies, credit unions. They all lost those savings dollars when they came out of the accounts to go to the Canada savings bond because of its high interest rate. It made the financial institutions in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada maintain their high interest rates on savings, and therefore they had to maintain high loan rates. That, Mr. Speaker, was very damaging and will continue to be damaging for the next year or so to the economy of British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

Consider the multiplying factor with regard to the impact on the banks, the trust companies and the credit union policies in maintaining high interest. Consider the impact on B.C. businesses when they made decisions as to whether or not to buy, to expand or to finance their operations. In some cases they would have to turn their decision around for expansion. They couldn't afford operating capital, some got into difficulties and some went out of business because of the high rates.

I'd suggest that if you apply the multiplying factor to that $10 billion of Canada savings bonds at 19.5 per cent, we in Canada have probably lost over a billion dollars in economic activity because of higher costs to industry, because of decisions of businesses not to proceed with expansion, just due to that one federal fiscal policy that happened a few weeks ago.

One other part of that problem — the federal problem dealing with financing — is that the federal budget which

[ Page 6713 ]

came down a few weeks ago stated that 22 cents of every taxpayer's dollar — or every dollar of revenue — would be required to service debt. Next year over $16 billion out of the federal budget will go to service debt for past spending, for goods we've consumed as a government — an increase of 57 per cent over last year because of higher interest rates. That's the interest on debt. It has no productivity; it's paying for what we've already consumed. I can only say that one thing this government has done since 1975, when we were elected, is have a policy, advocated by the Premier of this province when he took office, that we will pay as we go and not mortgage the future. We will not mortgage the income of those people or our children coming on in days ahead. We've maintained that pledge, Mr. Speaker, and we have not run into a deficit position. We haven't had to pay out of revenues for services on government debt, as the federal government has.

We're fortunate because of that government policy. In good times we basically paid our way — we haven't incurred debt — and we are in good, sound financial position as we come into 1982, which because of those inflationary fiscal practices of the federal government will be difficult. I'd like the people of this province to think where we would be had the NDP carried on in the past six years as they did in the three years when they were in office between 1972 and 1975.

MR. MACDONALD: We wouldn't be shutting down Panco, that's for sure.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East again comments about his philosophy, to the effect that they wouldn't be shutting down Panco if they were in power. He, of course, is endorsing what I've just said about him: that government's role, as he sees it, is to get involved in all sectors of the business community. I'd like the people of this province to recognize the master plan of that party. It's total government involvement. You will be a tenant on your land, and you will be working for government. If they're in power, they will have all the power, and there will not be the opportunities for people to make their own way, to expand on an idea, or a theory, to become successful, because basically they would like to see everybody working for the government and everybody being "under control."

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech sets out the guidelines for British Columbia, not only in the area of economic activity but also in the area of services to people. As I said before, a government cannot provide services to people if the economy of that province or of that country doesn't provide the funds to provide those services that government is asked to supply to the people of the province or the country.

There is no question that 1982 will be a difficult year. We've seen the start, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. But we are feeling, in great respect, the impact of policies over which we have little or no control: those high interest rates that I mentioned and the financing of federal debt, to name a few. But we are better off than many of our fellow Canadians and people in other parts of the world. And we're better off because we've allowed the marketplace to work.

We've created a political climate that allows the industry of this province and the business of this province to operate within guidelines. Those operations are a result of the guidelines that were presented in previous throne speeches. Because of this November 23, 1981, throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we have a plan of action which, in my opinion, will deal with the challenge that faces all of us in 1982. So I am very pleased and proud to support the throne speech.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. I know that in taking my place in this debate on the throne speech, I should first of all make some comments about the constituency I represent, Burnaby-Edmonds. I want to start off by saying that if the minister who just took his seat is correct and the throne speech does, in fact, lay out the plan of strategy for the future, then Burnaby-Edmonds is indeed in trouble.

What the throne speech brings to a focus in our attention is that there is nothing in it for the people of British Columbia and that the people of Burnaby-Edmonds, as everywhere else, are the victims of the policies and some of the decisions made by this government. Nowhere in the throne speech do we see any relief for the homeowners in Burnaby. There are something in the vicinity of 3,500 senior citizens on a waiting list for housing, and nothing in the throne speech indicates that the government is even aware of this, much less that it is going to do anything about it. The unemployment statistics for September and October indicate that when unemployment in the rest of Canada is going down, British Columbia is still on the increase. Certainly those constituents of Burnaby-Edmonds who work in the forest industry or are involved in small business know what the policies of this government mean to the increase in their unemployment. They are feeling the pinch of the decisions and some of the policies of this government.

There is no relief from impact of inflation. As a matter of fact, the senior citizens and people on fixed incomes are the victims of some of the inflation brought on by some of the policies of this government. I'll be speaking more about the increase in the cost of bus passes, which touches no one else but the senior citizens and the people who depend on it.

The government continues to shift the burden of education costs away from the provincial government and onto the homeowners. Certainly that's what the homeowners in Burnaby are finding.

We see also that the policies of this government continue to exploit that municipality as a transportation corridor for the people of the lower mainland, since there is no commitment whatsoever to improve public transit in that municipality. There was one statement made in the speech about the government's commitment to the Annacis crossing, which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) later denied. It is very clear that the architect of the throne speech did not consult with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), because he has said since that the Annacis crossing is going to be on the back burner and is not going to be dealt with, as was suggested in the throne speech.

The throne speech holds no benefits for the people of Burnaby. Instead, the people of Burnaby are going to be exploited so that this government can get on with its megaprojects, and the ones who cannot be exploited will either be ignored, as in the case of the senior citizens, or punished and abused, as in the case of single parents on welfare, the disabled and children of the poor.

But I think the thing that a number of people in my constituency are going to focus on is a statement on page 14 of the throne speech, in which the Lieutenant-Governor read: "No single element in our democratic system of government is as important as our electoral process." I'm quite sure that the people in Burnaby-Edmonds are wondering what the government had in mind when it made that particular comment,

[ Page 6714 ]

because one of the things that we've become aware of quite recently is one of the newest dirty tricks which this government has planned for the particular constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds.

I want to give you some background information into that, Mr. Speaker. In the Globe and Mail of March 30, 1979, there was a story about Ian Deans, who was, as you may have known, a very popular New Democratic member of the provincial Legislature who resigned his Wentworth seat to enter the House of Commons. So a by-election was called. In that by-election the Tories nominated a person by the name of Mr. Gordon Deans to be their candidate, and prominently displayed the name of this candidate on leaflets. The leaflets did not mention, or certainly downplayed the fact, that he was a Tory candidate. They also printed all of the leaflets in the NDP party colours, not the Tory party colours. When Mr. Kinsella was asked about this, his response was: "We are taking advantage of all of these subtleties; we are not running away from them, because the name of the game is to win."

Approximately two or three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from one of my constituents to inform me that at a meeting of the Social Credit executive the decision was made that in Burnaby-Edmonds they were going to find and ask to be the candidate someone by the name of Brown. Because, of course, the assumption was that in Burnaby all Browns look alike. So in fact they had found a candidate, a Mr. Brown, who is presently an alderman in the constituency of Burnaby itself. They have asked him whether he would consider running as the candidate in Burnaby Edmonds, and explained to him that this would confuse the voters and result in his election.

Well, Burnaby-Edmonds is not like Ontario. So when I ran into Alderman Brown at a meeting, I asked him whether this was correct or not. He assured me that it was. He had not considered running as a candidate until he was approached by the Social Credit party organization. He was asked to join the party, asked to be the candidate, and told that he had to make his decision by the first week in December, because that was the deadline. I have no doubt whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that what we are about to witness is a candidate by the name of Brown, whose literature and leaflets and everything, as happened in the by-election for the Wentworth seat in Ontario, are going to be in the NDP colours. Presumably all of the voters of Burnaby-Edmonds will be confused and not know which Brown is Brown.

At first I thought the whole idea was ridiculous. But that was prior to having some understanding of the kinds of political decisions and the political tactics made by the deputy minister in the Premier's office. Again, when this was pointed out in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Kinsella's response was that all of these subtleties were to be taken advantage of because the name of the game is to win.

I am certainly not new to the area of Socred dirty tricks. I have been the victim of their tricks before. Burnaby Edmonds isn't. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that we look forward to this new Kinsella-type of dirty trick in Burnaby-Edmonds, and we've already started to prepare ourselves to welcome the other Brown, who will be running in that constituency in the next election. Incidentally, he hasn't given his final word yet, but he is certainly being pressured.

The other comment made in the throne speech which I'd like to speak on is the one on page 7:

"Perhaps no single change has had as great an impact on the work world and on society in general as the growth in the female labour-force participation. Today, one of every two women of working age is in the labour force, comprising nearly 42 percent of workers. Two-income families are becoming prevalent in our society. The rapidity with which this change is occurring is presenting governments everywhere with an obligation to act to enrich and to support these developments so as to benefit fully from the skills, energies and productivity of all our people."

I would have welcomed that comment, and certainly seen it as a beginning of a brave new world for British Columbia, were it not for the fact that just the day before this happened the Premier himself reneged on a commitment to the principle in this province of women being paid equally when they performed work of equal value to the work performed by a male.

The other thing that raised some doubts in my mind was the fact that the federal government waited for some time for this government to ratify the United Nations convention which was committed to the elimination of the discrimination against women in all areas. In fact, when the provincial government did make a move to affix its signature to that ratification, it did so with the understanding that the section dealing with equal value was not to be included. In this respect, of course, it was no different than the federal government and all the provinces, but it certainly did not support the throne speech commitment to women in terms of enriching and supporting the rights and development of women.

When we talk about equal pay for work of equal value, Mr. Speaker, I don't want you to think that we're discussing principles. That's not what we're discussing at all. What we talk about when we talk about equal pay for work of equal value is money; we're talking about economics. We're talking about poverty when we talk about discrimination in this area. We're talking about the statistics that show that most of the poor people in this country, as in this province, are women: poor when they're young, poor when they're middle-aged and certainly poor when they're old. In fact, the welfare rolls at all levels consist of more women and their children than of any other group. We've got to be able to make the link — and surely the government can make the link — between poverty and lack of decent wages.

The economist David Gordon tells us that women are segregated in their work life into four categories of jobs: (1) the peripheral industries, which include manufacturing and those kinds of jobs; (2) the clerical occupations; (3) the health and education sector; (4) domestic service. Those are the job ghettos where women are concentrated. He goes on to say that in the first category, manufacturing, profit margins are so slim that women are hired in the first place because they are prepared to work for less; they are cheap labour. Any attempt made by any government to improve their wages or working conditions would erode that profit margin, and the industries would collapse. This is a story we've certainly been hearing for a number of years from the manufacturing sector. In the category of clerical work, he says that to upgrade clerical workers — the government should be interested in that, since they are major employers in this area — would be to threaten the hierarchical structure of an organization. This would have devastating results. First, discrimination in income is justified on the basis that it is going to erode profit margins;

[ Page 6715 ]

secondly, it's justified on the basis that it's going to interfere with the hierarchical structure of an organization. He explains (3) and (4) by saying that working in health and education and in the domestic sector is just carrying on in terms of what women's work is anyway — the kind of work that women do in the home — and that is the reason why it's accepted by a basically patriarchal society.

What a government has to do when it makes a commitment to equal pay for work of equal value is to say and to decide, when the solution involves the exploitation of women, in terms of profit margin, that it is too profound and too destructive a solution to continue. There have to be different ways of dealing with marginal job areas, marginal manufacturing areas and those kinds of things, other than through exploiting women. Of course, the hierarchical structure is one that should be changed anyway.

We have to accept and recognize, Mr. Speaker — and I know the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) knows this — that in the long run we pay anyway for this exploitation: we pay through the income-assistance rolls before they are age 60; after the age of 60 we pay through the old-age pension, the guaranteed income supplement and GAIN. We pay in the long run for that exploitation. So it's a matter of deciding whether we're going to eliminate that exploitation and then really deal with the whole area of poverty and women, or whether we're going to carry on, as this government has decided, to entrench this discrimination against women, so that the whole question of poverty continues for them.

The cost of carrying on the discrimination in income against women is one that, I think, no government has accurately computed today. Instead we hear from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and other ministers that it's not possible to compute value. How do you measure it? How do you decide what it is? But it has been done in other jurisdictions, and if the minister is committed to finding out, in Washington state in 1974 the entire education system embarked on trying to evaluate all of its employees in terms of the concept of equal value, tried to eliminate the biases and to come on stream with a pay scale that took into account the value of the work that everyone did. The Public Service Alliance of Canada is trying to do this. So for the Minister of Labour and for the government to say that it's not possible to deal with this is to say that they don't want to deal with it; it's to say that the economics are such and the costs are such in the beginning that they are consciously making a decision to perpetuate poverty among women and pay for it in the end with their GAIN payments or income assistance — at the same time, of course, as the whole question of women on welfare is one which another ministry is dealing with.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) stood up and said: "You can't have services unless you have good business going on." Well, part of the income generated from that good business comes out of the exploitation of women through not paying them the value of their work in terms of the salaries that reflect that value. For the government to talk about being committed to women and enriching them, when at the same time it is entrenching exploitation and discrimination in this area, is hypocritical, and it does not begin to address itself to that very real problem which women have, namely poverty.

The throne speech then goes on to tell us.... First of all, I want to say that a hint of this came earlier from the meeting of the women's auxiliary at the Social Credit convention, when they said: "As the family goes, so goes the nation." I want to endorse that; I believe that was a very accurate statement. So the throne speech tells us that the role of the family as the basic foundation of our society cannot be overemphasized. "This has been a consistent view of my government, and one which underlies and gives focus to its many programs." Well, if one had the time to itemize, detail and analyze the way in which the policies of this government threaten, undermine and destroy the family, Mr. Speaker, it would take days — whether it's through the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Education, Labour or the Attorney-General. Wherever you look, the policy of this government goes counter to the commitment made in the throne speech. It does not support the family; it threatens the family, it undermines the family. The family is in clear and imminent danger as a result of some of the policies of this government.

When, at the end of August of this year, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) introduced a new policy which was a direct and unmitigated attack on infants and single parents in this province, that was an attack on the family. I'm appalled that the members of the ladies' auxiliary at their convention did not take the minister to task on that. Certainly, that the deputy minister from Ontario would dare to include that in the throne speech — reclassifying people based on whether they're employable or unemployable, based on the age of an infant and on whether it's being breast-fed or not — is the most ludicrous comment I've ever heard.

But what in fact do we find? The minister tells us that the reason for doing this is research done in her ministry which indicates that single parents are better educated, better skilled than everyone else and stay on welfare because they lack — I don't know — the nerve to get off. So I decided to read the research. I have a copy of the dependency report done for the ministry, based on 1976 research, and I don't know why the minister hasn't released that report, because the findings in that report are so interesting. The first thing that the dependency survey found was that 94 percent of the employable people and 86 percent of the unemployable people presently in receipt of income assistance have work histories. They are people who have worked. In fact, what the report goes on to say is that when they interviewed the income assistance recipients, they said: "What would be your first choice? What do you see as the number one priority of the Ministry of Human Resources?" A total of 70.6 percent of the employables and 41.6 of the unemployables said that its first policy should be the creation of jobs. That's what it should be dealing with. It was not, as the myth continues to circulate, that the recipients would rather sit on income assistance. Of course, they went on then to explain that it's hard to find work when there is no work, when the unemployment figures in this province continue to increase and when other provinces' unemployment figures are going down.

In case you don't know, Mr. Speaker, the migration from this province is now larger than the migration coming into it for the first time in a great many years. There are more people leaving British Columbia, including senior citizens, than there are people coming into this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Then the report goes on to say: "We have established that the social assistance caseload is really sensitive and dependent on the labour market. It has nothing to do with whether

[ Page 6716 ]

the recipient needs counselling in terms of self-esteem or lack of self-esteem." The report very clearly says that when there is work, the caseload goes down. When there is no work, it increases. It says: "B.C. at present has the highest rate of unemployment west of Quebec." That is why there is an increase in the income assistance rolls. It also goes on to say that recipients prefer to work, rather than to continue in idleness on social assistance. The general desirability to work among the unemployed on social assistance challenges the orthodox notion of laziness as induced by subsidies.

It was only the second choice, after employment, that the recipients then said that there should be an increase. But it says that very few recipients ever leave their jobs in favour of establishing recipient-dependency status. I don't understand why the Minister of Human Resources would have had this report all of this time and not released it. If the truth will set you free, why doesn't everyone in British Columbia have an opportunity to know what the truth is in terms of the income assistant recipient, rather than all these myths which the minister continues to perpetuate about the people in receipt of income assistance?

We were told there was an alternative. Now there are going to be jobs. There is going to be training.

When I wrote to the Minister of Human Resources and asked how much money was put in the budget for the individual opportunities programs, I received a letter back from her telling me.... She thanked me first of all for my letter, and then went on: "As you may be aware, the intent of the plan is to provide employment-related services and to enhance the cooperation among the government agencies working to assist income assistance recipients. To achieve these goals, we have not increased the budget but have attempted to make the most efficient use of existing resources, which are oriented towards increasing our clients' abilities to become self-sufficient."

First, I want to compare the individual opportunities program with some of the other programs used by this government over the years in terms of income assistance recipients. You've heard of Zoom. You've heard of PREP. You've heard of the alliance for businessmen — all of these catch names. The deputy minister received a memo on an assessment done by a research economist in the ministry, Mr. Robin Handvelt, about the income assistance savings which were made by one of these programs — PREP. It says: "The published statistics on PREP establishes that PREP has placed very few income assistance recipients in jobs." It goes on to say that the reduced caseload depends upon whether clients placed in a job by PREP are in addition to the normal outflow of clients to be employed. It is possible that the PREP job placement represents jobs that would have been filled by other clients anyway. The report goes on to state — as I stated earlier and as was found in the dependency study of 1976 — that the only thing that accurately reflects what goes on the caseload is the labour market in the whole, the unemployment situation.

The report says: "We therefore conclude that the PREP program has had little or no effect on the total number of income assistance cases." He tries to explain why it probably worked in Surrey, where it was done as a pilot project, and why it isn't working anywhere else.

"The notion of slack periods of employment opportunity require that the ministry acknowledge that many clients cannot get jobs. Extensive efforts to place clients in jobs may simply set up a rival process to the normal job finding process. The consequences of the total impact on the caseload will be limited or negligible, depending on the available jobs."

This is what happened with PREP.

"In any effort to find jobs for clients it is paramount that the nature of the job market open to the clients be kept in mind. The income assistance survey clearly locates the majority of income assistance plans in seasonal and casual labour markets."

That's the same thing that the dependency survey found — that they are primarily casual workers, and when there are jobs, they do go to work. They, themselves, when asked the question, said that that was what they would rather do, then went on to itemize that because there were no jobs, because there was no daycare — those kind of support things — they were forced, Mr. Speaker, in some instances to stay on income assistance, by the ministry's own statistics, for as long as four months.

The Victoria experiment on which the minister has based her new policy.... David P. Ross, a consultant on income security with the Canadian Council on Social Development, in a letter to Ms. Gus Long, explained: "After looking at the experiment, I find the experiment shoddy — it proves nothing." In conclusion, he says: "This is a very poor time to introduce short-term experiments designed to encourage the hard-to-employ to move into the labour market, because of the critical unemployment situation in the province."

The other thing the minister has committed herself to is the whole business of education and counselling. I don't know if you know this, Mr. Speaker, but the ministry is going to be contracting out to the private sector counselling for income assistant recipients, to help them deal with their self-image. One of these groups, MESI — Merit Employment Success Inc.; MESI for short.... Really, it should be MESS, because when we checked, we found they were not incorporated. Anyway, the minister is going to be contracting out for them to deal with the "deeply discouraged"; $875 out of ministry funds is going to help them deal with the deeply discouraged. When I passed this information on to one of the recipients and said, "Well, you can always apply for assistance through MESI if you're deeply discouraged, " he asked if there was a program for the "deeply pissed off." Really, Mr. Speaker, that is what the department is dealing with at this time.

Again, on the timing, if I go to the minister's own reports, it says: "The winter months are exactly when marginal workers and those with limited UIC insurance exhaust their benefits and come back onto income assistance." Yet this is the time that the ministry has decided.... "The slowest months for people to leave social assistance come from December through April." The information is here. The ministry has those results and knows the facts. This is the worst possible time to be forcing people without skills to get into the job market and start fighting for jobs, because they're just not there, Mr. Speaker. The statistics coming out of the Ministry of Labour would certainly tend to support this. The Minister's statement that the past 20 years have seen a major change in the income assistance recipient, and that the women on income assistance now have higher educations and higher job aspirations than in the past, her reason and justification for decreasing their income assistance if they're not redefined as being employable, I think needs some questioning.

[ Page 6717 ]

I have gone through this report. I have contacted the minister's department and asked that they share with me some of the other research which they have done and which they refer to — not just their dependency study, but some of the other studies which they have done which they say claims that this is true — and I have to date not received any of this. So I have decided it is time we hear from the income assistance recipients themselves.

In consultation with a number of other people who work with single-parent families and with people involved in the system, I have designed a questionnaire to the single parent herself, or himself as the case may be, to find out whether this is in fact true, why it is, and what kind of impact this new policy is having on the single parent with a child over the age of six months or with two children, one of which is over the age of 12.

In a statement in the press on the weekend, the minister stated that it was nonsense about the impact of this policy on children. But we have two school principals, Mr. Pat Mitchell from Thunderbird School and Mr. Claus Spiekermann from a school in North Vancouver, both of whom have documented evidence of the impact of this new policy. Just now, when inflation and unemployment is on the increase, when the cost of everything, including programs sponsored by the ministry itself — and I'm speaking about Restaurant 44, where a number of recipients buy their meals — is on the increase, the ministry has decided to cut back the income of these recipients by $55 and $35 respectively. And the ministry says: "Well, the only thing that stands in the way of these people working is daycare."

I want to tell you about one person who is working and is not on income assistance. She has two children — one 15 and one 5, so she is employable, and is employed. She would like some assistance with her daycare. She wrote a letter which said:

"I went to the daycare information centre this morning to apply for a subsidy. To begin with, I was told that if one grossed more than $1,000 a month, one could no longer be given a subsidy based on the needs test. They'd have to fill out the needs test, but it would then have to be taken to a higher authority. Anyhow, as I definitely did not qualify for a subsidy on the first form, we filled out the second form in the hope that if there was anything left over, the higher authority would okay it.

"The new rule No. 1 is that only one-third of your income is allowed for shelter. If you're on income assistance, one-half is allocated for shelter. This means that while my shelter cost is actually: rent, $500 a month, lights, $38; telephone, $9; heat, $45; and cablevision, $6 — for a total cost of $598 — I am allowed, according to this form, a maximum of $432.

"The second rule was that while I have a loan payment, I cannot use it as a deduction, because I did not secure the loan for the purpose of buying household furnishings. I explained that I had borrowed the money three years ago to hire a lawyer and run away from home when I was severely beaten by my ex-husband. I was told that that kind of loan was not allowed as an acceptable deduction.

"MHR therefore allowed me the following deductions: shelter, $432, and the cost of running a car, $100 — for a total of $532 — when, again, my actual costs are: shelter, $598; car, $100; the loan, which I am still paying off, is at the rate of $140 a month; and daycare, $220 — for a total of $1,030 a month in expenses.

"I actually earn $1,342 a month. Therefore I have $302 left over each month to cover the cost of food, clothing and activities for a 15-year-old son, a 5-year-old daughter and myself.

"Pardon me; I forgot my family allowance...."

She went on to talk about the fact that she actually had $344 left over.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the nutrition guide handed out by the Ministry of Health, we find that she should have been spending in June, as a minimum, $364 a month to feed her family.

Well, my time is running out, and I don't want to make the same mistake that the throne speech made of not recognizing that this is the International Year of Disabled Persons. There was no mention in the throne speech of that. The fact is that what the disabled have asked for, they have not received. They've asked for an amendment to the Human Rights Code so that discrimination based on disability could be outlawed, and that has not happened. There has been no aggressive job creation program developed and no recommendations or whatever on a provincewide basis to deal with the severely disabled child. In fact, the only statement we've heard in the throne speech was that there was going to be a shift from large institutions to a range of community-based options. The opposition intends to watch that closely to make sure that the large institutions are not replaced by small institutions, as is happening in Alberta.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say on behalf of the senior citizens, who again were ignored by this throne speech.... The Council of Senior Citizens of British Columbia passed a resolution asking that SAFER be reexamined and reconstructed so that it would kick in when the rent was 25 percent, rather than 30 percent, and that it be changed where SAFER is presently terminated for the under-65 spouse when the spouse dies. In fact, the only thing that happened for the seniors was that they had their bus passes increased and the places where a number of them buy their meals — that was increased too. We're finding for the first time in a number of years that there are more senior citizens leaving the province of British Columbia than coming in. This is certainly a new phenomenon, and one which has never happened in the history of this province before.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, and speaking in opposition to the throne speech, I would be remiss if I did not say that certainly on behalf of the people of British Columbia I am very disappointed that in this Speech from the Throne the government continues to speak out only on behalf of its megaprojects and on behalf of big spending in terms of political gains, and not on behalf of the infants, single-parent mothers or senior citizens who are leaving the province and certainly not on behalf of the disabled....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The time for completion of the member's speech was expended some time ago....

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought the light went out. I was waiting for the light to go out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The light did go out, hon. member, but....

[ Page 6718 ]

MS. BROWN: The light did go out. It certainly did, Mr. Speaker, for the single parents and the disabled and the senior citizens of this province. Thank you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just sat down said that she was waiting for the light to go out. I think it went out for the NDP in 1972. It went on for the people of British Columbia in 1975.

Let me just respond to some of the remarks. Before I do, I would just like to say that it's a great pleasure to be speaking on the throne speech. I am going to be voting for the throne speech in this debate, and I'm really pleased that we have before us a document.... I would say that the throne speech of today is a throne speech unlike many throne speeches that have been quite vague over the years in their content, and appreciably so. However, I think that it has been a throne speech which has given a great deal of leadership in a time when leadership in this country has been questioned.

The kind of economic initiatives that have been seen across this country in province after province has certainly left a fair amount to be desired. Thank goodness we live in a province which has had the kind of economic initiatives that can give the people of British Columbia the kind of opportunity and hope and inspiration which people today need right across this country. The throne speech had a great deal of emphasis on the recent constitutional debate. I think it's just about time, and I'm delighted that the Premier's efforts on behalf of the constitutional debate have at last made sure that this country will stop the preoccupation with a matter which does not do a thing to reduce interest rates in this country, with a preoccupation that does nothing to give the average person in Canada a better hope and way of life.

I'm hoping that now that the constitutional debate is hopefully behind us, we can now get on to doing what the Premier of this province has asked the Prime Minister of this country on occasion after occasion to do, and that is to address the economic concerns of Canada at last. We all look forward to the economic debate and the debate on finances, which will hopefully be before the country approximately at the beginning of January or February of this coming year.

The, member who has just taken her place, who represents the opposition party as a critic on social services in this province, has made some comments, Mr. Speaker, which really require some explanation.

First of all, let me just say that when she addressed the senior citizens of this province, I was sorry that she didn't mention, for example, that right in the throne speech we are providing a new service for senior citizens which obviously she chose to ignore. She also chose to ignore the information service which many senior citizens need. Our senior citizen counsellors, initiated by the Social Credit administration, has been a tremendous program over the years, has been extremely popular, and will continue under our administration, but it does need more help in terms of bolstering assistance and communications to the senior citizens in the province. I am very pleased that the throne speech highlighted that new service, and I'm hoping that as the days go on in the debate on the throne speech and the budget next year, all members of this House will see fit to support that program, because it's going to be a very good one.

I was surprised that the member, in speaking on senior citizens, did not tell of some of the tremendous things that we are already doing. The member makes mention of senior citizens housing. We do have a senior citizens' housing construction program in the province, and it has been highly successful. The member that represents the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) should be ever so pleased about the kinds of services we have in Burnaby-Edmonds alone, but we do have it throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk too about the other avenues of help to homeowners and renters in this province who are senior citizens. I'd just like to remind the people of the province and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that a total of $630 for homeowner grants is available to those senior citizens 65 years of age or over. It's interesting that she left that out of her address. It's interesting, too, that she failed to mention the renter's tax credit. The shelter aid for elderly renters, SAFER, program has been hailed across this country, and people have come from all over the world to study it. It was initiated by this province and this government. It gives senior citizens a hedge against increasing rents, and it's a wonderful program. It's strange that she does not know about that, or that she doesn't mention it.

I'd also like to point out that those people who are senior citizens have other services which are some of the very best of senior citizens' services in the whole country. I'd like just to give some reference to the services offered under the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the services that give a tax deferment to senior citizens, the health care given to senior citizens, the hospital programs, home care, long-term care. The kind of services that have been initiated by this government, and that were never able to be obtained by senior citizens before in this province, in terms of long-term care, are available because of the actions of this government.

This government has provided dental care, out-patient services for senior citizens, and all of the other types of senior citizens programs, not the least of which is the Pharmacare program and the various programs in terms of comfort allowances and GAIN for people 65 years and older. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of services that are given at the community level in terms of senior citizen counsellors, senior centres and community involvement are all services that are the most sophisticated in the country.

We talked about bus passes in just these last few minutes. It's interesting that the member should address herself to bus passes. Not only do we give free transportation on the ferry service, Mr. Speaker, but in the very bus passes she is speaking about there is for the first time an increase. You'll recall that the person who initiated the bus passes in this province was a colleague of ours in the former Social Credit administration, Hon. Isabel Dawson. You'll recall that that was in 1967. Do you know that those bus passes haven't been raised since 1967? In the past few weeks we raised the bus passes by 50 cents a month. Big deal for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come in here and complain about the senior citizens' services being cut by a 50-cents-a-month increase in bus passes that haven't been increased while raises have been given to all bus drivers and there have been increases in fuel costs and increases in all services that have anything to do with the bus service.

Big deal for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. As a matter of fact, in all of the things she talked about in her address today this member, who has been so outspoken all through the province, comes in the House with an opportunity to tell everybody just how it is, and the only thing she truly has to complain about is the 50-cent increase in bus passes. Well, I'm going to tell you: all the other services that we have for senior citizens, which over that time have grown

[ Page 6719 ]

under this administration, make British Columbia the most generous to senior citizens of any province in this nation. It is true that we have more people in this province who require the services; a lot of that is because of the great province in which we live, but it also has a lot to do with the great services which we provide. We welcome them to this province. We will continue to give them good service and the kind of support they need in their aging years.

Let's not have the kind of distortion we've had on the floor of this House today in regard to senior citizens. It isn't deserving of the calibre of people who should be sitting in this House to be scaring and frightening and trying to upset the senior citizens of this province. It is not the kind of thing we should do.

The member talked about megaprojects too. She talked about megaprojects as if they were some nasty thing which everybody should be very ashamed of. Let me tell you right here and now, Mr. Speaker, the megaprojects, so-called.... Let's tell everybody what these people across the way call megaprojects. They call northeast coal a megaproject. Northeast coal will open up 25 percent of the province, which has only 2 percent of our total population, to jobs, jobs, jobs for the people of British Columbia. That's what it will do.

Let's look at another megaproject, B.C. Place. It will revitalize, enhance and bring a whole new kind of look to the city of Vancouver. It will clean up an absolutely incredibly black and miserable-looking place and rehabilitate that area of the beautiful city of Vancouver, so that it will really be an attractive place for people to live in and visit. That same B.C. Place will provide thousands upon thousands of jobs in the future. It will also provide millions and millions of dollars in the future to provide initiative not just in the city of Vancouver but also in the various communities around this province, because it is a very viable economic investment. Those aren't tax dollars that will be going to provide things like the trade and convention centre, but it will be the benefit from the B.C. Place project which will give a heart to the city of Vancouver for the first time. It will be the envy of all of North America. Instead of complaining about megaprojects, that party should be lauding the government of British Columbia for the largest redevelopment in all of North America, which is taking place in Vancouver today.

Let me address the trade and convention centre, which I know rather well. The trade and convention centre has already sold $320 million worth of trade shows and convention business, starting in early 1984. In 1985, the first 12-month year of operation, there will be an event every two weeks in the trade and convention centre on Pier B-C in the city of Vancouver. It will leave millions and millions of dollars. What will the millions of dollars be left for? People will come from all over the Pacific Rim, from Europe and from all over the North American continent. After they have spent their money and all the dollars are left in the city of Vancouver, they go on to spend in the city of Victoria and Penticton in pre- and post-convention tours. They will leave the money here, and go back to their own part of the world for health and social services. We the people of British Columbia will benefit from that $320 million worth of business here in this province. It will benefit us in paying for our schooling and paying for our health services and social services.

Let's remember the other megaproject which they talk about with derision, and that is the first transit service that any government has addressed itself to — the proper kind of transit service for the city of Vancouver. The LRT is being addressed by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). For the first time we're going to have the kind of light rapid transit that is going to bring housing onstream. Megaprojects, dollars, housing and jobs — that's what they mean. It's about time the people of British Columbia understood that and were not led to misunderstand it by that socialist group over there that wants to deride anything that's positive and put anything that's positive in a bad and a negative light.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that all of the myths that are perpetrated by that party opposite.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds talks about myths. Let me just talk about the myth that they have perpetrated there, and I'm just going to address the new policy which this member wants to have misunderstood by the single parents, the single people and the families of this province, I'm going to say that in all of the debate the people of British Columbia have had in the past two months.... Thank goodness for the debate; I welcome the debate, and I'll tell you why. You know, it wasn't until the debate on the new policy that the Individual Opportunity Plan was truly understood by the people of British Columbia. Much as I tried, much as I communicated and much as I announced that the Individual Opportunity Plan was available, there was no possibility, it seemed, that these people on the other side of the House would give credit for it; there was no possibility that the people of British Columbia were going to know about it. But now they know about it and now they laud it. Even those people who are part of the fellow travellers of the critic for Human Resources, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and the fellow travellers of the socialist opposition opposite say that the Individual Opportunity Plan is a good idea. It's been in this province now for a year and a half.

For a year and a half we've had a plan and a program for any individual who wishes to come into our office and make out a kind of a contract, if you like. It's nothing legal, but something where they can sit down and work out some direction for their life. We talk about the single parents — and that direction is there for them too. The direction is there for the families, and it's there for the single person on welfare. Let's put it all in its right perspective. There are 60,000 people in the province of British Columbia on income assistance, of which 30,000 are employable. Now what does the opposition say about those employable people?

MR. BARRETT: Secret police force.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The Leader of the Opposition, who wants to interrupt continually on this address and seems to have a preoccupation to do so, will want to hear what his Minister of Human Resources said about employable people in the years when they were government. The Minister of Human Resources was the colleague or the seatmate of the member for Burnaby- Edmonds. This is from September 27, 1974, and Mr. Levi was Human Resources minister. This is what he said:

"'The B.C. government is beginning extensive efforts designed to get employable welfare recipients off the welfare rolls,' Human Resources minister Norman Levi said. 'In most cases employables will have to accept jobs found for them or face the loss of their welfare. Nobody will be denied welfare unless they actually refuse to accept a job without showing what we consider to be a good reason.'"

[ Page 6720 ]

Two reasons cited by Levi were unhealthy working conditions and the employer not paying the minimum wage. Well, that's law in the province, Mr. Speaker, so that was almost needless to say.

In Vancouver the emphasis had been "too much on financing, too little on rehabilitation," and his department wants to reverse that trend. That's fascinating. Why didn't they do it? They didn't get around to doing it at all.

MR. MACDONALD: They didn't get around to cutting mothers' allowances. That's what we're talking about.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, come on now, you're not talking about that at all. You're talking....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. During the speech of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) the member was allowed to continue without interruption, and I would assume that all members would afford the minister the same courtesy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, the former NDP Minister of Human Resources said that he wanted to make everybody employable and go to work. In fact, it wasn't "accept jobs"; they were going to make them get to work. That was what he said. But funnily enough, he didn't do that. Funnily enough, he didn't make any efforts for rehabilitation to allow that to happen. That's the difference.

We talk about single parents. In 1974, when that statement was made by Mr. Levi, the people who took income assistance, who had children and were single parents...their children today would certainly be of school age at this point in time. And yet, those people would still be on income assistance today because of the very policies of the socialists across from us. You see, if you don't have the opportunity when that child is small, and when you don't give the opportunity to that mother while she still has a tiny youngster in her home — if you don't give her that opportunity to see her way out of that — you're going to have her on income assistance year after year after year.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who doesn't have the courtesy to stay in the House while I'm responding to her address, knows full well that the longer a person is on income assistance the longer he or she will stay on. That is what our policy is all about. It's turning around the dependency of social welfare. It's turning it around so that that child — the youngster that was born in 1974.... At least the child born in 1981, 1982 and 1983 will get the opportunity. The rehabilitation programs that are in place might take two years, might take 18 months — and that's what the Individual Opportunity Plan is all about. At least today in this province, when a child is born to someone on income assistance, or when someone goes on income assistance because he or she is a single parent, at least that opportunity will be there. For the first time in this province they will be given that opportunity.

You know, the member can talk about PREP all she wants. Members opposite can get a little bit cynical about the kinds of programs that have come down the way, over many Ministry of Human Resources appointments. Just as there is a new appointment in the Ministry of Human Resources, there's always been another way to get people jobs. And it is true that some of them have worked and some of them have not. But let me tell you the reason that PREP and all of the other job-finding programs don't work — and the very reason why the one announced by Mr. Levi, the hope that he had, that he would make people take jobs....

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that you don't make people take jobs that they don't want to stay at. If you do make people take jobs, they won't stay at them. It's just as simple as that. That's why the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action program embodied in the Individual Opportunity Plan are so different. It is true that if you do try to find a person a job and it isn't what they want, they'll quit it within a very short time. Or if they do stay, they stay under very difficult circumstances.

Let me share with you some statistics that I have in just a couple of examples from the job action program. This program comes to us from the Vancouver area. I'll just read you a couple of the examples. This is a three-week job action program. It is for long-term income assistance recipients. They have experienced a wide spectrum of barriers to employment. And there is a unique and often heart-warming story behind each and every one of them.

There's a 51-year-old family man who had been on income assistance for three years. He was totally humiliated at being on welfare. After many employer rejections, he had virtually given up hope of ever returning to his occupation. He has now, and he recently phoned to advise that he has successfully completed three months of probation and is a permanent employee earning a good five-figure income.

Then there is the 31-year-old single woman, on income assistance for almost two years, with extensive training and study to become a recording audio-technician. She was completely devastated by repeated rejection because she had no previous work experience in her field. Today she is working in a recording studio.

Then there was the 27-year-old handicapped allowance recipient planning to attend college part-time in the fall towards courses and a career goal, and was wanting a job after that. He began working in a position that required full-time work during July and August, and then reverted to permanent half-time in September. The position was a block from the school he planned to attend, and hours worked out that he could continue both the job and the school.

A 28-eight-year-old male, for three and a half years on income assistance.... And so it goes; there are many, many of them,

A 24-year-old single male, and a 32-year-old single parent with two children, who has been unemployed since 1977.... After the three-week job action program, she persevered, and today she is working for a print company, has a good financial future as a press person, the trade that she wanted but didn't believe that she could get.

I could give you example after example. The kind of work that we are doing in the Ministry of Human Resources is the kind of work that should have been going on across this nation for some years. It's the kind of thing that addresses itself to what income assistance is really all about. It's temporary help in time of need. It is not something that one should be counting on as a lifetime pension. It is temporary help in time of need. If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who has been talking about the single parents, thinks that they cannot rise to that challenge, let me say that there are already 36,000 single parents in this province. We talk about women and their place in the workplace and their place in the home. On the floor of this House, we talk about the independence of women and how women want to have careers and have their independence

[ Page 6721 ]

and their place in society. They have made that choice to have that place in society, and they don't want to deny their children that place either. They want the independence that comes from looking after themselves. They don't want the socialist view of being kept down and under the thumb of the state forever.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have so many positive things in our program, and I'd like to tell you that all of the myths and misunderstandings that have been perpetrated, I think, truly have been a great disservice to the women in the province. For every woman who has a child, for every single person who is a dropout from school, for every family man who has been on income assistance and is still on it, there is some help at the Ministry of Human Resources office. There is a place for them. I have said before and I will repeat that anyone who is in need will get all of the help from this province, this government and the people of B.C. when they are in need. One of the things that we have to give them, which apparently the socialists.... I didn't think it was going to be a partisan issue at all, but funnily enough, the socialists don't seem to believe in the kind of initiative and that feeling of self-worth that comes from having your economics and your home all together. That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing they want for every person in this province.

They want a law for one and then something different for others. That might be all right in other countries, but in this rich country of Canada, and in this province of British Columbia, where there are opportunities for people, we can give them that sense of self-worth and that independence through a proper kind of rehabilitation program.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, if you want to talk about Russia, Mr. Member, let me just quote again from the NDP Minister of Human Resources. He said on September 27, 1974: "The new program, which carries a 'refuse to work and you lose your benefits' clause, comes hard on the heels of overexpenditures in Levi's department of $103 million. 'Those people who are employable, and who are offered work that is appropriate must accept the work.'" That's a dictate from the Minister of Human Resources in 1974. "If they refuse to accept the work, then they will not be given welfare." Nowhere in the series of articles does Levi's program mention single mothers being unemployable, and nowhere is the mention of daycare assistance.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is very critical of our daycare program. I don't know why she should be so critical of it, because in 1975 the same Minister of Human Resources, Norman Levi — and she should have known this awfully well, because she was his seat-mate at the time — said: "There will be no increase" — this is October 20, 1975 — "in the provincial subsidy for daycare this fiscal year. And there will be little expansion of the government daycare program due to the current austerity program and the prospect of unionization of daycare workers." Isn't that interesting? It's really interesting the kinds of misinformation that party over there will perpetrate in order to gain their political ends.

It's interesting about daycare, because just a few days ago in the city of Victoria we took a reading as to daycare vacancies, and as of November 15, 1981, there were 1,466 family daycare spaces, and 90 were vacant. Thirty of those would take children under two years of age, and 20 of those vacancies would take infants under one year old. In group daycare there are 931 spaces, making a total of almost 2,400 spaces, and in group daycare there were 30 vacancies, making a total of 120 vacancies on that one day. You and I both know that goes up and down. It increases and decreases by supply and demand, as it should. But it's interesting that they never say anything about those vacancies, Mr. Speaker. They only talk about the shortage.

Since the first announcement of daycare subsidy increases in August, where there was over three-quarters of a million dollars added.... We have already initiated over 450 spaces since August with that $750,000, and that was an expansion. Above and beyond that, the Treasury Board has increased daycare programs and subsidies, as of September of this year, and has also added to the support for rehabilitation programs, for job action programs and that kind of program, which will now bring something close to $1.5 million to the end of the fiscal year and a further $6 million beyond that.

What do all of the other people in the province think about the new program? Well, let me tell you something. For all of the letters I get that say that they believe in the socialist kind of philosophy — that is, keep everybody on income assistance, beholden to the state and give the child that is born today no kind of opportunity or inspiration in the years ahead, but keep them at one economic level....

Why, the member is talking about a woman who is becrying the fact that she's having a very tough time on $1,035 a month. But you have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the same woman who has the two children would be getting around $700 a month on income assistance. She's still getting more by going into the workplace, and she will be getting faster increases in the workplace setting than we will ever be able to give in once-a-year increases under the Ministry of Human Resources, using the tax system. Because it wouldn't matter if I were to get all of the Treasury Board's dollars in the next year; it still would not be enough.

May I just say this: a country, a province or a nation that continues to have the kind of philosophy that a welfare way of life is the best way of life for people, I suggest to you, is not a nation that we are wanting for our children or our children's children.

As a matter of fact, I'd like to quote the serious consequences that do come to young people. Just the other day I heard — and all of us have examples.... The single parent issue is a very large one in the province because there are very many single parents in the province. They're a very large, growing number of people.

At the present time in the province of British Columbia the total number of people who have children six months of age is around 650. There are 650 single parents with a child who will turn six months old this month. What are we talking about? How many are under 18 months of age? About another 600 or 700. A total number of about 1,300 or 1,400 single parents are going to face the fact that they are going to have to start to plan for that child and themselves. If a child is six months of age today, and if it takes two years to train that mother for a skilled job of some kind, the child will be two and a half before she ever goes out to work. If her child is 18 months before she ever goes into the workplace to care for that child for the rest of her life — which is her responsibility

[ Page 6722 ]

and her commitment by bringing that child into this world — then she will go out to work when that child is approximately three and a half or four years of age.

Just the other day there was a young unmarried girl in the city of Vancouver who gave birth to a baby. Her mother was on income assistance for all the years that child had ever known; she had given birth to her when she was 16 years of age, and had been on income assistance all the rest of this child's life. She was 16, a dropout from school, and now she has a child to look after, a baby that she would like to keep. Her grandmother has been on income assistance. So there we have the fourth generation on welfare, on income assistance — born last week in the city of Vancouver. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that today there is difference, however, for that girl who is living in the city of Vancouver; she will be given help, retraining and rehabilitation, and hopefully her child will grow up in a far different atmosphere than she ever had. That will be the change.

In addressing my remarks to the throne speech, I want to say that I am extremely pleased with the kinds of economic initiatives that are in the throne speech. They are going to provide opportunities and help to just such young people as we have in trouble in the province of British Columbia. I support the throne speech with the greatest of enthusiasm, because it's a darned good one for the people of the province.

MR. KING: When this minister gives her rather simplistic outline of what the policy of this government is, I'm reminded of the classic saying of Tommy Douglas: "'Every man for himself,' said the elephant, 'as he danced among the chickens.'" That's precisely the attitude that this minister and this government have. They have this simplistic way of judging the circumstances of people by their own relative affluence. They want to talk down, and they want to dispense their values and experiences in society to people who have had it less opportune than have the minister herself and many of us in this Legislature. For the minister and that government to take the view that they are the only ones who pay homage to the moral of working and earning a living is a bit repugnant. It certainly is not borne out by the facts.

It wasn't socialists who invented the Ministry of Human Resources and the programs it underwrites on behalf of taxpayers. It was the excesses of the system that that government supports blindly. It was the excesses of the ultra-conservative economic policies of previous governments and of this one. Certainly we as a party would rather see every British Columbian who is capable of making a contribution gainfully employed. That has always been our policy. But we're not so simplistic and naive as to believe that everyone has equal opportunity. For various reasons, be it the cyclical dilemma of a family imbued with the welfare mentality that the minister referred to, a whole variety of social circumstances or a lack of educational opportunities, I think we are intelligent enough to recognize that you can't hold out the same standard of motivation to every citizen. That's unrealistic and simplistic. It makes me a little bit angry to hear the minister talk down in the way she does to people who have had very difficult times.

She talked about my colleague the former Minister of Human Resources doing something that was apparently a major surprise to her: saying to people on assistance: "If there is a job available and you turn that job down, then you're going to be cut off." She talked about that as a major revelation. I don't know where that minister has been. She was a member of the W.A.C. Bennett government in 1969. I was in the opposition at that time, and certainly from 1968-69 onward it was always the policy that if a job was available in any area of this province, and a person on assistance did not take it, then they were obliged to either move from the area or have their assistance cut off. That has been the policy of the Social Credit government which preceded this one, and I don't argue too much with that. Certainly, if there's a job available, one should take it.

What I do argue with is the rather cruel way in which this particular minister has said to women who have a small infant, "You must go out and seek employment," on the assumption that employment is there, when the facts belie that proposition. And while you're out tramping the streets, and spending your meagre allowance in transportation costs and false leads in trying to find a job, your assistance is going to be cut; it's going to be reduced. That's what we object to. The minister euphemistically refers to that as incentive. I categorize it as outright cruelty. That's what it is.

I don't want to spend too much time on that. The minister talked about northeast coal and B.C. Place, and jobs, jobs, jobs: she said that that is what they stand for. I'd just like to refer very briefly to the budget speech for 1981. I just want to draw a picture of what this government has been saying over the past few years. The conclusion of last March's budget speech had this to say:

"Objective British Columbians will recognize this as a realistic and responsible budget. At a time when a storm of economic turmoil is battering the world, we in British Columbia sail in relative calm. We have a standard of living, a level of government services, and resources which are the envy of the world. Having escaped this storm, we enter a new year clearly able to maintain and expand a healthy, vigorous and forward-looking economy.

"Earlier today I mentioned pride. That word is used in its correct sense, not boastfully or with arrogance, but quietly recognizing what we have, what we enjoy and what the future promises all of us. Every British Columbian, if he or she thoughtfully looks around, takes stock and recognizes what we have, will readily acknowledge our good fortune.

"Societies are judged by history on the basis of social equity and justice. May we today move forward together with pride, ensuring that history will judge us well."

That was the budget of just last spring. It's interesting to know what the previous budget of 1980 had to say about some of the big megaprojects that the minister has referred to. It's interesting to notice what it said about the federal policies and their impact on the province of British Columbia. I'm not going to quote it all, but I've gone through the 1980 and 1981 budgets in a perfunctory way, and I find this government consistently, for the last two years, condemning the federal government for their heavy deficit, for their overspending, and drawing a comparison between their own fiscal management of allegedly balanced budgets, as opposed to the alleged spendthrift attitude of the federal government. At one and the same time they were doing that, Mr. Speaker, they were running down to Ottawa with their hand out, asking for contributions to an increasing array of megaprojects: B.C. Place, the trade and convention centre and northeast coal.

But the irony is that the federal government, to a degree, apparently listened to them. The federal government said: "Okay, we are going to bow to the increasing pressure from the provinces and from industry to start cutting our deficit, to start cutting our spending, because it's been categorized as the primary cause of inflation. Lo and behold, this government in western Canada, on the furthest extremity of our

[ Page 6723 ]

nation, is caught in the horns of its own dilemma. They've been talking out of two sides of their mouth at the same time. They've been saying, "Cut your spending, cut your deficit, but give us more, shovel more out at the same time to the Social Credit government of British Columbia so we can allocate the taxpayers' money to the pet projects of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)," who for some strange reason has the administrative responsibility for a project that should properly reside under the Ministry of Tourism.

I don't know how the minister answers that, but I do know that it's fraught with inconsistency. And this minister, you know, whether it's by accident or design, likes to distort what the opposition stands for, to distort the policy of the opposition, when opposition members, I think, are all in fact capable of articulating, interpreting and presenting their own policy. When is the government of the province — and that minister particularly — going to stand up and try to explain the grave and gross inconsistencies in their own policies? That's what we'd like to hear from the minister.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've had an interesting kind of development in this session, in my view. We had a bit of a pattern, a bit of a trend set, when the mover and the shaker — I mean the mover and the seconder — of the motion that Her Majesty's motion be accepted got up on a strategy. A strategy by the government became obvious — rather clumsily initiated, rather amateurishly pursued, but nevertheless initiated by those two members. That strategy seemed to be: keep the focus of attention on the opposition; deal with things in the past and try to break the Social Credit Party's identity with the Liberal Party and with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They have some problems with that last one, because the cabinet of this government is populated mainly by renegade Liberals, if I may use that term — and it's not a personal suggestion, Mr. Speaker, but rather in the political sense. That was the obvious strategy.

I can understand why they want to do that, because this government is really in trouble throughout the province of British Columbia. The economy, which only a year ago they prophesied would be strong and buoyant with major growth, is obviously in trouble. It's obvious that it's in trouble when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is issuing secret memos to his colleagues with notations at the top, "For ministerial eyes only," urging them to cut programs, urging them to cut spending allocations that were approved by the Legislature and contained in the previous year's budget. It's obvious that they're in trouble; it's obvious that they misjudged the economy.

Mr. Speaker, we think that the government could be doing some things to come to grips with what is indeed a stormy and difficult time — not only in British Columbia, but around the world and certainly in Canada. We don't blame the government for the depressed housing market in the U.S. They blamed us in 1975 when things were about the same, but that's a little bit shallow and it's a little bit foolish. We know, and I think the citizens of British Columbia are certainly astute and sophisticated enough to understand, that partisan politics should not try to cloud what is a very difficult time internationally. But simply because the causes of our dilemma may be to a large extent external is no justification for inertia on the part of this particular government.

I must ask these questions, Mr. Speaker. What have we got in the throne speech? What have we had out of this government over the past year that would assist British Columbians in meeting ever-increasingly difficult times with respect to interest rates and their impact on housing and mortgage renewal, with respect to diminishing employment opportunity because investment is down, and with respect to all of the social problems that flow from a depressed economic situation? I suggest that this is not a time for punitive measures against the population of British Columbia, the kind of rigid policy that the Minister of Human Resources has brought in. I suggest it's a time when the government of our province should take some leadership and sit down and talk about programs that should be introduced to create some employment over the course of this winter. We have 12,000 forest workers unemployed at the present time.

We have predictions from the Premier's own constituency. I like to quote the source, because this government is fond of saying: "Well, if you criticize us you're a prophet of doom and gloom, and that's just a partisan approach of the NDP." In one of the Okanagan papers is a commentary by the vice-president of Crown Zellerbach in Kelowna.

"'It will be a bloody disaster,' he said, 'if interest rates don't drop soon.' Currently Crown Zellerbach has laid off 125 of 900 employees at its three major operations in Kelowna, Armstrong and Lumby. The plywood operation in Kelowna has been cut back to four days a week. The lumber is only working one shift, Neighbour said.

"In the Kelowna area, Neighbour said, housing starts are way down, and consequently demand for lumber and plywood has also sharply decreased. This is also true for the Penticton and Vernon housing market, he said.

"The one place things are still moving is in the Calgary and Red Deer areas, Neighbour said. The market there is down a little, but not to the same extent as it is here."

It's interesting to note that most of the plywood manufactured in that interior area is destined, under normal circumstances, for our own market here in British Columbia. That's an area where we're not as reliant on the U.S. market as we are for general forest products. There is a senior executive of Crown Zellerbach suggesting that we're going to have a disaster this winter unless something is done. We find not one initiative taken by this government whatsoever.

It's not good enough for the government just to come up with a political strategy to deal with this, and to try to divert and deflect the attention from them and to blame the NDP in some way. This is the situation that we're living in now. The Social Credit Party happens to be the government of the province of British Columbia now, and they should have the foresight and the fortitude to deal with the economic needs of the province now.

I don't mind seeing a few political games played by the members on that side. We all know how it works. They try to make themselves look good at the expense of just about anyone else, and they have a long way to go in that respect. They like to put forward their leader as being some kind of knight in shining armour. They tell us in the throne speech about all the wonderful things our Premier did when he was down east at the constitutional debates.

Somebody over there the other day read a letter that one of the premiers had written, thanking our Premier for his chairmanship of the constitutional undertaking down in eastern Canada. I don't know which premier it was. I suppose that was a nice little gesture, but I think perhaps more appropriate

[ Page 6724 ]

and perhaps a bit more objective might be the assessment of a newspaper that is very much a part of political life down in eastern Canada, a newspaper that certainly isn't socialist — at least I don't think it is — the Toronto Star. Is that a socialist newspaper?

AN HON. MEMBER: Red Liberal.

MR. KING: Red Liberal. Well, here's what they had to say. They have a beautiful portrait of our Premier; he looks a little down in the mouth on that occasion. It has this to say:

"Bennett Entered as Lion and Left as Lamb, Say His Critics.

"Ottawa — British Columbia Premier Bill Bennett came into this week's constitutional conference tabbed as a lion, but went out with a reputation among other provincial delegations as an ineffective lamb." Is that the person they were writing about?

"Bennett was seen as a linchpin in the delicate bargaining because of his triple role as this year's chairman of the ten premiers, chairman of the gang of eight premiers who oppose Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's plans, and B.C. Premier. But when it came down to the nitty-gritty, he was shunted aside, one official from another province said.

"Bennett's performance was reportedly so shaky that Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed took over as chairman of the final breakfast meeting of the eight opposing premiers, sources said."

I've heard of the Last Supper, Mr. Speaker. Now we've heard of the last breakfast.

I don't know whether anything further is going to happen to our Premier or not, but he certainly didn't seem to be appreciated too greatly down there. It goes on to quote:

"The other premiers felt Bennett was off-track, according to the sources. Criticisms of Bennett must be tempered in light of grudges and ill-feeling that developed as each province tried to present its performance in the best possible light at the conference. Saskatchewan and Ontario were known to be especially upset with the B.C. Premier because they felt he had blocked initiatives by the three provinces in Toronto last week to work out a compromise. But officials from four provinces among the eight original allies gave Bennett bad reviews as the conference ended Thursday. Hall Leiren, Bennett's press secretary, countered criticisms by saying the Premier had played a key role in setting up meetings between Premiers and preparing the ground for a compromise."

Well, we've got a very effective guy down there. I think we could have sent along one of the office couriers to actually set up the meetings. But nevertheless, Hall Leiren, a high-paid staff member from the Premier's office, I guess a colleague of Mr. Kinsella, said the Premier played a key role in setting up those meetings. It continues:

"Early to Bed." "But Bennett, who has a reputation of rising early and going to bed early, did not attend late-night talks, which eventually led to Thursday's compromise. Both he and Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed sent representatives, while the Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were involved personally. One provincial official suggested Bennett had failed to keep the eight together and had exposed the weaknesses of the common front by appearing open to Ottawa's proposed compromises. He certainly wavered and allowed the Prime Minister to pluck certain people off on certain issues, he added.

"Lacked Clarity." "A delegate from another province said Bennett and B.C. Attorney General Garde Gardom didn't seem to have a clear grip on the issues and couldn't seem to decide exactly what it was they wanted. Feeling in need of rest after the constitutional marathon, Bennett left Victoria yesterday for an undisclosed location in the sun, somewhere south of the B.C. border. The spokesman said he'll be away for ten days."

Mr. Speaker, this is hardly the picture of a dynamic leader who did the great things for the province of British Columbia that members on that side have led us to believe. I read another report which suggested the Premier of British Columbia was actually incoherent before the meetings of the first ministers was completed in terms of obtaining a constitution. I can say that I could give some credibility to that report, because certainly the policies and objectives of this government are incoherent. The difficulty is that we see things differently than that government in terms of what priorities should be, and that's what the argument is about.

We are not, per se, against development of any of the projects that we refer to as megaprojects. We are not against them, per se, when they are affordable and when they fit into the proper priorities of this province. But we are opposed to the expenditure of that kind of taxpayers' dollars when social programs are being eroded and destroyed by this government.

Interjection.

MR. KING: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has had a vote of non-confidence expressed in him by the community which he serves, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, is very vocal here. Perhaps if he had more to say on behalf of the farmers he is supposed to represent, he would have their confidence.

We are here to debate what priorities should be. Our members have put forward our thoughts on what priorities are. I think it's wrong to go ahead with B.C. Place. I think it's wrong to go ahead with the football stadium when we're seeing home-care programs and homemaker programs curtailed and cut back throughout the length and breadth of this province. I think that's wrong. I think people are more important than the kinds of projects that may give the Minister of Human Resources a personal edifice. It may be a kind of historical epitaph to that minister — and I mean a political epitaph. It may be that, but I think it's a misappropriation of the people's money when other more pressing, fundamental human services are being eroded and cut back. That's what we think is wrong with it.

By all means, let's proceed when we can afford it. But we don't think we can afford it when 10,000 people are unemployed in the forest industry and this government has yet to come up with one program to create employment and put them to work in a positive way. That minister talks about incentive and initiative. Why is it that her government will not talk about some intensive silvicultural programs to put those 10,000 unemployed IWA people back to work, rather than have them sit home idle and collect unemployment

[ Page 6725 ]

insurance? Where is Social Credit morality in that respect, Mr. Speaker? It's totally inconsistent with the proposition that she was putting forward to try to justify her tender mercies to the poor people of the province.

Sure, unemployment insurance is paid by the federal government. Perhaps that's why she and her colleagues are prepared to sit back and see that money expended to maintain people in idleness. I want to say that those forest workers have dignity too. They have worked all their lives, and they're proud of the industry they work in. They would much prefer to be positively and productively engaged in the long-term betterment of that resource than sitting idly at home.

If the minister believes in the kind of policy she espouses, why not be consistent? We think it is wrong to expend millions of dollars on B.C. Place and the stadium — and, yes, B.C. Coal, unaccounted-for dollars — when we have highways, and bridges on highways in this province, that are totally unsafe. We have a highway to Squamish that people have to travel at their own risk. The public safety is jeopardized, but there are no moneys to repair that highway so people have the most fundamental service, that of transportation.

In my own riding we have a bridge on the periphery of the village of Enderby, and I've been after the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the last three years to renew that bridge. The minister hides behind a conflict with the local native Indian band, which is a sham and not a valid excuse any more. The Indian band is prepared to have the minister proceed with the construction and negotiate any land claims after. Nothing could be more reasonable that that, but the ministry hasn't got the money. The result was that a school bus travelling on that bridge was in an accident just in the last two months — a school bus containing about 45 young students. Because it's a derelict bridge, because it's unsafe for public transportation — for a vehicle of that size at least — the minister has now put a load restriction on, and the school bus can't travel on it any more. It has to travel about seven or eight miles around on a detour, which means that young children have to get up an hour earlier in the morning and they are an hour later getting home. Their extracurricular activities in school are adversely affected. There are no dollars for that, but we're throwing money at B.C. Place because it's the pet project of a certain minister who seems to have an insatiable appetite for political notoriety at the expense of fundamental services to people. That's the kind of lack of proper perspective and lack of respect for fundamental services to people that we disagree on.

We have a kind of surplus lying around? After good services are provided for people, that allows for those kinds of exotic projects. By all means, be our guest; we'll support them too. It gives B.C. something to be proud of — but not at the expense of fundamental services to people. It's your priorities we object to, and your priorities are vicious.

Mr. Speaker, that's not the only area, and the members know these things are true. I've had letters from the union board of health at Vernon, directed to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), pointing out that they cannot afford to engage enough staff to carry out health inspections within their jurisdiction, to the point where recreational beaches are having to be closed because the coliform count can't be monitored by the health inspector.

Mr. Speaker, we have the very serious situation where there are not adequate health inspectors to carry out the inspections of food establishments in that area of the province. The chairman of the union board of health at Vernon, for the North Okanagan area, has written to the minister and pleaded for more staff and pointed out that the neglect of proper inspections holds out the prospect of a major epidemic of disease taking place. Does any politician or any individual in his right mind, on either side of the house, agree that we should be shovelling money into B.C. Place when the fundamental health needs of British Columbians are being ignored in that fashion? That's where our priorities are different.

The minister wrote a letter back and said, well, you could have had a third of another inspector. What do they do with a third of that inspector, when one-third of him is in Revelstoke and the other third is in Salmon Arm? It's an area that contains hundreds of thousands of square miles. It's a shameful performance, and totally unacceptable.

What about the homemaker service? It's been cut 15 percent in Revelstoke and 15 percent in Chase. We outlined last year the cuts that were taking place right across this province in the homemaker service to individuals who need a bit of help so they can remain in their own home. Rather than being driven out and into expensive acute-care facilities, with a little bit of a hand in terms of doing the daily chores, a little bit of support in the home. they can remain there longer at a cheaper cost to the public and, above all, with more psychological security and peace of mind for themselves.

Our priorities say to us that we don't agree with pouring billions of dollars into megaprojects, millions that are unaccounted for into northeast coal, millions into B.C. Place and football stadiums, when the indigent and the elderly are being deprived of the fundamental home care they deserve. We think that priority is wrong, and we oppose that.

I've got a situation in my riding in Revelstoke where we have a large school and a very small gym. Parents, the school board and the local MLA have written to the minister requesting a full-size gymnasium. The government wrote back and said: "We can't afford it." Well, that would be fine too. I don't consider a gymnasium a "frill"; I consider that part and parcel of a healthy education system for the students of this province. But if we can't afford a gymnasium for our school children, then I don't know how in heaven's name we can afford a football stadium to titillate the people of this province in terms of going to professional sports activities,

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against the stadium?

MR. KING: I don't believe in those kinds of priorities, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against the stadium? Yes or no.

MR. KING: Am I against the stadium at this time? By all means, I'm against the stadium at this time. If the Minister had been in the House he would have heard very clearly what I am opposed to and the circumstances and conditions upon which I am opposed to it. But that minister was over attending to his functions at UBC and that experimental laboratory he has over there. That's what he was doing, and he just flew back on Air B.C. Now he thinks this is the first speech of the session today, you see, so he comes in and wants to heckle. The minister should attend the session once in a while and he'd know what was said, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6726 ]

These are the kinds of things we're against. We think it's totally unacceptable for the northern part of the province and the interior of the province to be deprived of fundamental human services while frill items, which the stadium certainly is.... We're expending millions of the taxpayers' dollars on that kind of edifice in the city of Vancouver. We think it's wrong, not only in terms of balanced priorities; we think it's a bit wrong, too, because a great deal of the wealth in terms of resources in this province comes from the interior of this province and the northern part of this province. When we see the proliferation of recreational and cultural opportunities which are being developed in Vancouver and the lower mainland, at one and the same time that high-school gymnasiums are considered out of the financial reach of that government, then we say that is discrimination.

We say that this government is guilty of the very thing they accused the Trudeau government of being guilty of — alienation. They talk about this very thing when they go down to Ottawa with crocodile tears in their eyes, pleading for more money with their hands out. But they do the very same thing here, because the bulk of the population is in Vancouver and the lower mainland. Certainly I, as an interior member, am not advocating that we shouldn't share the wealth that accrues from our resources, but I think there should be a better equity in the services that are dispensed by government to all the people of the province. It's a bit out of proportion at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have a great deal more to say about the specific areas in my riding that are causing real problems due to government cutbacks. When we come to the estimates of this government and its ministers....

MR. MACDONALD: When will that be?

MR. KING: Lord knows when that will be. I hope that the government hasn't gone through this rather silly exercise of introducing a throne speech, which is totally bereft of any meaningful policy for the people of the province and offers nothing in terms of any support during the coming very difficult economic period that everyone acknowledges we will see this winter.... I hope it's not their intent simply to debate that shallow document and then adjourn this Legislature and run for cover again. We have severe economic problems in this country, and the government and the Premier have been calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to get off the constitutional debate and deal with the economy.

Mr. Speaker, they can give some direction and set an example by demonstrating to the government in Ottawa and the other governments throughout Canada what they propose to do when we face this very difficult and stormy economic time during the current winter. I expect that the government will now introduce legislation and special programs to put people to work and to find jobs for people, rather than adjourn the House and scurry back to their ridings. If that is all they had in mind — simply to introduce a document that is totally meaningless and have a six-day debate on that and then adjourn — I say that is scandalous. That is a waste of taxpayers' money, because the cost of calling everyone together was not justified by the document. There was no program to support that kind of expenditure of public money to convene this Legislature, if that is the case. I certainly hope that the government will take their duties more seriously than they've demonstrated so far and we can anticipate within the next few days the tabling of real programs for people.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to rise in my place again to support this magnificent throne speech which we have heard very little except praise for, even from the NDP. All I have heard is an occasional attack on what it didn't say, but never a constructive suggestion about what they would do better. It was amazing to me to hear the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) suggest that the mover and seconder, the members for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) did a poor, amateurish job. Well, I want to tell him — if he was in the House, which I doubt, he could read the speech if he wants to — I think they were two of the finest speeches this House has heard to this day.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I have to despair a little bit at what goes on in this House. It should be a place where government policies are attacked by the opposition and some reasonable policies put in their place, but they have not put forward one constructive policy. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke took a full 40 minutes to attack what the government has been doing and did not give one word of constructive effort. Now he's leaving. He can't face the music.

The member went to a lot of trouble to attack B.C. Place and northeast coal, and he said we shouldn't be doing these things; we should be giving the money to welfare. We should give it out to social services. Well, of course. We're giving more to social services than is even a fair share, but this government is a socially minded government and we have social priorities, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) just finished with a few minutes ago.

B.C. Place is a self-generating industry. It will make money for social services. It will develop resources. We're not spending our capital and doing away with it. We're developing resources that can eventually produce money, so we can have the finest social services in all of Canada. We have them today. We have the finest hospital system in the world; that is social. We cover everybody: extended care and intermediate care. We are pleased that we are able to this. But it's only because of proper financing.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke attacked the Premier. He went to great lengths to attack the Premier's position as chairman of the premiers' conference that just concluded — a personal attack. How can this man even suggest that? I think we've come to a new low. If he read our own papers, some of our strongest detractors praised the Premier for what he did. When history is written, it will say that the Premier was the father of the new Confederation, because without him it would have totally collapsed. Not a single word from them. The Premier doesn't need me to defend him. But to take the negative attitude, which they always take, is a loss, and it makes me despair.

I despair also at the attitude of the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown), when she said: "Do you know what those Socreds are going to do? They're going to run another person by the name of Brown, so they won't know what Brown they're voting for." She took ten minutes telling us that. We've come to a new low. I can just see the big signboards out there saying: "Vote for Brown the lady. Vive la différence! " I can see that today. I'm sure they'll know which Brown they mean. It's regrettable. I think sometimes that we've come to a new low.

I despair again when I see the, whole of question period taken up by no less than the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). They took the total question period asking about a certain Patrick Kinsella. What did they want to know? He's a good man; he's got

[ Page 6727 ]

a job, and he's doing a great job. What are they looking for? They want to engineer another media presentation. It doesn't matter about British Columbia; it's of no interest to them whatever. They're engineering another media presentation. Somehow, anyhow, slap out the mud. The man did nothing wrong. He sat there and just gave out a word, which in Ontario, by the way, would be quite common, but here.... Let's not discuss that point. Let us just simply say they want a media presentation. In this parliament of 57 members, 15 minutes were taken by their big guns asking questions. They're looking for something. There's nothing there behind the bushes, under the table, any old place. I regret that this parliament has got to that position.

The constituency of Dewdney, as is the rest of British Columbia, is very pleased with this government. We are pleased that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon Mr. Vander Zalm) has told us that he is going to see that we have a transit system, as far as Maple Ridge and perhaps to Mission, on the CPR rail. I understand the trains have already been bought from Toronto. They're not using the trains there — I'm not sure; I've heard this. That is a foregone conclusion. I have to say now that I'm delighted to hear this. I'm certain that the CPR — as a matter of fact, I'm told that they're very fine corporate people — will assist greatly in allowing this transit system to become a fact on the north side of the Fraser River. It's just a natural. We're looking forward to the time next fall when that service will be in effect.

I'd like to speak to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). He's not here at the moment. The time is long past due for the highway to Mission to be four-laned. I appeal to him again from this floor, as I did a while ago, to please get on with that job. I know that it's not the time for these kinds of projects, but for the travelling public it is essential.

On behalf of my constituency, I want to thank the government for their concern for things that count for people. A beautiful leisure centre was built in Mission with assistance from the government; the same thing in Maple Ridge with assistance from the government; sports endeavours, with the assistance of the government. These things are appreciated by people. It is not all social welfare. It is not all human resources. We do things for people. This government has done more for people than any other government in the history of British Columbia. We're still doing it, and the throne speech has indicated a new movement in this direction. That's why I support the throne speech.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This. government has done some things that are brand new, and I want to tell you that that poor little opposition, bereft of one single new idea — three and a half years in government, with hardly an idea, except one, which turned out to be a disaster. I'll tell you about that after.

MRS. WALLACE: What was that, George.?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I want to tell you this. We'll give you that answer in a little while.

We have done something unheard of in the British system of government, in the whole Commonwealth: the Crown corporations reporting committee. I want to tell you who praises that: no less a person than our good friend Gordon Gibson, who sat in this chair for a long time. This is what he said: "The province has developed a performance-auditing tool to monitor some of its activities that is unique in the British parliamentary system." That's Gordon Gibson, writing in the Financial Post of November 14th. "It is called the Crown corporations reporting committee, and is worth more attention than it has received to date." I think that is true. "It has broad powers of investigation, including subpoena, only once needed to be used, and a budget guaranteed by law to meet its needs." And he goes on to say: "The B.C. government will in time come to be seen....as its additions to the political process, and the Crown corporations committee will rank high on the list." I'm telling you that as a fact, and that's a marvellous thing.

The government sets up a watch-dog to watch over it. I think that's tremendous. It's not afraid of criticism. Give them the tools. Give them the money. It's far more than the opposition has ever done so far in this House, except carp over things that don't count. Also, the NDP said that in their term of office they were going to get an ombudsman. They had said it in this House for 20 years. When they were in power, they were still saying it. And what happened? No ombudsman until we got into office, and we brought an ombudsman in to criticize or do as he wishes, to assist, to help, to do anything.

We have an ombudsman, and furthermore — we don't mind being criticized — we have an auditor-general. For 20 years the NDP talked about an auditor-general. They were in office for three and a half years, and not a sign of an auditor-general. But when we got into office, we did it.

Now we're being criticized for an Election Act which, we are told, will be one of the finest acts ever brought down in Canada, requiring enumeration every 24 months after an election. I'm going to tell you that it's a very sad thing the way elections have been in this province. It's very difficult to get everybody on the list, and we've found people.... Because it's to our benefit. You'll hear them complain about people off the list. If we could get everybody in British Columbia voting, I'm telling you this government would be in forever. That's exactly right.

While I am discussing this question, I would like to digress a little. I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) there, and I want to talk to him. I want to say to him that I'm a little distressed to find in the press that the minister is suggesting we have beer and wine in grocery stores. I think it's not yet time for that. I think 2,200 more outlets are too much. That's my personal opinion. I just think that beer and wine is easily available now. We do not want to get it any more into the public sphere.

The Speaker is giving me a little bit of a signal. Is that all he can do? If he wants to tell me something, I'll be glad to hear it.

I believe he should consider that, and not have an increase in the distribution of beer and wine.

I'd like to suggest to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) that it's time our people did not have to lose a day's pay, in most cases, to go to court to answer a small-debt or non-criminal motor vehicle summons. I think it's time we had night courts available to the public, especially in the larger centres, where they can be done without the full magistrate — probably a justice of the peace. I appeal to the Attorney-General, because I know many people who would like to defend themselves and are unable to do so.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) gave a very interesting speech the other day. He told us that we should have wage and price controls and exchange controls. He forgot about spending controls on government. He called us monetarists because we are opposed to high interest rates. He told us to beware of selling too much lumber to the United States — imagine that — because they might react unfavourably. I can't imagine a man in this House saying that we shouldn't be selling our lumber to the United States. It's totally unbelievable.

[ Page 6728 ]

He said we have no fiscal policy, but he forgot about balanced budgets that this government always stands for. He criticized us for talking about women in the workplace. He claimed that we were economic failures. Well, if there is ever an economic failure, let's have more failures like this government. I hope that every working man and woman in this province will read that speech and remember it. I hope, too, that they will read between the lines.

In 1972, when the country elected a minority Liberal government in Ottawa, the NDP held the whip over the government. They had the chance to dictate, and dictate they did. In effect they said to that minority government: "You take your pitchfork and start baling money out the window, and don't stop or we'll gang up with the Tories and throw you out." Ask the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); he was there; he was one of them. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was there, too. Shovelling money out the window has been going on ever since.

That was the blackest day in our economy in 40 years. That party, which talks about economic planning, forced the federal government to throw all the economic planning out the window. It was the start of a spending spree unparalleled in history. The national debt party did more to poison our economy with inflation than all the oil producers in the world combined. They're like old bootleggers; they put the gin in the hands of the nine-year-old government, and now that there is a hangover they pretend they didn't know what was in the bottle. I hope that when our working people read that speech they remember where the inflation came from. It came from the national debt party, and they should be ashamed to stand in this chamber and speak of economic planning.

Do you know what the national debt means in terms of inflation to all Canadians? Just look what it meant in 1980. Interest on the debt will cost Canadian taxpayers $12.3 billion. Government spending will equal $7,600 per taxpayer. This compares to only $1,692 per taxpayer in 1967-73, an increase of six times. Government spending is now more than five times greater than it was when Trudeau first took office, ten times greater than the spending in any of the war years. That's the cause of our trouble in this country. It is the debt for operating the government. This government will never go into debt for operating expenses. That's the reason we operate an efficient economy.

Total government spending is enough to buy a new $75,000 home for every household in British Columbia. How do you like that? Interest on the public debt is enough to buy a new $75,000 home for every household in the city of Calgary, which is about half of the greater Vancouver population. The annual cost of interest on the public debt next year will equal $500 per capita, and $1,390 per taxpayer. Those are actual figures. I'm reading them off this paper.

It's a frightening situation because it's the debt that's cracking up our economy. It's the creator of inflation. That's what creates our inflation, the public debt. We have a debt ten times the debt of the United States, a debt load which we cannot carry. The costs of interest on debt exceed the value of federal income taxes collected from persons earning less than $30,000 per year. The government's total debt is the equivalent of $5,000 per capita, and $13,700 per taxpayer.

I think that those figures are horrendous. That is the problem that has worked itself into all opposition parties today, particularly this one. All they talk about is: "Spend more money." If this government spends more money, it just goes into debt. Going into debt requires interest, and interest requires a load on the future taxpayers of this country. That will never happen with this government. It started with the NDP. As a matter of fact, we're still paying on a debt of $261 million to this day.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Right now we're paying $26 million a year on it. They say that isn't a fact. That's not true. I'm telling you, we're paying it every year. That's the debt load that we're paying. It will take ten years to pay it. That's the NDP policy — debt. Pay out the money; it makes no difference. So much attention, so much action, that we have had to create....

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. lumber market rises and falls with the tides of the world market. No provincial government should be responsible for those fluctuations when they result in a downturn. The measure of government is not whether they are challenged by circumstances; the measure is rather the way in which they meet those circumstances. I'm telling you something at this hour: people are talking doom and gloom, but I just see on the horizon that the lumber industry is coming back faster than we expected, but nobody wants to admit it. I've talked to some people who are senior in the larger companies, and they say there is a glimmer on the horizon. I take great hope in that, that long before next spring our lumber will be back in reasonable action again, and those one out of five out of work now will be employed by then. I look forward to next year.

They talk about the economy, and the Conference Board of Canada said that we're going through desperate times. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm telling you, there are desperate times in most of Canada, but not in British Columbia. British Columbia is not faring too badly — not good, but not too badly — with the downturn in all of North America, especially the United States, and the rest of Canada. There is no downturn here, because we've managed our resources; we are building large projects to produce more employment and to continue producing employment, and we are doing these things for the future of this province.

We have heard the Leader of the Opposition going around B.C. and trying to spread panic; we have heard how he proposes to meet the challenges. He said right in this House that if a mill gets into trouble "we'll just buy it." Do you know what that is saying? He's saying that if it doesn't work, we'll buy it. Do you call that economic planning, Mr. Speaker — real investment policy for our working people's tax money? Buy anything that doesn't work. What he's saying is, if it doesn't work, it's yours. I think it's tragic, and those are the people who want to be government.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The fiasco of Ocean Falls is not a new fiasco.

This government introduced a quarterly reporting system on provincial finances to give advance warning of these problems and provide lead time so that we could meet these difficulties without panic or hysteria. What this government has done has been right in every way. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are moving forward speedily and quickly. This government will be known for what it has done, as the government before it and the next government after it will.

MR. COCKE: Did Kinsella write that stuff, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I will tell you, no one writes my speeches; as a matter of fact, I write them myself. I don't

[ Page 6729 ]

want to blame Kinsella for anything I'm saying on this; I think he's able to do more than what I'm doing here.

The Discovery Park program of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications is a great thing. That is putting British Columbia in the forefront of the science engineering in the world, in North America. Only 15 or 20 years ago British Columbia was considered a backwoods entity as far as modern programs were concerned, but now we find ourselves in the forefront. When we see $111 million in contracts to build icebreakers going to Vancouver this week; when we see a major aircraft turbine industry going to Delta; when we see thousands of new high-skill jobs on the horizon in northeast coal; when we see computers being used in the classroom; when we see the finest adult education programs in Canada; when we see major port expansion at Duke Point in Prince Rupert and at Point Roberts; when we see B.C. Place, which will give our people a first-class stadium and a major urban redevelopment at substantial profit to the taxpayers; when we see an automatic light rapid transit system.... You could go on and on, but there is no need to go on and on.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You talk about Kinsella. Let me ask this: what do you stand for? Nothing. Just kick and kill; never a constructive suggestion; oppose everything. That's the opposition that opposes every policy; that's the opposition that opposes B.C. Place and Hat Creek. Every power development in British Columbia has been opposed; they oppose everything. But when it's done and finished, they forget it and wonder what the new opposition will be. What do you stand for? You're an opposition bereft of a single solid idea. All the time they were in government, not one single constructive thing was done.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) is speaking. What did he do for three and a half years? He engineered a report by Mr. Foulkes. It took three years to produce, and all Mr. Foulkes said was "throw everything out the window and start over again." That's what it said in 411 pages. That's all that government did.

The one thing they did which could have been reasonably good was the agricultural land reserve. But it was put on so hastily and so poorly that it turned into an unmitigated disaster. That agricultural land reserve is what has made millionaires of developers. That's exactly what it did. When land went up in price four to five times, we should have kept it at a reasonable cost, as they did in the United States. That's the opposition that brought in the land reserve — an unmitigated disaster. Did they look out for British Columbia? No. They didn't do that. They simply took the federal land inventory and said: "This is it." They slapped it on. They put that on British Columbia and said: "That's it." They didn't know at that time that a great deal of British Columbia was not yet covered by the agricultural examination of the federal government. They didn't know that. In all the Chilcotin country and the Telegraph Creek country.... The agricultural land reserve is an unmitigated disaster, and I call on the minister to consider that land reserve. That land reserve is not.... Some of it is where it should be, but there's much of it around small towns and large towns — areas where it has no practical value as good agricultural land. That act has got to be overhauled. That land that is no good for agriculture must be phased out, and that land that is in small pieces near towns and cities and unreasonable for agriculture must also be taken out. There's too much land frozen up, and that was an unmitigated disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to have had this opportunity of speaking on this debate. I want to again congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion and assure you that I intend to vote in favour of the motion when it comes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we always enjoy the comments from the member from Dewdney in this House. He gets his facts mixed up a little bit once in a while — if they are facts. But we enjoy the member. I particularly enjoyed his quoting the federal government debt and the lack of it by people in this province. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that every man, woman and child in this province is in debt to the tune of approximately $4,000 on borrowings by Crown corporations, including B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, and the list goes on and on and on. The fact is that that is debt owed by everybody in this province, and it will be owed by the children of this province. So don't talk to me about a debt-free government in this province.

I did read through the Speech from the Throne quite carefully, and I'll tell you quite frankly that I see nothing in here to give any British Columbian any hope for the economic future of this province, particularly at the present time. There's nothing about job-creation programs. The ministry talks about home building and helping new homeowners. Mr. Speaker, I'd be very surprised if, with the exception of a few people who already have it made, the programs that have been announced by this government will help anybody in this province. It may be of interest to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to know that I have two cases on my desk. Both involve elderly ladies who are in the process of losing their homes because of high interest rates. I see nothing in this throne speech to assist people like that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm extremely disappointed in this throne speech that was presented to this House the other day. The Economic Council of Canada, who just reported again, say that the outlook for 1982 is bleak. The reasons given are: high interest rates, high unemployment and high energy costs. Of course, this government does have some control over high energy costs, if they wish to exercise that particular option, but they don't. They have chosen not to exercise that option.

These are the same people who will go out and talk about the greedy unions, people who want to at least stay even with the cost of living, yet they continue to increase the costs and taxation. ICBC costs are going out of sight again; they are being increased again this year. It will probably drive some people off the highways. Every time you turn around, costs continue to increase and are increased by this government while we have high unemployment and nothing in this Speech from the Throne to indicate that the government has any program whatsoever to alleviate that situation.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding — and I know it's the same in many, many other tidings in the province — there is not one major woods industry operating. They've all been shut down. I understand very well about the problem with the lumber markets. I understand about seasonal shutdowns and all of those things. But the fact is, according to conversations I've had with people from MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach and other places, that they don't even intend to open up at the normal time next spring. They've shut down earlier than usual. The unemployment rate in my riding is horrendously

[ Page 6730 ]

high at the present time, and I can see the difficulties that people will be facing in this regard, certainly early in the new year. I see nothing in the Speech from the Throne to assist people in that regard.

The government talks about employment, yet it was this government — the Social Credit government — which more than a year and a half ago closed down the community of Ocean Falls and, with the stroke of a pen, wiped out 500 jobs right off the top in that community. In the meantime, when they made the announcement that they were going to shut down that community permanently in terms of paper-making, they promised that a new operation would go into effect and construction would start immediately on flitch and chip mills, this, that and the other thing.

I was at quite a large meeting there just last Thursday night and met with a large proportion of the 84 people who are left in that community, and nothing has happened. The government has broken another promise. Anyway, I did meet with these people and discuss with them some of the horrendous things that are not happening there right now. They still have no assurance that there will be a fuel supply, because the only fuel supplier in the community was allowed to leave, and some of them are frantically installing wood stoves and that kind of thing. But the fact is, they don't have an assured fuel supply.

I must say that the concerns of the citizens in that area are many. The houses there are deteriorating. We have over 600 dwellings sitting idle, boarded up, not being maintained, and as time passes these places are falling into disrepair. A modern school, modern hospital and recreation facilities, all of the things that any community has, are in place in Ocean Falls, and all of them are shut down and boarded up while the community could perhaps be put to other uses. Mr. Williston is likely going to recommend to the cabinet within the next six weeks or so that there be no further investment of any type on experimental logging processes utilizing undergrade wood, as has been discussed over the past 18 months, and I'm sure that cabinet will concur. Then perhaps the government should consider other uses for that community.

One such use that comes to mind — in fact, I had discussions with quite a large firm a few weeks ago — is a maricultural industry for that area. I know that this company — and I'm sure this government is aware of it.... The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and certainly Mr. Williston are interested in a large fish-farming operation on some part of the coast. Their prime location would be Ocean Falls if they could reach some kind of agreement with the government. That's one option. There are many other options.

I think, because of the modern homes, people would be interested in living in that community, It is isolated, and there are transportation problems — we're all aware of those — but we do have the facilities; we do have housing. I know in areas like Texada Island, after the major mining operation shut down in 1976 after this government came into office, it wasn't long before the modern housing that was available there to the workers and the people of that community was sold to people from the lower mainland. A lot of retired people moved into the area. There's not an empty house in that area today. There's a possibility that Ocean Falls could be utilized in some way like that.

I think it's a shame that that community is being allowed to die. People stayed in that community on the promise of this government that another type of operation would take place there, and nothing has happened. That community is being allowed to just rot away.

I want to digress for a moment. There has been so much discussion over aboriginal rights in the last few days. I spent a day and a half at the conference of the Native Brotherhood in Bella Bella, and I picked up a number of insights from people in that community. One of the things that they were concerned about was the approach of this government to the aboriginal peoples of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's your position?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Listen, Mr. Minister, and you might find out.

I can understand the concern of the native peoples of this province, because that government is no friend of the native peoples of this province, I can tell you that. For example, on November 4 of this year, in a Canadian Press article in the Ottawa Citizen — remember, this was prior to any constitutional agreement being signed — it was stated: "Métis and Inuit leaders expressed fears Tuesday that provincial leaders, led by Premier Bill Bennett of British Columbia, may be pressing the federal government to drop guarantees of aboriginal rights in return for a constitutional compromise." The worst fears of the native Indian people of this province were realized. In fact, that happened to be the case, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that aboriginal rights and women's rights were dropped from the constitutional package and were reinstated only after a great deal of public pressure from these groups, and for political reasons. The fact is the native Indian people of this province were sold out by this government, in my view. They're very angry about it. I notice this government didn't send a representative to that convention, and it was noticed up there as well. In any event, I would suggest to you that this government has ignored the native Indian people of our province, has not given any indication that they're prepared to sit down with the federal government and the native people of this province, to sign the type of treaties that have never been signed in this province.

I intend to discuss this a bit more under the appropriate estimates, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted it on the record that this government is ignoring the native Indian people of this province, in my view.

The cutbacks in Human Resources are affecting many people. It's ironic. I won't dwell on this, because the previous speakers have gone into this matter at great length. The point I want to make is this: people in my riding come into my constituency office who are receiving payments from Human Resources because they cannot get a job. This government has not planned a type of economy where there are jobs available for people who want jobs. The majority of those who come into my office would rather be working than receiving welfare, yet the people on that side of the House give the impression that half the people in the province would want to survive on welfare, which is absolute nonsense. People in this province want to work if they have the opportunity. So I don't accept that.

At the same time, it's ironic that this government sees fit to subsidize the Teck and Denison corporations. How much are they going to subsidize them for northeast coal, $1.1 billion? Private corporations are being subsidized while the poor are getting kicked in the head again, and the multinationals are getting their way. That's been the pattern of this government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about.

[ Page 6731 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development interjects. I think the minister who is presently interjecting doesn't know what he's talking about. Here is a minister who is not even close to signing an agreement, whose big northeast coal project is in trouble at the present time, because he's been unable to do all the things he said he was going to do in terms of that project, and he has the gall to interject when a member is standing on his feet trying to protect the poor little citizens of this province.

One of the other things that the government should be looking at — and I raise this because I see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is currently in the House.... It's a small item compared to northeast coal and things like that, but there are opportunities to promote mariculture and fish farming industries in this province. There are some small operators now at least making a decent living out of those operations. It's a new and budding industry. It's a big industry in other countries like Japan and some Scandinavian countries. We should be doing everything we can to promote that kind of industry. I mention it because my riding lends itself to this type of industry.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair].

At the current time, if you are going to start up and operate a fish farm in the province of British Columbia, there are 22 separate agencies that you have to go through. It appalls me that the Minister of Environment, whose purview this particular industry comes under, has made statements not really supporting the potential this budding industry has in this province. I have a number of quotes here, and I won't go through them, but it concerns me greatly that this government does not see fit to assist these people and this industry that one day is going to become a major industry in this province.

There is one item in my notes I did want to mention, because I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in the House as well. It relates to Ocean Falls and the timbered areas up and down the coast in the central coast area. It would appear that the government has placed a reserve on large blocks of timbered land for whoever will come in there and start the utilization of this low-grade wood. Because the government has placed a reserve on these large blocks of land on behalf of the B.C. Cellulose Corporation, a number of small logging operators and hand loggers are now being denied wood in that area. Timber sale after timber sale is being turned down. These people are running out of wood, and no operation can take place. At the same time, the chairman of the B.C. Cellulose Corporation is telling us it could be months or years, because of market conditions, before any kind of operation, if ever, gets underway in Ocean Falls. I will be writing the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) particularly and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but right now the very small logging operator and hand logger who's not part of the coast is effectively being cut off from a timber supply. Quite frankly, that's just not good enough. This is the kind of timber that they could sell, even though prices are down at the present time.

I want to discuss the recent flooding of Squamish, and this relates to Bella Coola area as well. The minister is as aware as I am, and probably more so, that funding for dike improvement in these areas has been cut off. Now I have to tell you that the people in the water rights branch are very much aware of the work that is required in both the Bella Coola and Squamish areas to prevent the further flooding of large areas in these communities. Nonetheless, while the people within the ministry — in the water rights branch and the engineering branch — have done a number of studies, the minister and the branch tell the people in those communities that there is no funding available. I hope the minister, who I know is listening, will go to Treasury Board as soon as possible to get some funding for his projects.

I had a call from Squamish this morning and I was informed that one particular diking project on the Cheakamus River was cut off and stopped as of yesterday because of a lack of funds. One of the problems here is that the project is unfinished. Before the contracting firm quit work because of lack of funds, they had flattened out an area and they've left a number of homes unprotected. I'm requesting of the minister that funding be made available as soon as possible, particularly on this project. As sure as the man up there made little green apples, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the Bella Coola and Squamish areas it's almost certain that there will be major flooding again, and homes are left unprotected at the present time.

I know the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is listening, so I want to say this about the Minister of Highways. I sent him a telegram regarding the road and the problems up there a couple of weeks ago, and he has responded twice. In fact, I got another letter related to this project this morning, and I appreciate it. It's not always the response I want, but at least I get an answer. I'm anticipating an answer pretty soon from the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) regarding the same subject.

The minister's response regarding the replacement of the M Creek bridge is quite good and quite detailed on how work is going on, and that's good. People will be pleased to hear that. In fact, I'm sure they know that. What I'm concerned about is how many other bridges in this province of ours have been declared safe and usable by the ministry when they have their footings in the middle of what appears to be a harmless creek bed, except when there's a flash flood.

While I'm on the topic of bridges — and I know the minister is listening — there's a severe problem — and I just returned from Bella Coola, Mr. Speaker — with bridges that were flooded out there a year ago and not replaced. People are requesting that those bridges, particularly one bridge, be replaced, and you'll be hearing from me shortly in correspondence on this. One particular bridge in the valley is very, very dangerous. Because of the flood, it's been built up. There's no sight, and it's a one-lane bridge, and with a vehicle coming this way.... The fact is that there have been a couple of serious accidents because of that. I'd like to have that situation rectified just as soon as possible.

I'd like to say a little bit on coast transportation. I was up to Bella Coola, and the people there.... It's one of the areas on the coast, Mr. Speaker, that has absolutely no water transportation or passenger service by water of any kind. I know that the ministry did a study on a ferry terminal and a study on a potential feeder service to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella some time ago. Every time I've phoned the ministry — not the minister; I haven't discussed it with him in the last few months — they say: "Well, we've still got the study." But that's not good enough. Those people require water transportation. The only transportation they have in some of these areas now is by water, although Bella Coola has a road leading through Williams Lake and out; you can get out eventually, and there have been improvements on that road, I admit.

[ Page 6732 ]

I am told that there is a real possibility that the ferry service at Ocean Falls will be terminated because of the closure of that community, and it therefore becomes reasonable to assume that the ministry will seriously consider a ferry terminal and a roll-on, roll-off ramp at Bella Bella, on the village side. I hope the minister is listening and making notes, because I am certainly going to be discussing this with him in some detail.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that this government did not intervene in any sincere way when the cutbacks in Via Rail were proposed. I am just giving the minister notice now that it's another topic that I intend to discuss with him at some length at the appropriate time.

A more pressing problem is the lack of fuel depots for aircraft on the coast of British Columbia. We've all seen the television and the papers over the most recent incident. That's one we know about. While I was up there I was told by pilots and residents of several more incidents where aircraft had run out of fuel up in that part of the coast because of lack of fueling depots, but because nobody was killed it didn't make the headlines. There were only one or two people involved, and nobody was seriously injured in the incidents I am talking about. I would hope that the Ministry of Transportation would take an active interest and somehow promote some fuelling facilities for these aircraft in the central coast region of our province and stop this slaughter on that part of the coast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time on the Canadian merchant marine or lack thereof and the fact that this government signs long-range natural resource and in this case coal contracts with other countries and makes no provision at all to have, as they do in Australia and other countries, at least a percentage of that natural resource shipped on Canadian vessels. I cannot understand a government that will sign such a huge contract with foreign countries and totally neglect the merchant marine of this province and this country.

I was going to discuss with the House certain highway projects, but I think we'll leave those for estimates. I hope the minister will, because this year's budget is presumably now being made up, allot some funds for the continued reconstruction of Highway 101, up the Sunshine Coast into Powell River, which is a major item to people. We have about 32,000 people living in Powell River, all of whom pretty well must travel two ferries and down Highway 101, and the continued reconstruction would be a great help. Even if we got three or six miles a year, it would help a great deal

In terms of ferry transportation, I did neglect to mention that I hope this year the ministry will have two vessels on route 7, between Earls Cove and Saltery Bay, so the residents of that community won't have to wait six hours to get a ferry on a busy summer weekend. I see the Premier applauding. It looks like we're going to get two vessels on that run. That looks good.

Last, but not least, I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) paid a visit to my riding. I would have been there, but unfortunately I was up in the central coast part of my riding. I don't know what he said while he was there, but I want to impress this one point on the minister on the proposed natural gas line. I don't know if it's going north, south, high or low, or where it's going, but I hope that he will draw up the terms of reference for the Utilities Commission as soon as possible. Get those public hearings underway so we can assess the environmental and economic impact of the various proposals, choose the best proposals and get on with that project. Time is of the essence. People want to know what is happening in terms of that particular project, and I urge the minister to get on with it. If he's got an answer for me, I'll talk to him at any time inside the House or out.

Once again in terms of the Speech from the Throne and the government's intentions with regard to the economy, which are practically nil in this speech, I would suggest — in fact more than suggest — that this government enumerate every voter of this province within the next two months, and call an election. Let's go to the people on this throne speech and see what they think of it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to speak in favour of this message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and I will do so. Since the time is getting close to the time of adjournment, I just wanted to make one comment about the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, another economic development that is being initiated by this government. The reason I didn't contact the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) before this was that I was waiting for him to make sure that he and his leader got together, because his leader said that public hearings were immoral and I just didn't want to get him into any trouble with his leader.

With that I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Bill 3 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.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Bill 4 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. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.