[ Page 6747 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Use Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Brown: social service policy –– 6747

Oral Questions

Kinsella appointment. Mrs. Dailly –– 6747

Assisted rental program. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6747

Mr. Barber

Homemaker service. Mr. Cocke –– 6748

Pharmacare deductible increase. Ms. Brown –– 6748

Premier's office hirings. Mr. Barrett –– 6748

Government travel restrictions. Mr. Lauk –– 6749

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 6750

Mr. Lauk –– 6751

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6754

Mr. Barnes –– 6757

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 6762

Division –– 6769

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, Part 11, 26th annual report, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Pension (Public Service) Act, 46th annual report, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Pension (Teachers) Act, 40th annual report, December 31, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, 5th annual report, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Jim Term, mayor of Coquitlam, chairman of the UBCM, vice-chairman of the GVRD and chairman of the GVRD planning committee. Please bid him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LAND USE ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Use Act.

Bill 9 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Bill 10 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.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 8 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.

Presenting Petitions

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

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The petition reads as follows:

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

"The petition of the undersigned, Anne Snowman, Kara Rollings and Alfred Rose and 814 concerned citizens of the lower Vancouver Island, humbly showeth that the actions of the Minister of Human Resources in reclassifying the single parents of small children denies these parents the freedom of choice to raise their own children at home.

"Therefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House may be pleased to support the 817 concerned citizens of lower Vancouver Island in their request to rescind this policy on the part of the Minister of Human Resources. As in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray."

It is dated the 1st day of December 1981, and it is duly signed.

Oral Questions

KINSELLA APPOINTMENT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier assure the House that prior to hiring Mr. Kinsella, the Premier checked Mr. Kinsella's activities with the Ontario Conservative Party and is satisfied'that Mr. Kinsella was not involved in any dirty trick campaigns in Ontario?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that, for the duties Mr. Kinsella was to undertake within this province, I did the appropriate checks and received the highest possible commendation and recommendation. I was not making a political search; I was making an administrative search and, as such, Mr. Kinsella came very highly recommended by those who had an opportunity to work with him and recognized those capabilities that he had exhibited in an administrative way.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary for the Premier. According to his remarks today and yesterday, the background of Mr. Kinsella has been almost entirely dealing with a political party — completely partisan work. In view of that, when the Premier checked his background, would he tell us why he hired Mr. Kinsella as a deputy on a supposedly non-partisan basis?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't preclude anyone from working in an administrative capacity who has those capabilities because at one time in their life they worked for a political party. If the member for Burnaby North is seeking employment after the next election, I won't hold her political involvement against her.

ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM

HON. MR. CHABOT: In answer to a question taken on notice, on November 26 the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked the following question:

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

He's wrong on both counts, Mr. Speaker. There have never been any instructions issued by my ministry or the government to increase the rents, or a change in the policy of the BCHMC lease of some of the ARP units. I want to say that he's created a lot of fear and apprehension in the minds of those people that are occupying those units. I want to ensure

[ Page 6748 ]

those people who are so concerned today that there will be no change in the payment of rent in the units that they are occupying, and that there will continue to be a subsidy from this government or through BCHMC making up the difference between market rent and 25 percent of their income. There has been no deviation from that policy and there won't be.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the minister's answer, but unfortunately it's at odds with information provided to us as recently as yesterday morning by a senior employee of the B.C. Housing Management Commission who told our research officer that not only is that the new policy, but in fact two such leases have already expired and not been renewed. I therefore ask the minister whether he will go back and obtain for this House a list of all of the leases that were entered into under the ARP program. Secondly, will he table that list in the House? I cannot do it on the order paper because it would not get back in as the House is going to adjourn. Thirdly, in providing that information to the House, could he also indicate in the instance of each of those leases what the expiry date is and, if those leases have expired, what the status of them is?

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by the commission that two such leases have already expired and will not be renewed. Therefore this information is at odds with what the minister asks. I ask in return: will you give us a list of all the ARP leases? Will you give us a statement of their expiry dates? In regard to any whose expiry dates have passed, will you give us an undertaking that if they have passed and not been renewed, as we are informed, by the commission...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Will you apologize to the people you scared?

MR. BARBER: Perhaps the minister will have to apologize if his information is wrong.

And will you do so at the earliest opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, questions in question period are not to contain statements, however brief, according to the guidelines, and are not to be argumentative. On those two counts perhaps I should have interrupted the hon. member, and you'll forgive me if I didn't.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that any tenants occupying these ARP units leased by BCHMC will not face an increase in their rent beyond 25 percent of their income.

HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister told the House and the people of B.C. that everything was fine in the homemaker service. Can the minister explain why 4,800 people have signed a petition calling for restoration of the homemaker service? Has the minister therefore decided to restore that service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, the homemaker service continues in the province, and the homemaker service has increased each year. In the last fiscal year, the homemaker service increased by approximately 44 percent in dollars. The number of patients who are being cared for has increased each year. The reductions, which have occurred in specific areas, followed very careful scrutiny and examination by those responsible for delivering the service in order that other persons who require such homemaker service would have the opportunity of receiving it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm impressed by the member's comments that 4,800 people have signed a petition. Perhaps he could provide me with their names, and I could find out why they see there is a problem.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's no problem. The petition is not addressed to this House but to that minister, and I'd ask that one of the Pages deliver it to the minister.

PHARMACARE DEDUCTIBLE INCREASE

MS. BROWN: I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that it is the intention of her ministry to increase the deductible for Pharmacare by 25 percent?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, that's a question of policy, and I think the question is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has a different question?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I have a different question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister lectured the opposition by saying that we had not mentioned the positive programs in our ministry, such as Pharmacare. Today we have been informed that the minister intends to increase the deductible for Pharmacare by 25 percent. Why did the minister fail to mention this cutback in her speech yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps another question? The Leader of the Opposition.

PREMIER'S OFFICE HIRINGS

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Minister of Finance why, when he ordered a freeze on the hiring of civil servants on August 6 of this year, he did not include the Premier's office, which since that time has hired ten staff members at the annual cost to the treasury of $312,799. Could you explain to the House why the Premier's office was exempt from the hiring freeze?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is asking for perhaps a lengthy answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it could be a very lengthy answer. I will pay heed to the rules of question period.

The Premier was very much aware of the hiring freeze. I don't know if the figures which the member opposite posed in the question are accurate or not.

MR. BARRETT: They are.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They may or may not be. Nonetheless, the hiring freeze was lifted from ministries as other efficiency savings were delivered to the Ministry of Finance.

[ Page 6749 ]

Certainly that was clearly understood. Efficiency savings have been introduced and delivered to me by the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister, in light of his answer: was there a freeze on the Premier's office at any time since his announcement of the 6th? If so, how long did it last?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in order to be completely accurate with respect to how long the freeze lasted, I would have to take the question as notice, and I shall bring it back to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister inform the House whether or not he knew that the Premier had indeed hired ten people, or if this is news to him?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there were....

MR. KING: Rumours.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, quick thinker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's the only interjection the member has offered in good humour in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker. I was enjoying it.

In introducing the hiring freeze throughout government, we were aware of a number of positions which were in the process of being filled, either by direct recruiting where an order-in-council applied or through the Public Service Commission. It would have been extremely unfair and impractical, I think, to have simply said with respect to the engaging of individuals throughout government that no matter where the negotiations were at that point they would not be concluded. So the hiring freeze, of necessity, had to take some number of working days to come into full effect. I think that was the reasonable approach.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary. Is the minister telling the House that all these ten hirings were already in the process before the freeze was announced?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think I made it clear that with respect to the specific individuals to which the member opposite has directed his question, I took that as notice. I was replying in general terms with respect to the hiring freeze throughout the government service.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister unaware that these ten hirings took place, but that in his answers today, he is under the assumption that they took place because they were already in process? If they did not, as announced by the policy of the minister related to the freeze, has he taken steps to see that anybody who did not conform to these conditions has their hiring rescinded?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be having some difficulty with respect to the detailed answer I have given thus far. The hiring freeze applied across government. We had a number of individuals who were in the process of being engaged. I cannot, as I stand in the House this afternoon, precisely answer the member opposite with respect to the ten individuals to whom he refers. I've taken that question as notice. I've noted the supplementary question, and I will respond to it at the earliest opportunity in this House.

GOVERNMENT TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on August 4th, following release of the first quarterly report, the Minister of Finance is quoted as saying he would impose travel restrictions as a "psychological measure" to make everyone in government aware that times are tough. Can the minister explain why, in defiance of such a psychological measure, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), during B.C.'s Agriculture Week, went to Europe at tremendous cost to the taxpayers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would refer the member who asked the question to question period last Thursday afternoon, when his seat-mate asked precisely the same question. I assume he wasn't here.

I ask leave to respond to another question asked in question period. This is a relatively lengthy answer, but I think it is important to set the record straight.

On Thursday, November 26, during question period the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — who is not in his seat — asked, as Hansard would show, about an apparent conflict between figures which were used in two documents. May I preface my remarks by reminding members that with respect to the commitment of this government to public disclosure of the financial affairs of this province, there is full public disclosure on a regular basis, including a quarterly report and the appointment of an auditor-general. There is now the response by the Minister of Finance to the recommendations made by the auditor-general in her reports and the adoption of new policies to improve the presentation of financial information. These last changes are consistent with recommendations not only by professional bodies interested in this general topic; they are also in response to the very definite urgings of the auditor-general. In addition we have the tabling of background papers providing detailed information on the assumptions and analysis of each budget. We have, of course, now introduced, passed and proclaimed the Financial Administration Act, which I think is long overdue. It is clear evidence of a commitment to fully inform the people of B.C.

To the question, the member for Skeena suggested that I had disclosed information to the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States which contradicted information provided to the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry he is not here, because I think it was an unfortunately mischievous statement. Nothing could be further from the truth — absolutely nothing.

I draw your attention to page 7 of the first quarterly report, released July 29, 1981, table B, general fund summary 1981-82, under the column "revised outlook," predicting a negative balance of $173 million for the operating or budgetary transactions. May I refer the House to page 35 of the British Columbia Hydro prospectus, which raised the question, as far as the member for Skeena was concerned; it was filed November 6. On page 35 of the prospectus is the summary statement of combined revenues and expenditures. Under "revised estimate, 1982 budgetary transactions," a negative balance of $173 million is indicated. The previous page of the prospectus, page 34, provided commentary on this table, and I would quote. It is brief, Mr. Speaker. It says:

[ Page 6750 ]

"The fiscal 1982 revised estimates of revenue and expenditure of the general fund contained in the quarterly financial report for the three months, April to June inclusive, 1981, and the 1981 budget speech forecast of revenue and expenditure of special purpose funds have been combined for presentation under the heading 'Revised Estimate, 1982' in this prospectus."

The figure of $176 million quoted by the member of the official opposition does not appear on page 35. I can only assume that he is referring to $176.8 million, which is identified as the net expenditure from special purpose funds. Mr. Speaker, members will know that these funds are set up during years of revenue surplus and drawn down when revenue growth lags, a situation to which I alluded last spring. The $36 million referred to by the member appears on page 7 of the second quarterly report released November 9. This figure represents the "Change in Unappropriated General Fund Balance." Operating or budgetary transactions were forecast to be minus $109 million, an improvement from the minus $173 million reported at the end of July. Nonbudgetary transactions of a net positive $102 million result in an unappropriated general fund balance of $12 million.

Mr. Speaker, you and some members opposite will know that prospectuses take some considerable time to prepare; they therefore can never be completely current. In consultation with the regulatory authorities and with our underwriting group, it was determined that the best course of action on November 5 was to proceed with the first-quarter financial figures in the prospectus. This was done with the assurance given that our financial situation had in fact improved. I did this in order that I would not be in the position of disclosing the financial affairs of the province of British Columbia first to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States and later to the people of British Columbia and this House.

Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to the member that in reading financial statements, great care has to be taken. He should note the type of transaction, the category of funds referred to, and he should make sure that he is on the right page. The reporting period is obviously an important variable. Confusion could arise with respect to whether one is talking about the stock of money at the end of a period or the flow during a given reporting period. I think attention to these details would result in a more informed member and the avoidance of very misleading questions. Once again the House should note that the official opposition is wrong.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This morning I mentioned some of the opportunities that exist in British Columbia and, indeed, referred to the very serious problems that we're having in our forest industry as a result of a lack of markets in North America and other market areas. I think I also mentioned the other day that all sectors of our forest industry are suffering as a result of these failing markets. We know that the revenues of the government of British Columbia this year from direct forest revenue will probably be less than $90 million, as compared to over $500 million a couple of years ago. We have certainly suffered our share of the bad times. In the forest industry itself, of course, profit is practically nonexistent this year, and therefore the investors in that industry are certainly suffering as a result of the markets.

It's also unfortunate, but it is a fact of life, that employment has decreased in the forest industry again as a result of the bad markets. I must commend most companies in the forest industry, though, because, in all cases that I'm aware of, the manner in which reductions in product have been accomplished has been done in as fair a manner as is possible.

I know the members referred to the WFI layoff at Honeymoon Bay some time ago, and that was indeed an unfortunate situation as well. What we had was an obsolete plant without an adequate timber supply and with a fully committed forest, so that there was no possibility of securing a timber supply for that operation and it had to be permanently closed. I would point out, however, that during the period since that company was purchased by Western Forest Products, I feel that Western Forest Products did make a very sincere and conscientious effort to search out every possible means of securing a wood supply for the Honeymoon Bay operation to attempt to provide continuing employment at that location. Unfortunately, it was not possible.

It is also interesting that, in a follow-up meeting I had with senior representatives of the International Woodworkers of America, the three principals of the companies which purchased WFP and senior members of my staff, an offer was made by Doman Industries, one of the principal companies of WFP, that they would immediately put 135 of those employees to work if they would allow it to run its Cowichan Bay mill on a continuous basis, as it was designed to do. The immediate response, of course, from the senior IWA people present was: "No, you can't do that." They didn't want those 135 jobs to be put into place at Cowichan Bay, which, by the way, is within easy commuting distance of Honeymoon Bay. I thought that was a rather narrow point of view to take, especially in the difficult times that we're having right now.

Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned this morning some of the things that are happening in British Columbia which are creating jobs and opportunities for people who work for others and also for the small business sector and our major resource industries. I will again mention northeast coal. It is opening up an area of 10,000 square miles of this province to development not only for the coal resource but also for the petroleum and natural gas resource, the forest resource and yet undiscovered mineral resources that are in that area — an area that is as large as some European countries and is untouched — providing tremendous job opportunities and also providing opportunities for thousands of British Columbians to own homes in a brand-new community. That development not only benefits the northeast, it also benefits the entire northern part of British Columbia and, as a matter of fact, most of Canada, because our rail links will be upgraded, connecting with the rest of Canada, and we will finally have a second major seaport on the west coast of Canada — something that is long overdue.

But, again, the opposition are against northeast coal. They're against the Hat Creek power development, and they were against the Columbia River power development. As a matter of fact, they said Mica power wouldn't be required until 1986. They're against Site C, the Iskut-Stikine, B.C. Place, the trade and convention centre. They're against the tourist industry, as they pointed out so plainly when they were in government. In fact, they are against everything that does create jobs and opportunities in British Columbia. Yet somehow they try to con the working people of British Columbia into thinking that they are for the working person and job

[ Page 6751 ]

creation. Well, from the things that they are against, I'm sure that they must be against jobs for people in British Columbia, because all of these things that they are against do create jobs, and they do create the economy that we have in British Columbia, that thankfully now is much more diversified than it was a few years ago. In spite of the serious conditions in the forest industry, we still have a lot of industrial activity and a high level of employment in this province, and that in spite of the fact that we have had record in-migration over the last several years.

I am very proud to support this throne speech, because it in fact does the things that the opposition is saying need to be done — that is, to provide opportunities for the people of British Columbia, to provide employment for them, and to keep this economy going.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my profoundest thanks and highest regards to the little rump group over in the corner who, fulfilling their duty over the past term or so, sitting in these sessions of the Legislature, have received their directions from the leader of their party and have faithfully remained in the Legislature listening through such speeches as we just heard from the Minister of Forests, I think that we ought to strike a medal for that little rump group, because they have fulfilled their duty above and beyond the call of duty.

One of the problems we have with this government is that they speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand, we have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who in August was claiming that he was going to impose travel restrictions. But since August — and only since August — five ministers, including the Minister of Finance himself, have taken foreign trips at great cost to the taxpayers. The Minister of Forests went on a European tour. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) spent two weeks in West Germany at tremendous cost to the taxpayers; there is no evidence of any benefit arising from that. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan at tremendous cost to the taxpayers.

MR. SEGARTY: At least he didn't go to play rugby.

MR. LAUK: At least that would have been something useful. He came back with less.

The Minister of Finance himself, in defiance of his own travel restrictions, went to Europe, not once but twice, at tremendous cost to the taxpayers. It is one thing to call upon the people of British Columbia to tighten their belts. It is one thing to ask single welfare mothers to tighten their belts and to do with less. It is another thing to cut back on manpower training places in the province. It's another thing to cut back on Pharmacare and day care. But when it comes to travel, the ministers can't do without their junkets to foreign lands. That's part of the perks of being in office.

They will not set a moral example for the rest of the province. That's why the people don't take them seriously when they're juggling the books, as we've just had an example of with the Minister of Finance presenting one thing to the people here and another thing down in the United States. That kind of lack of credibility is what's hurting all politicians, and not only all politicians; it's hurting the political system itself — this kind of cynicism on the part of this government, which bleeds off social programs from people who can least fight back and can least afford it to build their megaprojects and go on foreign junkets.

I ask the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Finance to tell us what they were doing. Couldn't they have sent someone instead of taking this great entourage? Couldn't they have posted a letter if they had some business in Europe? Why did we have five ministers travelling around the world at great taxpayers' expense at a time of recession in the province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I pay for that myself. I don't dip into the taxpayer's pocket like you do, Mr. Minister. You keep your hands in your own pockets, and you'll be all right.

It's really cynicism to have the government take the so-called posturing through their Minister of Finance — and boy, does he know how to posture. He struts and poses and makes grand statements about the terrible financial situation the province of British Columbia is in. And in the dead of night, these ministers are stealthily creeping off to the airports for their foreign trips with bags of taxpayers' cash that they can throw away in the cities of Europe.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the speech.

MR. LAUK: Am I interrupting? I'd hate to interrupt the cross-commentators, Mr. Speaker.

Another dissembler is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). He's playing games with the property taxes in the province of British Columbia. They have profited in a windfall way because of high assessments that have accrued over the past year. The treasury has grown fat at the expense of homeowners. Property taxation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, does not test the ability to pay. It is not the fairest form of taxation in this province, yet the minister allowed those assessments to reach incredible proportions so they could bleed off that excess profit through taxation — confiscation, really, as we've subsequently seen — of the property-owner in this province,

He has the nerve to bring in legislation now which gives the most sweeping uncontrolled discretion to the government to set assessments up and down the province. That is a cynicism that is beyond belief, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province, the homeowners, will continue to pay higher taxes under this new legislation and under the new programs announced by the Minister of Education.

I want to have a word about Kinsella before this session grinds to a halt. The Premier has said that the hiring of this new deputy minister, the highest civil service post in the province, was done because of Mr. Kinsella's administrative ability. Yet nowhere in his curriculum vitae, as best we could patch it together, can we see that Mr. Kinsella has any administrative or public administrative experience. None. Not a minute. Yet he came highly recommended to the Premier and the government.

He has a similarity to another civil servant, but in this case the civil servant that I'm talking about was attached to the Social Credit caucus at one time. Can anyone tell me who said this on September 22, 1978? "The other question was: do we play dirty? Quite honestly, the stakes are extremely high, and we do play dirty, and we don't really worry about

[ Page 6752 ]

that too much. The future of this province is at stake, and we have to do better than they do because we're smarter than they are.

Who said that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Dan Campbell.

MR. LAUK: How about old Jack Kelly? Has anybody here seen Kelly? Remember him?

Now here's another quote. I want everybody to guess who said this. This was said more recently, on March 30, 1979. This was when a campaign coordinator was accused of dirty tricks. He said: "All of these subtleties we're taking advantage of. We're not running from that. Why not exploit it? The name of the game is to win." Who said that?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, a man by the name of Patrick Kinsella. Now we know what criteria this man Kinsella has for this government. I wonder who taught whom? Can any of the ministers tell me whether or not Patrick Kinsella ever met Jack Kelly? One year ago almost to the day, I stood in this House and I said to the Premier of this province that even though he was not directly involved in the conspiracy of dirty tricks — that web of dirty tricks that enveloped this party and unfortunately this province — he was morally responsible for it. He was the leader that set the tone for dirty tricks. How? One of the ways he does that is by hiring people like Patrick Kinsella as nothing more than a politician, a hired hack of a political party in Ontario, who is now importing Ontario's dirty tricks to the province of British Columbia.

It was the Premier who was aware of this. He can't hide behind vague answers. He was aware of Mr. Kinsella's record in the province of Ontario. He was the one that made the decision without posting it, without advertising this civil service position anywhere in British Columbia so that some British Columbian could apply for it. He was the one who hired Mr. Kinsella. He has set the moral tone in this province, and it's a low moral tone. It's a tone that involves winning at any cost, no matter what happens. Kinsella calls it subtleties. Is that the difference between the Ontario dirty tricks players and the British Columbia dirty tricks players? One says quite honestly the stakes are extremely high and we do play dirty. The other says all of these subtleties were taken advantage of.

I suppose that last phrase is a bit more sophisticated. It's sort of central Canadian — Upper Canadian. The same results are there. The same moral tone is being established by the Premier of this party, the leader of the Social Credit Party. The name of the game was to win. Kelly said: "Play dirty honestly. We have to. The stakes are high. We play to win." He was fired. Kinsella says: "We have to take advantage of these subtleties. After all, the name of the game is to win." He was hired.

I'm going to deal with something I said back in 1979 that has created speech material for both the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Both those gentlemen have used that speech of mine on four or five occasions in the Legislature and outside of it. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank them for using the speech. At the time, of course, they were ridiculing it. Even last spring, the Premier stood up in the House and said that the five predictions I made in 1979 were foolish. He went through them, and all of the backbenchers laughed. Remember that? The good doctor from Point Grey chuckled and straightened out his old school tie. Everybody was having a great time. But in the last six months, four out of five of the predictions have come to fruition.

Let me just canvass with you what was said at the time. Firstly, I said oil prices in the world will go up. Anybody chuckle about that? They did then. The editorials in the hyphenated paper, as it now is in Victoria, was "Lauk Depression Gives Professor Chuckle." Let me talk about this. This is Leonard Laudadio, the chairman of the university's economics department in Victoria. He said: "It's a silly forecast. It is irresponsible for Lauk to make such a long-range forecast, which is likely based on very little economic information. It's a politician's forecast, not an economic forecast." Laudadio said he doesn't see the price of oil going up as much in the next ten years as it has in the past decade. Since that statement, the price of oil has doubled. In two years it has doubled.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I am going to make a forecast in one moment, Dr. McGeer. I'm glad you asked. None of us may be here to see the results, that's the problem. The problem with economists.... I'm not criticizing Dr. Laudadio. If he wants to poke fun at politicians, that's his privilege. But one of the problems with the country, the media and the political system is that we actually go to economists for that kind of important advice. We should not do so. The study of economy is not graphs and charts. It's not science. It's a study of human nature. It's a study of history and what's likely to come about as a result of the lessons we refuse to learn in history. Economy is the study of human nature.

Now exactly what was said? Here is what I did say, Mr. Speaker, way back in August 1979.

Continuing oil price increases and massive public and private debt will send unemployment up and land values down. We are facing something pretty serious. The free-market system is hitting a reef; we owe ten times what we own. A recession sparked by higher energy costs will boost unemployment to over 10 percent, possibly 14 percent. The recession may turn into a depression when unemployment forces homeowners, through high interest rates, to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks and mortgage companies, creating a glut of land on the market and forcing land prices down.

That was in August 1979. Everybody chuckled. When somebody asked at that time, "Is there any way to avoid that situation?" I said: "Of course there is." There is always a way to avoid situations that are coming up: it's to prepare for them and to plan for them. It's to take care not to get involved in heavy megaprojects at tremendous public expense, when you know around the corner you're going to be in deep economic trouble, so that the blood of single parents on welfare, of old-age pensioners on Pharmacare, of people getting their services cut back, of the forest industry where one out of four people is unemployed, can get a break from government when times are bad. Nobody needs a government when times are good; anybody can be the government when times are good. A good government, a tough government, produces programs for people when times are tough, and that's where this government has fallen flat on its aplomb.

Let me say it for Hansard this time, Mr. Speaker, so that I can't be misquoted, as I was by the Premier and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) over the past two years.

The future of this province is dim, and it's dimmer than in most other provinces, because of the actions taken by this government. They have been foolish; they have been downright juvenile in taking high-profiled megaprojects and invol-

[ Page 6753 ]

ving themselves in northeast coal resource giveaways and asking the people of the province: "Be patient; the benefits are coming." We heard this right after the war, Mr. Speaker, those of us who were living in this province at that time. We heard it from the governments of the coalition, we heard it from the previous Social Credit administration, and now we're hearing it from this Social Credit administration. They're once again asking ordinary people in the province: "Be patient; one day these resource giveaways are going to be of some benefit to you."

We've seen examples of whom they have benefited, Mr. Speaker. They benefit a handful of people in this province, as they always have. This province's resources and its major capital and assets are owned by fewer than 40 families. In 1933 they were owned by fewer than 40 families. Nothing has really changed. I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing a terrible recession in this province because this government is unwilling to make the major structural changes to the economy that it can make, even as a provincial administration, and because the national government, the Liberals, are so inept and wimpy they can't possibly come to grips with the major economic structural changes required in this country. We cannot have the entire national economy owned outright by fewer than 250 families. Do you remember the Family Compact, the original Family Compact at the birth of this country? It used to be 200 members, 200 families. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the same number of families own this country today. Every once in a while they play musical chairs and somebody falls off the edge, but it's the same number of families.

We ask this government to redistribute wealth; we ask this government to change the structure of the economy; and they answer us by redistributing constituency boundaries. They answer us with megaprojects, bread and circuses. They sneer at ordinary British Columbians through the economic policies that they are imposing upon us. In times of economic downturn the government should not stubbornly cling to these megaprojects. They have to pull back from some of them. They have to create priorities. You've got to stop northeast coal now and wait until the economy improves. We simply can't afford it because of the deal that the government has presently come up with. You've got to do it now. Otherwise, in the next two or three years you are going to mortgage our future and forfeit any opportunity that ordinary British Columbians have to have a prosperous life.

You know, these people seem to want to hold out the promise for people that somehow these benefits are going to accrue to them within their lifetime. Not the way they've planned these big projects, Mr. Speaker, and not the way they've made these deals. They've sold us down the river in northeast coal. Now they're clamouring around desperately, not for economic reasons but for purely political reasons, trying to scotch-tape together that northeast coal project. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars are going down a hole there, and we're never going to see them again — not in increased taxation, not in more jobs and not in a better life for the ordinary people of this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They will not take an equity position with the private companies. They will not negotiate a good deal with the Japanese. They will desperately take a political decision. By those desperate political decisions that this administration has made, British Columbia is facing the most serious recession in its history since the Depression.

I notice the Minister of Tourism from Vernon is smiling.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm shocked at your statements.

MR. LAUK: I'm shocked at my statements, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped and prayed that I would never have to make those statements. That's why in 1979 I said: "Be forewarned and plan for these days." What do they do? They come up in the House and they chuckle. They think it's funny, instead of sitting down and carefully thinking out what they're doing.

HON. MR. MCGEER: Let's have point two.

MR. LAUK: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has asked for point two in my program. Point two is the most important plank in our platform as a party for getting the economy moving again and for getting more jobs in this province. Point two is the defeat of the Social Credit Party. If you throw out the government of the day, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party can come into office with a planned program for getting this economy moving and for shifting major portions of the public capital that's being squandered into areas where maximum job opportunities can be achieved. The needs of this province are great. Because this government has foolishly — like the young boy with his first experience with hard liquor — gotten involved with five or six major projects in this province and is stubbornly refusing to pull back from some of them.... Instead they are cutting social programs at a time when these social programs are most greatly needed. They are stubborn, Mr. Speaker, at our expense. They cling to their face-saving at our expense. I'll tell you that it will be most expensive for most people in this province. There will be even higher unemployment this winter. The forest industry is in deep, deep trouble. The pulp industry is the next to start falling off and later on this spring that will be a most serious problem.

There will be more mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies than any time in the history of the province in the next several months. Interest rates will level off at 15 percent or 16 percent and begin to climb again.

One of the problems with all of these fantasy makers on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that they're hoping against hope — they're betting men; they're always at the track — that interest rates will continue to fall. They don't read the reports. They don't ask the experts. They don't talk to the Bank of Canada. They say that somehow if we look up at the clouds and set the right climate here with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, interest rates are going to fall. The thing is you can't throw up your hands and say: "My goodness, we can't help it." The interest rate went up in the United States, then went up in Canada, and now look what's happening to us. You were told in 1979 what would happen. Where are your programs? Where have you hedged? Where have you taken the plans and the measures to protect the people of British Columbia? They are a crisis-oriented government that responds on a day-to-day situation to the crises facing this government. They are not a government that sits down and plans; they're a government that sits down and reacts. They are a knee-jerk government that have taken us in a crazy, cyclical way into a recession.

They are the government of recession. They are the government of unemployment. They are the government of

[ Page 6754 ]

hardship for the people of this province, and the people of this province have had enough of it. They've had quite enough of it.

Mr. Speaker, they laughed at oil prices. The Premier laughed, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said: "What are you talking about? Oil prices aren't going to go up." The barrel international price was $13.33 on January 1, 1979. As of August 1, 1980.... Let's not cover this year. I'll leave that for later.

Time is running out for your government, Mr. Minister. Time is not only running out for the Social Credit government; it's running out for every other backward-thinking, right-wing, elitist type of government anywhere in the free world. These are the governments that are going to be thrown out of office, because they're not fit for public office. Their ideas are not even nineteenth century — they're thirteenth century, as my hon. friend for Prince Rupert pointed out the other day.

You've got to get control of the economy for British Columbians. You've got to stop the giveaway projects, and you've got to plan your large projects in a way that will not make ordinary people suffer. I would say that this government, over the past two terms, had an opportunity to put away for a rainy day. They had an opportunity to build sound economic programs to protect us against inflation and high interest rates today. They cannot claim they didn't know it would happen. They did know. They were told. They just weren't listening.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm surprised because I thought the time must have run out on the member for Vancouver Centre. He stood up in debate in this Legislature just a few moments ago to describe to us what the New Democratic Party proposed to do. Members will recall that speech — the five members of the New Democratic Party who demeaned themselves to attend this Legislature to listen to what their future program would be. The only problem was that the member forgot to tell us. He sat down. He created the opportunity. He gave us two important points for the people of British Columbia. One was, he said, to stop northeast coal. The second was to defeat Social Credit. Right on. Then he said the New Democratic Party will come into office with a program for the people of British Columbia to end this economic slump. Then he sat down. Why? Because he didn't have anything to say, and nor does anybody on the opposition side have anything to say. Nor, Mr. Speaker, is there any press to listen, nor any press to tell the public of British Columbia what is said in debate in this chamber, what the NDP are against and the fact that they have no policy nor any program.

There has been over a week of debate in this chamber. I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in saying it has been the worst week of debate I have ever heard in the Legislature of British Columbia during a throne speech, completely devoid on the opposition's side of any ideas or any constructive suggestions at all. The Leader of the Opposition has been unable to find the time in his schedule to appear in debate in this chamber, or even to listen to the policies and arguments put forward by his own members. Never in the history of this Legislature have we had such a disgraceful performance on the part of the Leader of the Opposition or the opposition party.

MR. LAUK: You said that last year.

MS. BROWN: And the year before.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course I said it last year and the year before. Mr. Speaker, each and every year it gets worse. Here, once more, we had an opportunity this afternoon to hear what the program of the New Democratic Party is — if any — but that opportunity was passed by, not because the member went overtime in his criticism of Social Credit, but because he had nothing to say. He couldn't even fill his time criticizing Social Credit, far less presenting any alternative policies on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that they're in opposition? Is there any wonder that the public rejected them in 1933, that they rejected them in 1937, that they rejected them in 1941, they rejected them in 1945 and rejected them in 1949...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nineteen fifty-two!

HON. MR. McGEER: And when did they reject you next? Nineteen fifty-three. And when did they reject you next? Nineteen fifty-six. And when did they reject you next? Sixty. And when did they reject you next? Sixty-three. Next? Sixty-six. Next? And what happened after that?

MR. LEA: They rejected you! [Laughter.]

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, they couldn't choose between all the free enterprise parties that had grown up in prosperous British Columbia. Of course, when that little political indulgence was corrected, I might say as a result of the New Democratic Party being in office, nobody but the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Premier, could have brought these warring free enterprise parties together. Only the Leader of the Opposition could have succeeded in that, and he did, and he's been objecting ever since.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the great unifier!

HON. MR. McGEER: He is the great unifier. I can't quarrel with the truth or wisdom of that statement.

And so, the great unifier having worked his magic, the public rejected the New Democratic Party in 1975 and they rejected you again in 1979. But is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, as to why? Because surely if it was not clear up until today, it has been made clear this afternoon. The New Democratic Party is where it is because it has no policies, and it will remain where it is into the future or until it reforms itself and develops some positive alternatives for the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to describe some of the activities that I've undertaken as a minister of the Crown in the last few months, because I believe that some of them are instructive. I know that the member for Vancouver Centre wishes that all the ministers of the Crown would stay in their offices and never visit the rest of the world and be as uninformed about what goes on beyond our jurisdictions as they are, to make things equal — because after all, that's the policy of the New Democratic Party.

One of the countries that I had the great fascination to visit last month was Argentina. The country of Argentina last week issued the first million-peso note. It's worth roughly $100 Canadian. The peso started on a par with the dollar in 1973. When I was in Argentina, the peso was 10,200 to the

[ Page 6755 ]

dollar. The day after I left, it was devalued again to 18,000. I want to give the reason.

Argentina was, until 1930, the most prosperous nation in the Americas, save the United States. The standard of living was higher than in Canada. It's a country about the size of Alberta and British Columbia, blessed with every natural resource a country could hope to possess. They have had since that time a succession of governments that have been characterized by two policies. These are the ones that I want to particularly emphasize to my friends opposite. The first of these was a policy of excessive nationalism, believing that everything outside of Argentina should be rejected, and that only those things which were Argentinean should be permitted to carry on in that country.

MR. LAUK: What a bunch of nonsense.

HON. MR. McGEER: What a bunch of nonsense.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know what I'm talking about. The minister across, Dr. Lauk, of course knows all about these things. Of course, I visited the country and was completely uninformed about what I saw and what I learned.

The other principal feature of their policy has been to promise to the people of Argentina and to offer to them benefits that the country had not earned through their industry. How does one accomplish that? One accomplishes it simply by printing money. If we think we have seen inflation of the maximum degree possible, then of course we only have to look to some of these countries like Argentina to realize that irresponsibility on the part of government, spending beyond your means and trying to isolate yourselves from the world economically, is going to have rapidly escalating effects.

The first of these is that you will no longer attract any investment. You no longer will be able to develop any technology. Your industry, initially locked in the past, will become more and more isolated in the world, and your capacity to provide for your people will sink rapidly on a relative scale. That can happen no matter how intelligent your people or how richly endowed may be your land. When one visits a country like Argentina one can see in abundance endowment of the people and the land, but isolation of the industry — yes, it's clearly there. Isolation of the technology so that they're locked into the past is clearly there. A desire to provide benefits to the people that the country can no longer earn is there in abundance. The end result is poverty, inflation, a slippage of national achievement and prestige, and a bewildered and disappointed people.

Think what it would be like in Canada today if we were to develop a policy of excessive nationalism. Imagine what would take place if we were to pursue for any length of time the policies advocated by the New Democratic Party, saying that we will control the economy, we will drive those foreigners out, we will soak the rich. What will happen? This isn't the first jurisdiction that has ever said those things and then gone on to implement them. We can find all kinds of examples dotted around the world in those countries which are slipping rapidly behind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You're mentioning countries that have had heavy investment and advanced technology. I will make one exception, Mr. Member: France. I'll make some predictions for you since you've made all these marvellous predictions. France is going to get into trouble because your friends — the people that are most closely associated with your philosophy — have been put in power. You protest, but if France now does better than it did under its former regime, then at least you can say you've got some argument in your favour.

You certainly can't turn to Britain as an example. As the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), a former member of the British Labour Party, well knows.... He's a fugitive from their economic system and a welcome immigrant to Canada, but he's preaching in this country that we follow the same philosophy that took that nation — one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world for threequarters of a millennium — and dragged it down in one generation of Labour government to the bottom of the heap in Europe. That is because you have put in practice in that country the philosophies that the members opposite have preached.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, you don't like to hear these things. Why don't you like to hear them? Because they're the truth. What they are is the application of the arguments that they put forward. Mr. Speaker. So I say, listen to these arguments.

MR. LEA: What are they?

HON. MR. McGEER: All right, let's go through some of your arguments. Stop all development of natural gas; never ship out a cubic foot.

We just heard from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He said: "Stop northeast coal," and you agree with that. You'd stop northeast coal tomorrow, wouldn't you? I suggest that we go to the public of British Columbia next week on the issue of northeast coal. Stand up in this Legislature and say you want an election fought, that you want a mandate from the public of British Columbia to stop northeast coal. That's when we should have an election on that issue alone.

Let's have an election on the issue of whether we should have any more power development in British Columbia, because the New Democratic Party is against the damming of the Laird, the damming of the Stikine, the damming of the Iskut, and it's against Hat Creek coal — all these projects. Let's have an election now on the issue of whether there's to be power development and resource development in British Columbia, and on whether there's to be any northeast coal. And if you want to stop the megaprojects and you don't want B.C. Place to go ahead, let's have an election with that as an issue too. Let's get on the table what we're for and what we're against in this province, because I can tell you this: the press of British Columbia will never tell the public what your policies are. So why don't you state them and have an election manifesto out of it?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the New Democratic Party: you haven't got any policies that you put forward, but you've said all these things. Why not get them down. Make your list, one to ten, of the things you'd stop and invite an election if you want one so badly.

[ Page 6756 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, have I got your policies straight? Have we got the promises in the Legislature today that this is what you're going to stand for in the coming election?

I can tell you that I have visited countries that have put into practice the very things which I have heard the New Democratic Party consistently advocate over the past 20 years in this House. They have put all of these arguments into practice and, without exception, disaster has struck every nation that has done so. The only thing that saved us here in British Columbia was that we had just the slightest brush with that kind of thinking.

The basic problem is that if you promise what you cannot afford, as does the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) every time she stands up in this House.... She promises those things which she cannot afford and which her party and the government cannot afford. If you go promising policies which you cannot fund or afford, then ultimately you are reduced to printing money in an illusory attempt to pay for all of these things.

Imagine yourself as a young person in a country like Argentina today, which has just printed its million-peso note. How can a young person in Argentina possibly look forward to the future? How can they build with their families? They look around the world to countries like Canada, to which they can escape. They look to places that have a sounder government than their own country has been able to provide. They do so with sadness, and it's quite possible to find nations in the world that are crowded, where land is hard to come by, where resources are thin, where opportunities seem to be limited in anything but a manufacturing sense. You see this kind of despair in countries that have been endowed with everything a nation could want except one thing — a tradition of sound government. It's the only thing that has been lacking.

You realize that all of these policies and developments that have been so beneficial to Canada, and which the New Democratic Party is the first to take for granted, are things which cannot be taken for granted. They are things that have developed only because of the sweat and wisdom of people who went before, but that would be cast aside and destroyed in a matter of a few years by an inept and uninformed government. I can only say that were we to put into practice the sorts of things the New Democratic Party has advocated, that's precisely the position British Columbia would find itself in in the future.

We have not heard the New Democratic Party put forward any coherent policy. They stand up as individual members and voice their prejudices. They're against northeast coal. They're against Iskut. They're against Stikine. They're against Laird. They're against Social Credit. They're against everything that's forward-looking, everything that will build for the future. What they want to do, instead, is spend more money that they have no concept of how to earn. You're not going to earn it. Who's going to do it for you? Will the industries that you drive out of British Columbia do the earning? Perhaps we should look at it another way. Will the earning be done by industries that you'll bring in? Which industries will you bring in? Will you bring back Mason Gaffney? Would he be the one to direct the economy? Well, you brought him in with our money before. We still have about an hour and a half left in this debate, and in that time we can still hope to hear something in the way of a coherent policy from the New Democratic Party.

In the meantime, it's my pleasure and my duty to file with the House some messages. I would say it's a form of Christmas card delivered by the students from the University of Victoria. I gave the commitment that I would deposit this with the Clerk of the House. The students from the University of Victoria are justifiably concerned about the policies of the federal government. You asked if I was still a federal Liberal, and the answer is that I'm a Social Crediter because I believe in sound economic policies in government.

I can vividly recall the time during the 1960s when the provinces pleaded for financial jurisdiction over education, since it was their constitutional responsibility. The federal government was unwilling to turn the fiscal resources over to the provinces and said instead: "We will keep the fiscal resources, and we will contribute to the post-secondary education programs by using your money to do it." For nearly 20 years the federal government has kept that commitment, but now the federal government has decided to renege on that, to keep the money and to leave the provinces stuck with....

MR. LEA: You signed an agreement in 1976.

HON. MR. McGEER: The agreement was for a limited length of time, but at no time, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government came to renewing those contracts to support post-secondary education and health, did they ever say to the provinces: "We will now return your fiscal resources, so that you can fulfill your constitutional responsibilities." On every occasion it was: "We'll keep the money, and we'll leave you with the responsibilities." That's the problem of a federal government that has no commitment to the past, because they weren't the politicians who got elected on that policy. They'd forgotten all about it; it was old history. When all of these solemn agreements were made, the Prime Minister wasn't even in Parliament; he came along later. Sooner or later, if one gets into any of these long-term shared-cost programs with the federal government, one is going to get into the situation where one is stuck with the baby and where the means of support has disappeared out the back door. That's precisely what's happened with the federal government, and my advice to future governments — federal and provincial here in British Columbia — is never get into bed with the federal government again on a shared-cost program, because sooner or later perfidy will take place.

I suppose the great mistake of the day, Mr. Speaker, was that in order to get some of our tax money back in British Columbia, the government of the day climbed into bed with the federal Liberals, and here they are stuck with the family and no means of support. We're in the same position as the other provinces. It's a sorry day when Confederation has to be run on this kind of a basis. The only way that we're going to be able to carry our heavy share of the load in the future is to develop new methods of bringing in the resources to government to carry the expensive social programs that we're embarked upon. That's not an easy thing to do if we're a resource province, because as all of the members in this House know, our markets are external. If the demand for lumber is weak, everybody in British Columbia hurts; if the demand for our mineral resources is weak, everybody in British Columbia hurts.

Therefore we've got to broaden our economy and try to build a future in which we're less dependent for our well-

[ Page 6757 ]

being on our natural resources than we are today, no matter how bountiful they may be at the present time relative to other countries in the world. That's one of the reasons why I, as the Minister of Science, have been working hard to try and lay the groundwork for high-technology industry in the future that can operate and provide money entirely independently of the natural resources that we have in this province. In looking for an opportunity in this province to participate to a significant degree in the new high technology, which will be the basis of industry for tomorrow, one looks to those fields where there might be within the next decade or so growth in the area of somewhere between a thousand- and ten thousand–fold. If you can't see market growth of that size, the chances of a small jurisdiction like British Columbia being able to capture a significant share of the world market would really not make any impact at all on our total industry.

So we seek those areas that are newly developing in terms of high technology, where we have some advantage and some lead because of the skills that we have — either in our industry or in our universities — that will provide this opportunity to share in a market that might grow to the order of a thousand- to ten thousand–fold. We look to fields like fibre optics, gallium arsenide semi-conductor devices, pharmaceuticals, particularly with the new interferon project — areas that will experience that kind of growth in the next decade or so, and where our industries, starting as tiny little acorns along with others in other parts of the world, will be able to grow to significant oaks and therefore become participants, along with our major resource industries in the economy, in employment for tomorrow.

Those kinds of activities will not bring their payoff in three months or six months or one year, but I believe we can within the decade look forward in British Columbia to major high-technology contributions in our industry simply because we will have selected those fields that are likely to experience the largest and most dramatic growth. I believe that this is the only answer for us, to maintain the high standard of living that we have been able to build up today on the basis of our natural resources. I believe it's the only way that we're going to supply opportunities to our own children and those who will immigrate to this province that will give them, relative to a world scale, the same enjoyment that we've been able to have in this past decade. I'm equally convinced that if we set ourselves back by adopting foolish policies on expenditure and investment, if we pretend that British Columbia is some island that will permit us to march out of step with the rest of the world in investment and product development, then we're going to be a sad and sorry province.

I hope that the public of British Columbia listens with great care to the New Democratic Party and what they say. I hope that the press of our province listens with equal care and faithfully portrays what you people say — not any false image, not the pin-stripe suits, not all the lessons that you've learned, not all the images that have been put forward to foot the people of British Columbia, but telling precisely what you stand for and what you're against. I hope, as well, that they'll have the wisdom to apply those arguments to the rest of the world and see where they have been put to work and what has been the consequence of that; nothing could be more sobering for the people of British Columbia or more important for the future of our province.

Of course, one can always hope that the New Democratic Party will reform. One can always hope that they will do some of the things that the press suggests they are doing. But it needs to be reality, not a figment of anybody's imagination. When you stand up in this House and put forward solid economic development arguments and solemn commitments, that's the time the public of British Columbia should be taking you seriously. But if you want to stand by the arguments you! ve put forward this past week in debate, if you want to commit yourselves now to firm policies of being against northeast coal, against power development, against development of our natural gas industry, against private capital, against the forest industry, against the 200 families — or whatever the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) was arguing about earlier — if you want to be against all those things and make that your policy for an election, by all means let's have it out now and decide whether the public of British Columbia is going to continue with sound policies or veer to the left again.

I say that the socialists should be rejected, and of course we should continue with Social Credit in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the second member for Vancouver Centre, I would ask if the minister would ask leave for the tabling of the document which he filed.

HON. MR. McGEER: I ask leave.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the throne speech, and I will be voting against it when the question is called. However, I want to suggest to the House that, although there are many things that we hope to stress with respect to the faults of the government, there are some things that British Columbians should be celebrating and should be quite proud of.

I speak of the success of our professional football team, the B.C. Lions, in their efforts this year. As the hon. members realize, it has been some 17 years since the Lions have done as well in the play-offs in the west. They came so close to defeating the three-time champions, the Edmonton Eskimos, in the final game. So as an ex-player I would just like to put on record that we have enjoyed a very exciting professional football year in British Columbia. As well, I would like to speak on behalf of the assembly and congratulate the Ottawa Rough Riders and Edmonton Eskimos for putting on a display of sportsmanship and drama in the Grey Cup final. I don't think there's been anything like it in this country's history. We did enjoy something really rather spectacular, both provincially and nationally, so I'm quite honoured to make those remarks before getting into the more sinister aspects of what we're here to deal with, Mr. Speaker.

The previous member who spoke, as we all know, was once a member of the opposition for the Liberal Party on this side of the House. He was once a leader who condemned the Social Credit Party for its insensitive attitude toward the electorate. In fact, he even wrote a book describing how incapable that government of the day was in taking care of the people's business. Of course, today he is stating that he is proud to be a Social Crediter because of their good fiscal policies and programs with respect to carrying on our affairs.

As well, I want to reflect for a second or two on the decision of the Premier to call this session and to have the second state ball of the year. We had one in February or

[ Page 6758 ]

March of this year, as you will recall. Now we have held another one. Personally I'm not opposed to the tradition of state balls, which should be open to the public for the people to at least enjoy a few moments of pleasure for their very heavy tax burden. As it is, however, very few of the people who are paying those taxes are fortunate enough to attend the state ball. The Premier suggested when he cancelled the state ball in 1976 that there was nothing to dance about. In fact, he went on to wave around a document that had been drawn up by an accounting firm of his choice to show how the previous administration had failed in the management of public affairs. I believe the accounting firm was Clarkson Gordon, Mr. Speaker.

I'm wondering if the Premier intends to defend his decision to call this state ball on the same basis that he used to denounce the outgoing administration in 1975, and to allow a similar auditing of the public accounts to justify — in fact, prove — that we do have something to dance about in 1981 that we did not have in 1976. That will be very interesting, and I'm certainly pulling for the Premier. I hope he will be able to make that point, because if he does not, one would begin to question his sincerity with respect to good stewardship in handling the public taxes.

I'm rather dubious of whether or not the Premier will come up with such a study, because I believe he is given to impetuous and impulsive behaviour in trying to capitalize expediently with respect to political kudos. He probably assumed at the time he made that statement that it would be forgotten, just as he assumed that the statements he made about not having seatbelts in his car, when a reporter asked him, with a camera trained on his seat, as he was about to descend from his car, whether or not he was equipped with seatbelts.... You will recall, Mr. Speaker, those incidents, because at the time we were debating seatbelt legislation for the province of British Columbia. The reporter asked the Premier if his automobile was equipped with seatbelts, and he told him no. No problem. He just looked him dead in the eye and said no. He didn't even bat an eye. The reporter happened to have a cameraman along with him trained on the Premier. The Premier got up and walked away from his vehicle and the cameraman zoomed in on the seatbelts. It's not a big deal. He's entitled to his little fibs here and there, but he is after all the chief minister of this province and has very little to gain by those kinds of fibs, unless the man is just that insecure and incapable of the kind of leadership and exemplary behaviour that this province needs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is why I say that I'd like to be positive as much as possible in making my constructive criticism. I'd like to be positive because I would like to believe that the Premier and all his cabinet ministers — in fact, all members of this Legislature — are here out of a sincere desire to reflect to the best of their ability the concerns of their various constituents throughout the province. I would hope that as fellow British Columbians and fellow Canadians, notwithstanding our political differences and biases, there is a level at which we can appreciate the best that each of us can give.

But when we see the kind of behaviour that the Premier has demonstrated time and time again, we're not talking about political policies. We're talking about human integrity. We're talking about the integrity of the person who is supposedly giving us the kind of confidence that we need to believe and to work toward making any policy work. Whether Social Credit or New Democratic Party, those policies require the confidence of the voters. But you have very little confidence in anyone who is so insecure as to suggest something which is going to be determined in the very moment that person moves, such as, "I have no seatbelts," and when he gets up and you zoom in on him you see the seatbelts. The Premier doesn't say anything about it, but that's what our school children and the people in the street see.

This is one of the things that I'm going to talk about today — the incredibility of the government and the lack of sincerity. It's a government of gimmicks and masqueradery — if there is such a noun.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Masqueradery. I just made it up, but I think it should work. We'll check it out, What it means is that you disguise yourself, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), so that the people don't know who you are, so that you can be something else. In other words, you try to pretend that you're concerned about something.

First of all, let's talk about the Premier's role as chairman of the first ministers and the exercise with the Prime Minister in his plans to patriate the constitution. How could it be that the Premier was involved for all those months, making trips back and forth from the east coast to the west coast? He wanted to impress upon everyone that it was an important matter of historical significance and that he himself was a statesman and the voice of human rights and Canadian unity. He was concerned for the long-desired and prayed-for unity of this country, and the various provinces being able to rationalize ways in which federalism could become a healthy reality; but I think he failed when you consider some of his actions — not his pronouncements.

I want to first suggest to the assembly why the Premier never once made any representations with respect to native rights and women's rights during all of those deliberations. Why was he not out in the forefront? Why did we have to wait for a throne speech to have him come up with some kind of very unclear commitment to affirmative action on behalf of the women of this province? It's a little bit late. You had the chance to be right out front. Instead, we have native people from British Columbia having to lobby, travel overseas, go back and forth to Ottawa, demonstrate, demand, threaten, and do just about everything they could to get attention to a long-standing grievance, a justified problem of long-standing historical significance in this province. In fact, their grievance was very much a part of the last campaign, as you will recall, when your government suggested that they would deal with the land claims of the British Columbian native peoples.

The point I am making is that part of the concern of patriation of the constitution was not just to bring the constitution back to Canada. It was a concern for making it a document that would help to unify the country. The Charter of Rights was a very major part of those deliberations. The Premier missed his opportunity. Instead of getting on the bandwagon, he could have created the band, the wagon, the wheels and everything else by taking the lead in fighting for women's rights as well as for the concerns of native people.

[ Page 6759 ]

What we got from him was astounding, when finally pressed on the question. He said: "That's fine. We're quite willing to discuss native rights, cutoff lands, and discussions can begin as long as we are guaranteed that we don't have to pay for our principles. We don't want anything to do with paying for justice." And there is a price. So he wants Ottawa to guarantee that whatever decision we come to in British Columbia, we here will not be responsible for putting our mouths where our principles are.

That's one of the faults of a government that says it's concerned about human rights. Another one that concerns me is this. As we all know, this is the International Year of Disabled Persons. In the Speech from the Throne — now, listen very carefully — there were a few very well-chosen phrases about things that generally are considered popular and attractive with respect to getting marks for the government so it will appear to be a humanitarian concern — a sensitive, caring, representative body on behalf of the people of British Columbia. But why wasn't it a clear and concise statement with respect to this government's position on bringing the disabled and handicapped citizens of this province into the legislative arena? In other words, give them the same rights that all other British Columbians have and enjoy.

Why did it not mention the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission with respect to concerns that disabled persons have had to suffer under...forever, really — ever since we've been here? The kinds of things that disabled people have had to deal with in the community have been anything other than a respectful role that we've had to witness in this society as British Columbians. They don't have a guaranteed wage with respect to employment. They don't have protection under the Workers Compensation Act.

In fact, our attitude toward the disabled and the handicapped has been to give them a bare subsistence allowance of one sort or another, under the impression that persons who are disabled do not aspire, like able-bodied people, to upward mobility — to have ambition, to be able to participate to the maximum of their abilities and potential, the same as other citizens. We view them as people who require rehabilitation and a place for recreation and somewhere to spend their time, without an opportunity to be constructively fulfilled as human beings. Philosophically, we have a rather paternalistic attitude to these British Columbia citizens, who, incidentally, represent some 10 percent of our population.

We're talking about over 300,000 people in one category or another. A large number of our population are discriminated against as a result of physical and mental problems over which they have no control. I think that if we really are concerned about human rights, we would certainly want to do everything that we can in this Legislature which I believe the public would want us to do — it’s not just the lobby of the groups who are in the various disabled organizations, handicapped organizations, coalitions and so forth; they're ordinary citizens — when they are reflecting upon their humanity and their responsibility toward their fellow British Columbians. Everyone wants to have a fair chance to earn a living by their own means, and be able to live in relative dignity and respect, and not have to be subjected to the kind of attitudes that exist because of lack of commitment on the part of government to giving them the kind of statutorial support they require. So that is one of the other concerns that I have with respect to the Speech from the Throne.

The platitudes are there, all of the jargon is there, but when it comes to specific acts, something that we can do in this Legislature — besides talk; we can take action — I see nothing in the throne speech that would indicate to me that we have a commitment, especially during this the International Year of Disabled Persons. As signatory to the United Nations declaration in this respect, I think we have a duty and should be ethically bound, if nothing else. If we can't treat it morally I think we should, as a responsible assembly, do that much during 1981. I am hoping that we will see some amendments to the Human Rights Code of British Columbia, as recommended by the Human Rights Commission, so that disabled persons will be able to live equally in society the same as everyone else.

I would also like to mention another group in the community that you would be surprised to find is not doing very well as a category among our human beings in this society. I must say, when I think about what the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was talking about earlier — about his megaprojects and international economics and the kinds of dynamics that are involved in the concerns that we statesmen in high places must address ourselves to — I can't help but concern myself with the fact that in British Columbia we have people who in most cases are the very first ones to lay a hand on fresh produce, the first ones to till the soil, the very first ones to harvest our foodstuffs and the produce that we rely on. In other words, as the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) pointed out the other day, the most important energy resource we have is our food. I have to agree that food is a very vital resource, as we need it to be able to come in here and do our jobs.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia is one of the few places where farmworkers — those people who are apparently the lowest on this food chain, in terms of the production and creation of foodstuffs — are not guaranteed the minimum wage, let alone any assurance that they will even have a job, or any protection whatsoever with respect to injuries on the job? As I understand it, that industry is one of the most hazardous. Chemicals are sprayed without warning, without giving them any opportunity to protect themselves and know what kinds of chemicals they're exposed to, Many of them have their little toddlers running along with them. Families are working as farmhands. Most of them do not have sufficient shelter for the seasonal nature of farming.

So they're at the mercy of their employer, who I understand is at the mercy of the next level in the chain. So while I respect the problem that farmers have — and that's another story; they certainly deserve serious consideration with respect to equity in our economic system and a fair return for labours expended — I make a case today for those people who are in even less position to defend themselves than the farmers, and that's the farmworkers — a group of human beings that I say are subsidizing our food production system at slave wages. In other words, this country hasn't had slavery for over 150 years, but we do have a group of people in this country who are harvesting the food for us to eat and who cannot be guaranteed $3.50 an hour or any kind of protection against exploitation. They have no control over hours of work and no protection if they get sick — virtually nothing.

This is happening in 1981, so I would suggest that we be concerned about human rights. It's true that you can't put everybody's name down in a Charter of Rights; but we can be committed to basic human rights, be concerned about humanity, and ensure that anyone who is doing something for a living and has to raise their family and take their rightful place in society should be able to do so the same as you and I.

[ Page 6760 ]

In other words, they should have a chance to compete successfully. But I can suggest to you that farmworkers — who do this professionally — are a category of people that is faring pretty poorly. I think it's disgraceful that in modern times we still have farmworkers working for $1 or $1.50 an hour with no guarantee of job security whatsoever. This is 1981. Well, I hope that we see something in that regard. I quite frankly doubt it.

You will recall that Premier Bennett, during the first ministers' conferences around patriation of the constitution, suggested that he, on behalf of British Columbians, would not stand for anything less than tradition and convention when it came to something as serious and important as the Canadian constitution. In fact, I heard him on one television program and I thought: well, the Premier may have had a turn of heart, and maybe he is really learning how to be sensitive and how to care about the things that matter. In other words, he is a man who is discovering late in his career something about principle. I happen to agree that, although the supreme court may have been able to come down with a legal opinion with respect to the procedure in patriation of the constitution, the legalities are one thing and custom and tradition are another — the things we know to be the case by a virtue of practice and experience, the processes we employ in coming to decisions and making agreements and operating our affairs cooperatively to avoid confrontation and erosion of the stability and security we need in this society. We have had to have an unwritten constitution of cooperation among the citizens, notwithstanding whatever the law may say. So that was well established, and I think all of the first ministers made that point quite well, and I think that the Prime Minister of Canada recognizes it as well. Therefore we were able to get an accord, an agreement. I laud them for that.

But, Mr. Speaker, would you or someone explain to the assembly today how it could be that the Premier of this province is so committed to convention and tradition, to due process, to the concept of majority rule and all of these very fine principles we all respect and would like to feel are genuine and can be depended upon in time of crunch, when the chips are down...? In 1978 the city of Vancouver had a plebiscite with respect to a ward system, in which they put to the people of Vancouver the opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to elect their council people by ward — whether each and every one of them would represent a ward and would be elected as such. They voted 51.8 percent in favour, which is a clear majority. That happened, and everything else is a matter of formalities, because all that was needed after that vote, which was loud and clear, was the city to request the provincial government — which has power with respect to the Vancouver Charter, under which the city of Vancouver operates — to amend the charter, permitting those citizens to duly carry out what they had democratically arrived at — the decision to have ward elections in the city of Vancouver. Now, convention was followed; the democratic process was followed; there was no unilateral decision by any mayor or anyone who was trying to do something really fancy like Trudeau was doing with respect to patriation of the constitution. We did everything that we're supposed to believe in in this province, and yet the Premier instructed his members of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills to kill it. He said: "We're not ready." So here is a government which on the one hand says that it has a commitment to conventional procedures, to the customs and traditions of democratic processes, but it doesn't apply in the province of British Columbia with respect to the ward system. You can't have it both ways.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm not surprised, because politically the people of Vancouver say they have a better way of operating; but the government of the day, the Social Credit government that is in power right now, sees this as detrimental to securing its friends in the right places in the city of Vancouver and is therefore opposed. They were opposed, and they unilaterally, arbitrarily, on their own, notwithstanding the vote of city of Vancouver voters, said no. Well, just for the record, so much for the commitments of the Premier and his concern about the democratic rights of people. Of course, we don't forget they also wiped out the community resources board a few years ago, when the Minister of Human Resources, now Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), destroyed the right of people to self-determination and the right to have a say in the welfare programs of their communities.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by talking about the....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It's okay. Take all the. time you want; I'm in no hurry. I know you think it's funny, Mr. Member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I think you're really funny.

MR. BARNES: That's fair enough. I can tell you one thing, what I'm talking about are not words....

MR. KEMPF: Tell us. I've been here for half an hour trying to figure it out.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to intervene on behalf of the second member for Vancouver Centre, as I'm being interrupted by the member for Omineca, who does not feel that the subject I'm discussing is of any importance to the people of British Columbia. I cannot proceed under those circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this government has done something else that has made the people of Vancouver angry, despite the ward system problem. On their own, they decided that they were going to have one of the hugest megaprojects that ever descended upon North America happen....

MR. KEMPF: Are you against it? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Are you finished, Mr. Member for Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: Yes or no?

[ Page 6761 ]

MR. BARNES: You're showing contempt, whether you realize it or not, for the people of British Columbia, and that's very becoming of your character; I realize that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. In order to continue with debate, the member who is debating will continue to address the Chair. It will assist me in keeping order. And would the member for Omineca please try to restrain himself.

MR. BARNES: I have been addressing you, Mr. Speaker, and I find that the behaviour of that member — and, in some other instances, other members — is one of the problems in this assembly. As we try to address matters of public concern in our own way....

MR. KEMPF: Your members don't even come in the House.

MR. BARNES: I'm just glad we don't have any school children here today — I hope not — because this is an example of what disturbs them so much. They really believe that we are being paid our salaries to carry on the people's business to our best ability. But those interjections from members such as that clearly point out the hopelessness of trying to communicate to elected officials matters of serious public concern. This is why so many anti-this and anti-that organizations are being created: because people are frustrated. They don't believe the politicians are sincere, and from what I'm gathering this afternoon, I can appreciate where they get their concern.

I can tell you that I can see nothing funny about the people of Vancouver having to field a decision by the Premier of this province to create B.C. Place and the stadium with no reference, no opportunity for planning, nothing to do with the impact and the costs on those people: no transit system in place; no housing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: This member keeps asking me if I am for it. I'm not against a lot of things, Mr. Member, but I am for the people of British Columbia, and they should bloody well have an opportunity to have some say before anything is done.

You should be responsible enough to refer to people when you're going to do the kinds of things you're doing to the city of Vancouver and the West End. I can tell you that the impact on that community is tantamount to wiping out families. The stability of that community in the West End will never be the same. It has become a red-light district of not only adult male and female prostitutes but also children who are 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age, because of exploitation and irresponsible planning on behalf of that government and no reference to the city of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I would go so far as to suggest to that member and to the members on the government side that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is responsible for the trade and convention centre. proceeded to create the Pier B-C Development Board without a permit from the city of Vancouver to drive piles or do any development.

We know the government is high-handed. We've heard of heavy-handed state Social Credit before. We know what you will do when you get the power. But I think it is a little bit much when you are arrogant enough to not only deny the city of Vancouver the ward system and their just rights, as any municipality should have in this province, but also go ahead and hose them with respect to their bylaws. They had no right to develop or do anything. any more than any other private citizen would develop. They're not a Crown corporation yet. There's a promise — maybe the Premier will tell us about it. Maybe one day you will form a Crown corporation for Pier B-C if you ever get enough money to pay your interest on the project which you re not completing. But that's one mess that I don't want to even comment on. When you talk about incompetence, it's indescribable what those fiscal managers are supposed to be able to do.

MR. KEMPF: Are you for or against B.C. Place?

MR. BARNES: All we can get from that member is: "Are you for or against?" That's just like saying to somebody: "Do you want to be raped or not"' Listen, what you've done to the people of Vancouver was tantamount to an offence under the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe they understand that it's not a case of being for or against anything. There's something good and bad in just about anything you can imagine, whether it's the automobile or whether it's cyanide. The point we're making is that all those projects should have gone through the process of communication with the various levels of people who are concerned so that we can arrive at a level at which we can live with the thing. What we're getting instead is no planning, no responsibility and complete disregard for the bylaws of the city of Vancouver.

Thank goodness we have a mayor who is responsible and tried to cooperate with the Social Credit government and who respects the senior level of government — something that this government does not show for the city of Vancouver. He's trying to accommodate the government, actually by helping them to cover up their bungling and their incompetence. You cannot justify taking the action you took with no respect for city of Vancouver bylaws.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have much time, but I'd like to comment on one other matter and that is the government's policy with respect to cultural affairs in this province. It's no secret that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) did very well in the by-election, but must they give him a $500,000 bonus? Do you know what they're doing? The arts festival that is being held in Kamloops wasn't even requested. I don't doubt that the artists could do with the help, but you know we do have a system in this society where we have a problem of how much money we can give to the various organizations. I happen to know there's one organization right here in Victoria called Kaleidoscope. It has been operating for six or eight years and they don't have enough money for operating. All they're asking for is $30,000 to carry on a program that is in place in the schools in this province. You have no money for them, but you've got $500,000 to try to do a little promotion with respect to the politics that you hope to gain from these high-flying projects.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How much time do I have to wind up?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, sir.

[ Page 6762 ]

MR. BARNES: Well, with that I will show my courtesy and respect for your high office and take my place. However, I hope that I will have an opportunity soon to challenge you on some other matters of serious public concern.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to extend my congratulations again to you on seeing you fit and healthy in the chair. Of course, the members all remember our concern when you were ill last session. It certainly gives us all a warm feeling to see you continuing in that very important role.

I rise to speak in support of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, which I feel clearly identifies some areas in which this government is going to be prepared to move, or is moving now, that will be of assistance to different segments of the community where need is required, but will be beneficial to all the citizens in British Columbia. I think it's very important for me to make note of the fact that indeed British Columbia is not an economic island within our country, nor is it an economic island in the North American economy. Certainly it is not an economic island as it relates to the international or the world community.

The British Columbia economy does react very strongly to economic initiatives — or lack of them — taken by the federal government. Our economy, whether it be government financing, government spending, or for Crown corporations, or whether it be in that large area — the private sector, small business, large business, individual worker, organized worker, non-organized worker, teacher, student — where the economy is created.... They are directly affected by economic initiatives taken by the government in Ottawa, or the economic facts of life as they pertain to North America.

In fact, internationally, British Columbia's economy is more internationally entwined, and more internationally responsive to international economies than any other part of our country. Our British Columbian products are primarily world products. They are the products in which the people of British Columbia trade and earn their living, but not off other Canadians. Our great friend to the south, the United States, is responsible for 60 percent of the purchases in our most important forest industry. We are also very reliant on the economics of the Pacific Rim, which is the growing and emerging market for British Columbian products. We are also dependent on the traditional markets of Europe, where many British Columbian products play an important role, not only in our own economy, but in the Canadian economy as well.

I think it would come as a surprise to many members of this House to recognize that of the ten Canadian provinces, British Columbia, farthest from Europe and farthest from France, provides the second-largest amount in dollar terms of export to France. Many members in this House would be surprised by the the importance of British Columbia not only to our own people, but to the Canadian economy as an earner, through export, of foreign exchange dollars. Through those earnings of foreign exchange and dollars into this country, in large part, we play the most significant role of any province in this country to earning dollars to help us in our international balance of payments. This helps us provide a higher standard of living not only for our own people but for all the people of Canada.

It is of great concern to this government that our forest industry, so reliant for its economy and its employment on international markets, is today suffering and that up to 25 percent of our forest workers are presently unemployed because of both lack of markets and unprofitable pricing that the competition in the international marketplace has caused. Of course, this government recognizes that problem and will do everything we can to assist directly in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is now, has historically been, and will continue to be the most important part of the British Columbia economy. A number of years ago in this province its importance was so great in relation to a much smaller British Columbia economy that at that time there would have been economic chaos in this province should the international markets that exist now have existed. Today, while our hearts go out and our efforts will go out to assist the forest workers, it is significant to note that the economic strategy that has been put into place by this government over the last six years is playing a very important part in maintaining employment for the people of British Columbia.

It is very important to note that a project that has been criticized by the opposition members — the development of northeast coal and the resulting development of road, rail and port — will assist in moving other British Columbian and Canadian products. What if the planning hadn't taken place over the past five and a half years, with the cooperation between the federal and provincial governments in conducting not only the economic studies but the studies on the environment and all of those areas in which information was needed, not only on the development within British Columbia, but on the potential markets both in the Pacific Rim and around the world to make such a gigantic project feasible? Should we not have shown the foresight in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 and continued to press on with the type of hard work involving federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, and a number of government agencies — British Columbia Railway, Canadian National Railway, the National Harbours Board and other British Columbia agencies — that will have some relationship to this project? What if we hadn't continued during all that period and done that planning with our economic blueprint for British Columbia? What if we had ever listened and hesitated and stopped because of the criticism that came from the opposition in this province? Not all of the opposition has been from members of the New Democratic Party, but a large part.

If we had been dissuaded and said, "Yes, if you do anything, you're subject to criticism; you're better to be a government that does nothing, and then perhaps they can't criticize you," then surely today we would be much poorer off in this province and our potential and our optimism would not be well-founded for the middle and latter 1980s and into the 1990s.

All members should know that British Columbia northern development of transportation, as the first large-scale development — I say "first" because there will be others — will pick up employment next year for British Columbians from the private sector and the public sector. It will create 5,000 to 6,000 jobs in British Columbia during its construction period. It will do more than that, for we must think as Canadians as well. It will create 10,000 to 11,000 jobs in Canada. So it will assist Canadians in all parts of our country, but it will assist most those Canadians who are fortunate enough to live in British Columbia. Next year it is estimated that the development of that project will contribute about 1 percent to the gross provincial product. It will assist then in helping British Columbia's growth rate to stay far above the national average. It is a growth rate that is the envy of most

[ Page 6763 ]

parts of this country, and certainly of the United States, where they have had and have been in an economic recession for some time; their growth rate does not match that of British Columbia. The great financial giant to the south is not growing as fast economically as British Columbia. A few years ago people would not have considered that to be possible. Today, as well as being a financial and sound economic beacon within our own country, British Columbia is, of course, a beacon in North America. That type of planning, over and above what I consider to be at best uninformed opposition, in many cases — mindless politics played with knocking any proposal the government makes for the sake of negative criticism, at no time offering constructive alternatives in economic planning to this province.... I'm going to touch on a number of things that have happened in the last six years and have helped make the economy we have now, as troubled as some sectors are, as strong as it is, and have helped make it possible for British Columbians, more than people anywhere else, to look forward in a very positive manner to their own particular future and the future of our province as a whole.

Some people from the opposition have said that the northern transportation system and the northern coal development should be stopped. They have said that that project is robbing money from social programs that this government is committed to. Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you that such is not the case. Those allegations are not true. In fact, that project will be the salvation for many social programs to continue in the future.

It's a myth fostered by those who do not understand the productive side of our economy. When they become part of the political system, their only responsibility or obligation is to promise as much as it takes to get elected, without bearing any of the responsibility of knowing how the money is going to be earned to pay for those programs.

What would be even more foolish would be for people who believe in social programs — or say they do — and say that that is their commitment to oppose the very development of economic projects that will employ our people, pay the taxes and send the money to government which will guarantee to each and every citizen that indeed there is an economy that can generate those revenues in the future and will guarantee to our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and to those who are less fortunate that those benefits which government has promised and does provide to the people can be continued in the future. It is foolish to believe that you can continually oppose every economic initiative in this province for what might be smart "partisan politics" and, in the confusion of the moment, perhaps garner a few votes at the expense of the very future of your province. Maybe some politicians view the next election, or just their own election, as the most important thing in the world and perhaps that's good politics for them. Well, our party and our members are concerned with the mark we leave on British Columbia, not only whether we leave it a better place, which we're striving to do, but we just want to leave it....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Interjections are out of order, but if they're heard from outside the member's seat they must be, of course, stopped immediately.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think you're referring to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, (Mr. Levi), who has moved into that group to try to make it look like a crowd! [Laughter.]

To get back to what I consider to be a very important part of the throne speech, as that speech reflects, government philosophy and policy.... As part of the discussion of that, I refer to the projects which have occupied the debate of many members in this Legislature. I'm trying to respond in a very positive way to the negative criticisms that oppose every economic project. I want the people of British Columbia to know, particularly as I know the members on this side do, and perhaps some on the other side as well, that those projects are not just important to the jobs that we need right now for the people who are going to work in them, building them, and they're not just important for the jobs in the future. The economic value created by those projects is a continuing thing that will continue to employ people, continue to generate profits, continue to generate foreign capital by way of earnings into this country to resolve our international balance of payments.

Above all, to be able to guarantee that any government, whether it be a socialist government, a free-enterprise government or some other government, given their chance to govern the province.... The economy is such that they have at least some limited opportunity to implement the programs they promised the voters. I guess it would be a tragedy if, down the road a generation from now.... If we hadn't undertaken this economic activity, our sons and daughters would not be talking about higher standards of living and social programs, but about curtailing programs that we take for granted today, because, for the most part, in the last 30 years our economy has been well managed. Government has been soundly administered, and we haven't fallen into the trap of big-spending governments who would plunge future citizens into a debt burden to pay for their excesses for current account. To do so would be to rob from future generations who would be caught up in not only paying dead-weight interest charges but in trying to repay the capital, because perhaps they'd be more responsible.... It would be robbing from them many of the things we now take for granted as part of our way of life in British Columbia.

We have been left the stewardship of a province that has a very promising future. That future is not guaranteed; it's not assured. There are other countries in the world and other parts of Canada that were blessed with as rich an endowment of inferred resources as British Columbia has. There are other parts of Canada in the population centre of this country that are geographically better placed to be distributors or manufacturers of goods — to provide secondary industry in this country. In comparison, British Columbia's management of its resources and government has been a credit to most of the governments that have preceded us, in providing a sound base of management, encouraging the province to grow during the fifties and sixties, and providing an economic infrastructure of rail and highway that has allowed our industrial base and the secondary industries to expand and employ our people.

I talked about northeast coal. I talked about its importance in developing this major rail access, the second major rail access and port system for our province and our country. I have also pointed out that that didn't just happen, and how important it is to maintain our economy now, and not just rely on what was taken for granted by many: that the forest

[ Page 6764 ]

industry could continue with the vagaries of the international market, in continuous prosperity.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank), who drives a Mercedes, laughs at things like that. He thinks it's funny. I want to say quite frankly that at some point in his career he should recognize whether he really does care about the people or about getting some of his smart-aleck remarks in Hansard so he can mail it around to prove he's been here.

I'd like to discuss some of the other things the government has done to broaden the industrial base of this province. Perhaps the announcements have been so many and have become to many so commonplace over the last six years that they've taken them for granted. Perhaps many of the people have taken for granted announcements such as the methanol plant in Kitimat by Ocelot Industries. Maybe they've taken for granted the announcement of a major engine overhaul plant by Canadian Pacific Air Lines in Delta. Maybe they take for granted those announcements that regularly point out where the government has assisted or provided the climate for some new small business to start up in their area — perhaps not as glamorous as the over 1,000 new employees that will eventually be employed in this province in higher earnings by Canadian Pacific, with the engine overhaul plant which will deal with international customers and not just the national airlines.

I'd like to think of the small plants and the small businesses that have developed in every part of this province where the government has assisted a local municipality in advance — planning in advance, through that great Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who recognized he didn't have a tough act to follow but wanted to do the best he could because he wanted to be compared against perfection, not what he followed.

Mr. Speaker, that minister has shown a leadership that has been put into action, not the smart-aleck words of the courtroom lawyer who sends high bills to his clients, but of someone who has lived in the frontier of this province who knows what it's like to have to earn a buck.

No plush townhouse or Mercedes. He knows what it's like to earn a buck in the resource areas of this province from Dawson Creek to Pouce Coupe to Chetwynd. He knows what the people there have to do and he's done it. He's tried to spread that prosperity around this province by encouraging industrial parks, by building on the resources available in the area — not only the natural resources  but the resources of people who've been willing to get out and work and initiate new business.

What does it take to get new business? Assist the city of Mission with an industrial park that brings a fibreglass plant to British Columbia and creates jobs and economic value in this province and stop importing it from elsewhere — the type of initiative that has put industrial parks in almost every part of this province catering not just to the large projects in which we can have great debate like the northern development.

I agree with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). It is clearly a project in which members of this house should make their positions clearly known and parties should make their positions clearly known, because it is an area in which we should take a stand. It's not enough to criticize it and say you're against it until you run into someone who's for it and then you say: "Well, I don't really believe that, that's just politics." You've got to finally take a stand and tell the people if you at least have one.

If you have no policies, tell them that. But as far as I'm concerned today, until I hear otherwise, the New Democratic Party opposes the northeast coal development. That's going to be an issue for British Columbians in the future in which they must assess not what they're saying at that particular time, but the judgment that they have shown in trying to face up to their responsibilities as part of the Legislature and part of the political system in this province for the years they have been in opposition — not just the slogans or the fancy glittering promises that they'll dream up at election time. They're going to have to account for their positions on projects such as this. Mr. Speaker, they shall be held accountable, because if I know the people of British Columbia, each and every one of them out there are now saying: "Thank goodness this government we have started planning six years ago. Thank goodness this government that we have thought about the future at a time when that type of planning was easy to criticize. And thank goodness they did it, and thank goodness they've got the guts, and had the courage and the vision to make it happen." It hasn't been easy with all of those who have been involved, and it has certainly been complicated with a negative opposition who opposes every positive step this government's been taking in the last six years.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that that type of economic policy, that blueprint for British Columbia is not something new; we've been living with it for six years. It doesn't just involve the megaprojects. It involves, as I say, an industrial strategy that this government has developed in trying to broaden our economic base with secondary, high-technology industries, diversifying our strength into developing a varied and diversified economy in which we would not be as vulnerable as this province was in the past when the economy was considered to be that of simply a forest products resource base and we were considered hewers of wood and drawers of water. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear today. Perhaps the evidence isn't clear when times are good in the country and times are good internationally, but when times get tough, the things we have done stand out more and more as a positive witness to the things that we have accomplished in British Columbia.

Let me say that in other areas as well, the province has created employment. And you know, as much as people are concerned with employment today.... I have been concerned with trying to employ our people since we became government, because the very philosophy of our party is work and wages, not waste and welfare. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) made one of the best speeches that I've heard in this Legislature. He had innovative proposals on encouraging our people to own and invest. I'm going to deal with that in a while. He said: "How much better in this country to help people as individuals, when we provide a better answer than that offered by the socialists. Rather than socialize industry, let's capitalize the workers in this province." Let us encourage them with new policies to be owners in their own province.

MR. LAUK: To buy BCRIC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre, who I guess wasn't here that day, is unaware of that speech. Perhaps I might just quote from parts of it in a while to refresh his memory, because the member for Central Fraser Valley talked about business and industry in an innovative way — well, not so innovative, because a number

[ Page 6765 ]

of progressive firms have done it now and have encouraged employee participation in ownership, encouraged them as participants, so that they have an interest in the business or the industry that has increased productivity. He gave examples not from a textbook or some airy-fairy talk that we might hear from the opposite side, but talked about his real personal experience as someone who came to this country as an immigrant....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, he came to this country as a poor immigrant without the advantages that you have had, Mr. Member, of being born in this country. He came here and was able to put into practice his vision of capitalizing the workers as compared to what he left behind in Great Britain — that sorry testimony to nationalization and socialization. If you had been here, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, you would have taken great pride in that individual success story of someone working his way up — a new Canadian involving others. When they got a chance to start a business with very little, they went out and they involved the workers and involved them in ownership. Not only do they get comparable wages, but what that member said was that through the equity they had in that company, each worker had about $10,000 in additional earnings last year from their shared participation in the company. You would have been proud to stand up and perhaps face the final conversion as the light was shed upon the Legislature from that member. Capitalizing the workers is much better than nationalizing trees and mountains, and nationalizing bricks and mortar, programs and policies that are tailored to involve people as individuals and don't deal with such cold objects as a forest taking over a forest company, or taking over a mining company, but a policy that says: people will feel much stronger about their company and their province and their country when they have a stake in it — an individual stake, and one in which their efforts will be rewarded with some measure of prosperity. I think those workers, in assessing that proposal, will measure whether they put their trust in themselves, Mr. Speaker, to earn more money through equity ownership that they have in their hand, or whether they're going to put their trust in a bunch of two-bit socialists to run government forest products companies and think they're ever going to see a dividend or a benefit. I think the choice is clear.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very clearly with the fact that our industrial planning has prepared us for this difficult moment in time while we have a cyclical forest economy. You know, you can take a look.... I heard a snort from the member from Vancouver Centre, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, already this year in this province there have been over 60,000 new jobs created. Mr. Speaker, 1980 was one of a number of record years for British Columbia in new jobs. In the last six years we have seen a growth of employment in this province of well over 200,000 new jobs. We have seen it even though larger numbers of other Canadians are coming to swell our workforce population and to put an extra demand for jobs. We have created those jobs and at the same time, with over a thousand Canadians a week coming to British Columbia to live last year, we've been able to steadily reduce our unemployment rate — but not in numbers of people. It’s much too high. We've got to provide the type of comparisons that are available to us with the rest of the country, and with our own history. This year our unemployment rate, running at an annualized rate of about 6.4 percent, is less than last year. Last year is lower than the year before. We're much lower in our unemployment rate as a percentage, right now, in British Columbia.

People admit that the national economy is in trouble, that the Canadian dollar and high interest rates are affecting our Canadian economy, and it's no doubt that the Canadian economy is not as strong as it was, so I want to do a comparison that maybe the members over there can understand.

Canada was stronger economically in gross national product in 1974 and 1975 than they are right now because of national policies, and British Columbia at that time was underperforming the national economy — underperforming the national economy when we were considered to have a national economy in boom. Today, with our national economy in disarray, we're not only doing better than the national economy, we're doing better than British Columbia did in that Canadian national heyday of 1975. There is the comparison.

If only we had had a government during the Canadian good times that would have provided the economic planning and development that has taken place the last six years, and if only during that period, Mr. Speaker, rather than criticizing the northern coal development now, and if only governments during the early years of 1970, rather than saying, "We'll keep our resources in the ground," had recognized that the greatest opportunity for international salesmanship was available to them and that the energy change in 1973 and the energy conversion would put new demands on coal....

It was not hard to see, because the Australians saw it, Mr. Speaker. That great country of Australia, a sister country to Canada, part of the Commonwealth, saw it. They're richer than Canada and British Columbia. Oh, but they saw the opportunities and they got out. They bought a plane ticket. Yes, it cost them money in international travel, and they hustled over to where the markets were developing, where the economies were growing. where they saw a demand for coal.

Among the industrialized Pacific Rim countries, Australia's share, during those early seventies and into the middle seventies, as a supplier of metallurgical coal for steel and thermal coal, shot up to, in the case of Japan, I believe, about 40 percent. British Columbia's share dropped. We missed a chance to have the bold, imaginative planning we're undertaking now at prices that would have been more affordable had they been undertaken earlier. That lack of vision, that lack of planning. that sort of glib political statement that will leave our resources in the ground, cost the people of this province and our country some lost opportunities in economic planning that leave a hole in the history of our economic development that we can never recapture.

We can only look and say what might have been had there been a government sensitive to their responsibilities for planning ahead, and willing to forget the smart political slogans they think elected them, and willing to sit down and really try to do something for this province and its people that wasn't just another smart political gimmick, or a smart political statement that appealed to the lowest common denominator and never met the challenge of their responsibility to the future of this province. What a shame that you are part of that economic hole in our history, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.

Today, Mr. Speaker, you have an example of what sound economic planning can do, and what a realistic appraisal of a

[ Page 6766 ]

government's responsibilities, despite the niggling criticism that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) should not be travelling internationally.... I'll tell you that every mile and every dollar has returned a thousand-fold investment for the people of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The development of northeast coal is just one.

MR. LAUK: He's on a junket, and you know it. He hasn't brought a dollar back to British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the speech.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So I want to say how important it is that members do not lose their sense of perspective and that the public of British Columbia do not fall into what is a very simple trap being prepared for them, that they fall into realizing that this province has a great future. But that future has got to be developed now. To be told that we shouldn't proceed with those projects because somehow it's robbing money from Pharmacare or their health care, or it's robbing money from their dental care program, or it's robbing money from the schools.... They shouldn't have to face that type of statement, which is totally incorrect. The development of northeast coal will not be to the detriment of today's social programs; it will be to the benefit of those social programs continuing tomorrow.

Let me go further, because another criticism has been made, and I want to get this clearly on the record — who's for and who's against. I'm talking about the development of B.C. Place. I want to get clearly on the record whether the members of the New Democratic Party, whether they come from Vancouver Centre or Atlin, have a policy of officially opposing B.C. Place and the present construction, as the first major project of what I and many others consider to be the most exciting downtown redevelopment being undertaken in British Columbia. If they oppose it and will say so, I will gladly pay for the mailing that puts their name on the statement that they oppose it, and I'll mail it to every British Columbian.

MR. BARBER: At whose expense?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at government expense. I would gladly pay for it, if you can only say clearly to the people that you've opposed B.C. Place. You stand up and criticize it. You say you wouldn't proceed with the stadium. Put it in writing, and I'll mail it to the people. I'd love to tell them what you think, if only we could find out what it is. I'd love to tell them what your policies are, even if it's only what you're against. You're not willing to say what you're for. I'd be willing to share that with the people of B.C.

Let me tell you about B.C. Place. I think B.C. Place is one of the boldest and most visionary projects ever undertaken by any government at any time. I think that not just from the aesthetics and what it will do for the heart of the city of Vancouver. I think that not only will it make sure that the city of Vancouver has a downtown heart. Not only has it moved from third-class, second-class, warehouse status, which, if that type of development had been allowed to continue, and if it had remained under the easy ownership of the CPR, who are not forced to develop.... They don't feel the pressures of any normal business because of the vastness of their size. That area would have been lost. There's a time and a place in which things can happen if someone is willing to make them happen. B.C. Place is the result of that type of decision and the type of planning, and I think the people of British Columbia in the future will be able to measure the depth of commitment to the province, the depth of political understanding of where their responsibilities are, of people who oppose it in a shallow-minded, partisan political way to create confusion, make people feel threatened because they say this gigantic stadium is being built and that's going to rob you of your Pharmacare, of your health care, of your education...to put that short of shallow argument to try and stop the project and say that it should not proceed because it is threatening the social programs of government.

Mr. Speaker, even if what I am not going to tell this legislature were not true, even if there were a cost to the taxpayers, major or minor, that project would be well worth undertaking in this province.

The stadium, as the first major public building within that development, is the magnet that will attract, and has attracted, the ability to plan the rest of the area. It is the type of magnet that has now focused the attention on that 200-plus acres that now — and I will deal with it in a minute — because this government has a very forward and imaginative transit policy that gets put into practice and doesn't just come from the lips of politicians year after year at election time when they have no intention of fulfilling it, but it's something that comes at election time.... This has been a policy that has allowed us to develop an automated light rapid transit system.

That stadium has attracted that type of development. There will be housing. There will be commercial and open space. It will be a place in which all of the people's activities will be able to take place. It will transform an unsightly area into an exciting, attractive development. But does the construction of that stadium and proceeding with that development threaten the people's Pharmacare? Does that threaten the hospitals or education or the current account of this government? Not at all.

We've announced many times that as well as being a good deal in downtown redevelopment, for people who want a stadium, for people who want housing, for people who want an automated light rapid transit system in greater Vancouver, for cleaning up an unsightly area, it's a good deal and a good deal more. It's a good deal because the government — through this corporation we've created, B.C. Place — has bought that land at $8 a square foot. The very act of doing what we're doing, constructing a stadium, is answering the promises of decades from some very promising politicians who've built a career on promising but never delivering. We've been able to increase the value of that land for development with an overall plan that not only meets esthetic needs but increases the value of that land where, on long-term lease for development — whether it be for housing or whatever — to the private sector. B.C. Place will recover the cost of acquiring the land overtime by capitalizing the project. B.C. Place will recover the cost of building the stadium over its 16-year projected development period. B.C. Place will completely pay over that 16-year period for the capital costs of construction, the purchase of the land and the development of the land by mixing what is best — good business sense on the

[ Page 6767 ]

government side, and using government and business together in developing an area. Business, through paying the higher price of leasing and developing that land and through the increased values to the government, will pay for all of the development of the stadium and acquisition of that land.

That statement has been made many times and those who continue to deny that statement and deny that that fact exists.... Those who continue to play the political game of threatening the people — that's what it is — by saying you're going to lose something, which those so terrible Socreds will do.... Oh, yes, the stadium looks good, but they're threatening the people that somehow they're going to lose essential services that this government has developed in this province and that we're not able to deliver those services and continue to develop some exciting planning at the same time and do it in a sound business-like way. That's not correct. That project will pay for itself without a nickel in tax revenues from the taxpayer being sent to government.

In fact, let me make it very clear, because I'm sick of the half truths and untruths that have been spread in a partisan political way and are creating confusion for many British Columbians. There's no need for them to be confused. British Columbia Place will pay for itself. It will not threaten the programs that you expect from government. It will not take your tax dollars. It is a place for all British Columbians. It's not just for Vancouver, but it's for British Columbians in more ways than that. Because when I said it would generate profits to pay for the land, that wasn't all. And when I said it would generate profits to pay for a great stadium, that wasn't all. That development, given a fair opportunity of working together with the city government in Vancouver and given a fair opportunity to proceed on schedule to assist its cash flow, will not only pay for the land and the stadium, but it will provide revenues into the future which will be available to every city and every community of this province as their Downtown Revitalization Fund — not just from taxation, which the socialists like to think is the only way for government to finance, but by applying good old business know-how to the people's business, the biggest business of all.

Let me say to the people of British Columbia, and to those who will look back on this period in time and assess the statements and the attitudes, the fear and confusion being created by that group over there, that that party doesn't care what they say as long as they think it will buy them a vote, and they don't even care if the voter finds out after voting day that they weren't correct. They got him at least for four years. Let me say to the people: you can assess them for what they've been saying and what they've said. I want to tell you, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The proof of the pudding will be in witnessing and looking back. All members of this House and political patties are going to have to live and perhaps some of them die permanently on the things they have said, and the confusion they have spread about this project and others, and the threats they have made to the people about the things they would lose. They're just looking for some way, any way, to attack one of the most exciting projects in British Columbia's history.

They'll look back on you, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and they'll know for sure why Ed Broadbent sent you back to B.C. from Ottawa. What he didn't tell us is where the heck we can send you next. There are very few areas left for you to go.

So let me say again, and let me reiterate so it isn't lost on the member for Coquitlam-Moody. B.C. Place will pay for the stadium, pay for the acquisition of the land. Over and above that, given reasonable cooperation by the city of Vancouver in this exciting development so that it can proceed step by step in a logical manner, it can provide profits which can become part of a continuing fund over the 16-year development of this project. It can pay financial dividends to assist every community. It will provide every community and every citizen that may live or use those communities in every region of this province with dollars to help their communities, and it will be dollars that aren't earned on the backs of the taxpayers, as the socialists like to do. They'll be dollars that have been earned by government creating additional value and spreading those benefits amongst our people in a sound, business-like way.

Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the economic and planning record of this government is good. I touched on something I think will also be a continuing reminder of a government that gets things done, and people who are willing to get things done after decades of discussion, and that is the development in an orderly way. with a strong financial commitment — not leaving it for an electricity company to subsidize through their electricity rates, as Hydro used to subsidize the bus systems, just some places in the province, but not everywhere — of an orderly transportation system, to which this government has committed dollars — dollars of a significant nature, far beyond anything ever dreamed of, to assist the communities of this province to have their own bus and transportation system.

We didn't just concentrate on buses in Vancouver, because it's visible and it's a few blocks from the television studios and once a month you can go down and get your picture taken doing something; we care about the people of Trail and Kelowna, the people of Terrace and Kitimat. We have assisted them in a rational way not only with buses for the fortunate British Columbians but, for the first time, through the British Columbia transportation system which we call UTA and through Human Resources as an additional subsidy, with the development of buses for the disabled in communities like Kamloops, Vernon and Kelowna — not just in the areas of the city of Vancouver where it's convenient to get publicity and then forget the people in the issue and the fact that the people all over this province didn't have those facilities.

We now have a British Columbia transit system in which the government of British Columbia pays two-thirds of the operating costs that's left after the amount that's paid from the fare box. That pays a large part of the capital cost in the case of Vancouver. There are now over 23 bus systems in this province, encouraged because of this. But above all, for those politicians that used to love to get their picture promising new transportation in greater Vancouver, we now have not a promise but the delivery on a dream of an automated light rapid transit system that will serve the greater Vancouver area — a transit system that's not just lip service but a transit system in which we made a conscious decision not only to provide transit but, because we are Canadians, to assist with the development and use of Canadian technology, thereby creating new industries and jobs here in British Columbia.

Those who say that we don't need B.C. Place, a stadium and a transit system are not only denying those facilities but also the jobs that are much needed now in British Columbia, particularly when those same people are concerned about the forest workers, as I am as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that we're delivering a number of things that are creating

[ Page 6768 ]

employment now when we need it most: northeast coal, B.C. Place, the transit system, the development of Lonsdale Quay, the first-city downtown redevelopment in New Westminster, Whistler Mountain. All of these things that have been criticized and opposed by that group over there are not only good planning and bring benefits in their own regard, but are very timely now when they will produce jobs for British Columbians when our forest industry is in one of its cyclical downturns.

How fortunate it is to have a government that has done the planning and done the work so that these things are underway and being done in a careful, planned and responsible manner, so that we've got the best of what they will be. The jobs they give us right now will prevent difficulties — jobs that have contributed to that record level of employment and people working in this province, that almost record level of decreasing unemployment, and also that record level of other Canadians coming to share our good fortune.

When I talk about jobs, I also want to talk about another area that's contained in the throne speech in which jobs are very important. Jobs for whom? Where are people going to find jobs in the future? Will we be able to accelerate the trend of job opportunity in all of the skills and jobs that are available to men — making those jobs and the training to fill those jobs available to women? I'm very pleased that our government, through His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and the throne speech, and on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He will be remembered for doing something positive rather than just making speeches about what he's going to do for people. He didn't wait until this year; he started last year, when he first became Labour minister, to do something about apprenticeship training for our people in this province. More than just talking about giving them the skills and decrying the fact that most of our skilled tradesmen are coming from other parts of the world, he set out and challenged business and industry — and I know he had some tough meetings — and he got an increase in the number of apprenticeships in this province.

Now we've got to extend that opportunity for skilled training to make sure that women are given equal opportunity and are not just caught, where 60 percent of them work, in the three traditional areas of clerical, service and sales. We've got to encourage more of them — and numbers are increasing — to develop their skills and take their place in equal opportunity, whether it's as engineers or lawyers or truck drivers, and to provide the training.

There are those who would like to be professional "women" and say they can be the only spokesmen for women in the workplace. I want to say it takes more than just speeches and kind words on public occasions. It means you've got to care when you're out of the public view as well. You've got to be a part of making it happen, because making it happen is what is important. I was pleased that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has undertaken a commitment, through His Honour in the throne speech, to be able to make sure, and to give high priority, and to give the type of action he initiated last year when he started to give greater opportunity in the apprenticeship programs and to supplement his commitment.

It was pleasing for me, as a member of this Legislature, to sit here and listen to another member of the Legislature, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), not speaking as the government but speaking in the throne speech, challenge the government on something that even that Minister of Labour hasn't done yet in a significant way. Yes, they've started. That is to commit the government to assist small-business in apprenticeship programs with more than lip service, because they do not have the financial muscle to provide the training where most young people.... I happen to know because two of my sons work in the trades, in cement block and concrete finishing, are learning their trade, and have been for some time. I know that the small business one of them works for cannot provide that assistance, but he's chosen to work in that line. He has some years invested. Wouldn't it be nice if all of small business were encouraged to provide an apprenticeship program as well so that both organized and unorganized workers have the same opportunity for skill training?

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the throne speech, but in listening to the debate, I got the very distinct impression that more than the government, speaking through the throne speech, we're showing where this province should be going and the opportunities and where their commitments lie. It was interesting to me to note that private members of the government party in this Legislature were willing to go beyond the government's commitments in the throne speech and lay forward again as they have — as the member for Cranbrook and others, like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), did — additional areas in which the government should be encouraging and taking a stronger leadership role. And I'm sure the Minister of Labour has recognized then that he should find a way to go beyond those areas in which he's promised action and to try to find ways to accept the good, positive ideas put forward by those Social Credit members that spoke and offered these suggestions.

Perhaps I can sum up by saying that I feel that in a philosophical way this government, in this important year of 1981, as we go into 1982, has made an even stronger commitment to the people of this province. It goes beyond the sound economic planning they have seen us deliver in the past, beyond the mere creation of jobs and the education of our children just for education's sake. It promises....

HON. MR. CURTIS: It goes beyond bricks and mortar.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond bricks and mortar. It promises and commits this government to educate and provide skills to our children and our young people and men and women equally. It faces the realities of the social changes and the job-skill requirement changes that will be needed in this province in the future. It gives the commitment to the people of this province that we are not just living in the past, but we know the social changes that are taking place and we know where government must assist our people in changing their focus and direction so that they can have meaningful employment in this province in the future.

People of British Columbia should know that it hasn't been lost on our government that more and more women are entering the workforce as a percentage of men, that we have single parents working sometimes by choice but many times by necessity. Our obligation isn't to keep them as second-class citizens or as welfare recipients; our obligation is to give them skills so that they can get a job that can earn them

[ Page 6769 ]

more than a second-class living — in fact a first-class living — and to provide assistance so that they can take up an opportunity in the job market, whether it is extra assistance, as the minister has promised, for day care, whether it's in-job training, or whether it's assisting in finding jobs. This government, as I said earlier, wants work and wages for the people of this province, and not waste and welfare.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, might I just say a few words about an important item contained in the throne speech that has not been of interest to many members of the opposition. It has not been, I would say, quite frankly, of great interest to the Canadian people, except perhaps in that it has prevented the federal government from attending to their business. The accord reached by nine provinces and the government of Canada which, for the first time in 114 years, brings to Canada our constitution with the flexibility for amendment without the strait-jacket of unanimity.... And they were able to agree on just a little more. While the constitution is not perfect now, and it does not have all things that every Canadian would want, at least we've done what was considered impossible; that is, we're going to have our constitution in our country, and trust other governments in the future to continue the job of constitutional reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, under the provision of standing order 45A(3) I must now carry out the duties ascribed to the Speaker at this particular time.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended so that I may be permitted to take my place in this debate as the Leader of the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, of course you know no business of the Whips, but it was well known that I was to wind up for the official opposition. The government has deliberately taken a form of closure that is ill-becoming a responsible government and a responsible head of government anywhere in the Commonwealth. It was a deliberate decision for closure, and it shall not go unrecorded that it was closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order is of concern, undoubtedly, to the Leader of the Opposition. However, I do not know of any provision in the standing orders under which I could take any step.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 24

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills, until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the 26th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, Part II, for the year ended March 31, 1981; the 46th annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act, year ended March 31, 1981; the 40th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act for the year ended December 31, 1980; the 5th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated on such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe the government is serious in presenting this motion. The juxtaposition of this motion, together with the two motions that were just moved by the Minister of Finance, is really so grotesque and yet in a way so graphic in its startling evidence that this government has no plan.

We've got here a motion that says in effect that when public interest indicates, the House shall be brought into session again. We've just had the Minister of Finance say that he wants us to meet to consider supply for the public service of the government. We had the Minister of Finance yesterday go in front of a group of fine people and there tell those people more facts than he saw fit to tell this body.

It's my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that if we accept this motion, we as legislators will be the laughing stock of this

[ Page 6770 ]

province, and rightly so. Of all the lazy, procrastinating motions! I've not heard anything that meets today's problems.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding we've got plants shutting down. I've got hundreds of members of the IWA out of work. I've not heard one word from the Minister of Labour. I've not heard one word from the Minister of Finance. He tells his buddies at lunch yesterday what's going on, and he won't come in this House and present new papers. He won't present revised estimates of revenue or expenditure. He won't stand up and fess up. Instead he boogies downtown and tells his buddies what's going on, but he won't tell us here what's going on.

We've got a Minister of Forests who offers tea and sympathy for 15,000 men and women in the forests who are out of work. Tea and sympathy from Mr. Waterland and no action.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) unfortunately let the cat out of the bag. He told us that the budget will be down on the first week in March. So this motion we're debating now is a farce! We know we're going to be here the first week in March, because you told your buddies downtown yesterday that that's when we would be here. It has nothing to do, Mr. Speaker, with you getting advice. This motion is a farce, an insult to the people of British Columbia and an insult to private members of this House.

Last Thursday, in the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I predicted exactly what was going to happen — that we'd be out of here on Tuesday, or Wednesday at the latest if they could get their act together. Well, somehow they got their act together. That was referred to in a point of order at quarter to six today.

Mr. Speaker, I can't support this motion. We should be working in here, debating the government's plan, and not skulking around in the corridors making statements that should rightfully be made in here; not skulking downtown and doing the nation's business downtown when it is here in the people's palace that we should be doing business.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we're debating today was first introduced in this House as a method to keep the whole order paper alive after we finished a long session, so that we could call a fall session together to get on with legislation. It was never meant, when this kind of motion was first created, to do what this government is doing today, and that is run away from its responsibilities. I won't help this government run away from its responsibilities. I'll help this government lay down its responsibilities by replacing it, but I will not assist it in running away from its responsibilities.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 3, which says: "If at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m., unless otherwise ordered."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, standing order 3 would be in effect except in those instances where, by the practices of our House, exceptions have been made. I have an exception, which says this, referring to a situation similar to the one we're experiencing at the moment. The question to be resolved by the Speaker was the nature and extent of business allowable to be transacted at the hour of interruption.

"It seemed to me" — said Speaker Dowding — "in the brief time available that if it was competent for the House to act upon the report of the Chairman after the hour of interruption, as above noted, it was also competent for the House at this time to determine the hour of its next sitting.

"Standing order 3 provides that an hour other than 8 o'clock p.m. may be agreed upon. Such motions, in accordance with the practice indicated in May, do not in the opinion of the Chair fall into the category of opposed business, but are clearly formal matters involving the business and hours of sitting of the House. This is borne out in our standing orders by standing order 45(2), which states that 'adjournment motions shall be decided without debate or amendment.' Standing order 34 declares that 'a motion to adjourn shall always be in order.'"

The precedent has been established in this House whereby it is now the duty of the Chair to conclude the business that is before us, and we must, as the last order of business, determine the time of the next sitting. According to standing order 45(2), it shall be decided without debate or amendment.

On the same point of order, I recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: There is an adjournment motion before the House, and another one cannot be put.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. Therefore we must conclude the one that is before the House at this time.

MR. LAUK: It's a debatable motion.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. We have entertained debate to the hour of interruption, and at that point the hour of interruption takes precedence. I think my attention was drawn to the clock. Did I understand that clearly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore, at the hour of interruption, according to this ruling, we must complete all formal matters involving the business and hours of the sitting of the House. Other than that, the House could be frustrated in its business to a time not to be determined ever in the future. It must be concluded at some point or another. I'm happy to listen to other opinions.

MR. NICOLSON: On the same point of order, I do recall that in 1976 in the House attention was drawn to the clock and the debate on the hour of adjournment did continue. I must say it was resolved in a rather unusual way. I would ask which of Mr. Speaker Dowding's rulings the Speaker is referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: On March 22, 1973.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

[ Page 6771 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is a ruling on which the House has already spoken, hon. member. This is a precedent established for this House. It's not a new ruling which this Speaker is now giving.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you have accepted notification vis-à-vis the time of the clock. That's my assumption. Am I correct in that?

MR. SPEAKER: My attention has been drawn to the clock.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, can you explain to me how you can have two motions at the same time? You ruled a little earlier that when attention was drawn to the clock the only business that we could proceed with was the business before the House. We were proceeding with a motion which was before the House, which was debatable, and I wish to speak on that motion. Now you are accepting another motion, and I am at loss to understand how we get back to the first one.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the member wishes to speak on the motion for adjournment, then all that is required is for this motion to be defeated and the member will automatically have an opportunity to speak.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you recognized the House Leader on a point of order, and he moved adjournment of debate. Is that not what...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I recognized the House Leader; he did not say he was on a point of order.

Lest there be any confusion, we have at the moment a motion which was put by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). We have had debate on that motion. We now have a motion to adjourn debate on that motion until the next sitting of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is difficult to consider difficult points of order when there are constant interruptions. Please assist the Chair.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, am I to understand that the motion for adjournment of the House until a date to be determined, on the advice of the government, etc., is now a disposed-of motion?

MR. SPEAKER: The House has not expressed itself.

MR. NICOLSON: Yet we have a second motion on the floor now. We cannot have two motions before this House at one time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We have just completed six days of debate in which there was a motion before us, and it is adjourned at the hour of interruption every day. Clearly we have two categories of motions: one of them has to do with the fixing of the time of the next sitting. It is that kind of motion which Speaker Dowding was undoubtedly referring to in his ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: I think I'm catching on. Mr. Speaker is saying that the motion to adjourn, until the advice of the government to the Speaker indicates, etc., is then adjourned. There is adjourned debate on that motion because of the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a motion before the House just now that suggests that we adjourn debate on this motion until the next sitting of the House. That is the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.