[ Page 6773 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

On the adjournment motion

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6773

Mrs. Wallace –– 6773

Mr. King –– 6774

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6778

Ms. Brown –– 6781

Mr. Lea –– 6785

Mr. Barrett –– 6789

Mr. Cocke –– 6804

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6807

Mrs. Dailly –– 6808

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6811

Mr. Skelly –– 6815

Mr. Lorimer –– 6820

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6823

Mr. Hanson –– 6826

Mr. Davis –– 6830

Mr. Mitchell –– 6833

Mr. Brummet –– 6835

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6836

Mr. Passarell –– 6840

Mr. Lockstead –– 6842

Mr. Barnes –– 6846

Ms. Sanford –– 6850

Mr. Barber –– 6852

Division –– 6856

The House met at 8 p.m.

On the adjournment motion.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to the motion that was moved by my colleague the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I would like to indicate to the members of the House that this practice that, we're debating is historic. This motion has been utilized in this Legislature before. It is, indeed part of the practice, custom and usages of the Legislature of British Columbia.

The budget and the estimates, as the official opposition well knows, are in their usual course of preparation and they're going to be furnished at the usual and appropriate time: in the spring, as is the historic manner in which the business of governments in British Columbia has been conducted since Confederation. [Applause.]

I didn't think that speech was that spectacular, but that's awfully kind of the hon. members.

We're going to be returning in the spring of 1982 to fully debate the budget address, the estimates and the legislation that will be presented to this Legislature in the interests of all of the people of the province. I fully support the motion of my colleague.

Mrs. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this motion certainly indicates to me that the government is completely devoid of any ideas or initiatives to meet the pressing economic problems in this province. If they had ideas or initiatives they would be pressing forward now to take steps to protect the people of this province who are facing very difficult times.

I would like the members opposite to review briefly with me the situation in my own constituency. We are a forest-based economy; 90 percent of our economy is based on the forest industry. When one recognizes that one out of five forest workers is now unemployed, you can recognize the kind of lack of economic drive that results from this lack of jobs.

I think one of the most startling things to come and one of the first moves that caught the eye of all British Columbia and all of Canada was the situation at Honeymoon Bay, a mill that has been in operation for some 30 years. Suddenly on Wednesday the employees of that mill are advised that they're out of.a job permanently as of Friday — 357 employees in total out of a job. A great many of those employees had given upwards of 20 years — and some of them over 30 years — of their working lives to that company.

Why? They say it's lack of timber supply. That's not the case. The reason is they're not making a profit. It's even deeper that that. The reason — and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there knows it full well — is that the companies which he allowed to purchase that mill had no intention of keeping that mill operating — in spite of all his promises and platitudes and all the crocodile tears he's been crying over those employees up there. He was the man who was responsible for it, because he allowed a consortium of three companies — two of whom have adequate mill capacity right in the Cowichan Valley — to come in and take over that forest land, and along with it the mill. He is the man responsible for those workers being out of jobs. Yet we have them wanting to adjourn the House until some unforeseen time — and we have fairly good information that it will be March.

What are people to do who have no jobs? They not only have no jobs, they're not going to have any homes. Many of those people lived in company houses, and they have been given six months to vacate. Certainly there is no question that the consortium that owned that mill wants it out of business. They have offered it for sale at a ridiculously high price. They paid some $13 million for the mill when they bought it. They say that they have operated it at a loss of $3.5 million for three years. Now they're putting it on the market for $30 million. They have no intention that a buyer will pick up that mill. They want it out of business. They don't want competition. They bought the timber supply there. The Minister of Forests let them do that, in spite of his powers under the Forest Act. He is responsible. He should be the one speaking up against the adjournment of the House until some date in the future so we can get on with the job of creating jobs for those people. He's the one who should be standing up and making some concrete proposals as to how those people can be employed and what jobs can be found to keep those people working and keep that town viable.

The chamber of commerce and the village council have written to the minister and had no satisfactory response, They wrote some months ago to the Premier. As of a week ago, they had had no response at all from the Premier. That's his interest. He gets up here and speaks for two hours, giving lip-service to concerns about the people of this province. What are his real concerns? He doesn't even bother to answer a letter from the council at Lake Cowichan. Why doesn't he answer it? Because he has no plans. He has nothing to offer. If that government had something to offer, we'd see it on the order paper; we'd see some legislation; we'd see some interim supply, some emergency bills that would take some action and make jobs for those people.

No, this government is happy to sit back and bring in a throne speech that has nothing in it at all. Then they have the audacity to say: "Okay, we're going to adjourn the House until next March. We'll all go to Hawaii or Mexico or somewhere and have a nice suntan for the winter, and we'll come back here in March." What are the people who are here without jobs going to do? This government has no plans to provide jobs for those people. They have no plans for any thing that will help this very serious situation that we're in with the economy.

For a year and a half we've heard about their housing program. Well, now they say we've got a housing program. Where is it? Why isn't the bill on the order paper? Why aren't we discussing it? Why aren't we doing something to keep those people in their homes, instead of having them turned into the street? There's nothing there. If he were serious and sincere about protecting those people who are facing doubled mortgage payments as a result of high interest rates, he'd have something on the order paper, and he'd have a bill presented to this House right now, so we could get on with the job.

You can talk all you like about interest rates being the responsibility of the federal government. Other provinces are taking initiatives. All you have to do is look at Saskatchewan; they're taking an initiative to protect homeowners. This government has no program and no policy. They're doing absolutely nothing. That's why they're adjourning. It's because they have no program, they have no policy and they have no initiative to carry out.

I mentioned that in my constituency forestry is the backbone of the economy. When we have the kind of withdrawal

[ Page 6774 ]

from the labour force, as a result of the layoff, the earning capacity of those people is so badly curtailed that all the merchants are showing grave concern as to how they are going to keep their heads above water. They are facing the same high costs of interest charges and carrying charges on their stock, and yet they're facing a depleted market, because the dollars are not there in the consumers' pockets. The whole economy is winding down so badly in the whole Cowichan Valley that there have to be some definite measures taken. There have to be some job-creation programs to put those forestry people back to work.

We can talk all we like about the reforestation programs or the silviculture programs that this government has said they're undertaking, but surely to goodness when you have a situation like this, you move into some of those programs. I've written to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and he's acknowledged that he's going to have a look at doing something about some park development in the area. That's another thing that's long overdue. When is it going to happen? You know, I've had these kinds of vague promises so many times from those ministers over there that I will not believe anything is going to happen until I actually see the programs in progress. When I see a work crew going into Gordon Bay Park to enlarge that park or when I see a work crew going in on the west side of the lake to establish a new park there on the park reserve, then I'll believe it's going to happen. I won't believe it until then, and no vague assurances from that minister are going to indicate that to me.

MR. SKELLY: He's asleep.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, he is asleep. He's asleep as far as what's happening in this province and asleep to the need to create jobs, jobs, jobs — to use his terminology.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That woke him up.

Mr. Speaker, of course one of my concerns is also what is happening in our agricultural industry. If our agricultural industry folds, as they may well do under the lack of support from this government, we will find ourselves in — to use the much coined term — dire straits. I know of no direr straits than being unable to feed ourselves and unable to produce food. We're coming close to the time when we're going to have to have that food produced locally, because it isn't going to be available from outside the province. And yet, what is this government prepared to do to support that agricultural economy? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

We have the president of the Social Credit Party going into Prince George and talking about phasing out the agricultural land reserve and turning it over to private developers. We have a few people in this Legislature talking about that, and I feel sorry sometimes for the little minister over there who tries to protect his own job. The president of the Social Credit Party is going to phase out the agricultural land reserve and along with it all the farmers; he's also going to phase out ICBC. When you phase those two out, you've phased out that minister, so it's no wonder he gives some degree of lip service, at least, to the agricultural land concept.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would like to remind all members that the throne speech debate and its wide relevancy rule has now been drastically restricted by the words of the motion before us and, of course, we can accept only that debate which is relevant to reasons why. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, reasons why we should not adjourn. The reasons why we should not adjourn are that we should have some strong incentives before this Legislature to bring some assistance to those hard-pressed farmers — assistance on their interest rates and assistance on their land preservation. Those are the reasons why we should not be adjourning, Mr. Speaker.

I was sorry that for personal reasons I was not able to be here to participate in the throne speech debate, but really I don't know what was in that throne speech that required any comment. It's the things that aren't in that throne speech that are of interest and of real need as far as the people of this province go. It's the things that aren't in that throne speech that we should be discussing in this Legislature. That's why we have taken this tack — to try to force this lazy government, that wants to come down here for six, eight or ten days and then go off on holidays and not come back until March, to take some action and come out with some programs. If they don't have the programs, they just have to call the House back and we'll certainly present programs for them. If they don't have them, we can present them and all they have to do is to support them, Mr. Speaker.

The Legislature must continue to sit. We must continue to do the job for which we were elected. We must move to protect the people who are caught up in high interest rates, inflation and loss of jobs. We must take that action, and we must not pass this motion that adjourns us until the whim of someone who comes to you and says: "Well, let's get with it." That's not soon enough, Mr. Speaker. March is not soon enough. If you're hungry, if you're cold, you need food now, you need clothing now. You don't need it on the first of March.

This is a ridiculous motion, Mr. Speaker, to bring before this House. We should be getting on with the job that we're sent here for

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose the motion. I believe there are good and valid reasons why this Legislature should stay in session and should come to grips with many of the pressing problems that are bedevilling our population in British Columbia.

We need programs to deal with the very severe economic slump in the forest industry. We have nothing in the throne speech but some vague promises about privatization and some other exotic terms that are not explained. Now the government suggests that we should go back and think about those vague promises of inaction until March of 1982.

Mr. Speaker, that's a clear example of the government reneging on its obligation to properly and responsibly represent citizens in the province of British Columbia. I find it interesting that not a government member thus far has got up to give any credible explanation of why they want to adjourn until March.

The House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) got up and mumbled some things about tradition. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been a member most of the time since 1968, and the long-standing tradition in this Legislature for many years was that we met on the last day of January and sat until completion of the business before the government. We never used to meet as late as March.

[ Page 6775 ]

Consistently, for the last number of years, the opposition has criticized calling the Legislature into session so late in the year, at the beginning of March, because the fiscal year ends at the end of March. That time-frame does not allocate adequate time for the government to present their budget and for the opposition to scrutinize and debate that budget.

So what we have been seeing is a move away from tradition to a new procedure which deprives the Legislature, and certainly deprives the opposition, of full debate on the budget estimates of the government. We think that is a serious breach of parliamentary tradition, Mr. Speaker. It has now become the custom under this government rather than the exception, as it used to be — that interim supply was only sought in emergency situations. Now it has become the hallmark of this government to call the session so late in the year that no time remains for full presentation of the budget and the spending estimates of the government. As a consequence, they have been coming to the House and asking for interim supply two and three times before the budget is fully approved. That's piecemeal government. That's irresponsible government. That's a denial of parliamentary tradition. It's a dangerous trend, in my view, and that's another reason why we should we should not now be adjourning this house until March so that the government can pursue the same irresponsible policy.

Mr. Speaker, the government is lazy. This government is caught up in inertia. This is a government that has no life left. The headlines that the leader of this government is getting down east for his activities are: "Early to bed." Where is the Premier now? I presume he's headed off to bed again. Well, we have important issues on the economy to be debated here. The Premier snuck off with his little briefcase, and I don't know whether he's on the couch in his office, Mr. Speaker, or whether he's gone down to Harbour Towers. But he should be here in the Legislature defending the policies of this government. The reason he's not here is that the policies of this government are indefensible.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the members on that side, particularly the minister of counties and other things, seem anxious to get on their feet. We're anxious to hear the views of that minister and his colleagues in terms of defending their do-nothing policy. We're very anxious.

We see a number of very disturbing trends in the forest industry which are contributing to the massive unemployment that is being experienced in the industry at the moment. At one and the same time that economic problems are besetting the industry and there is a soft market in the United States, other things are happening right here in British Columbia which should be dealt with now by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his government. We're seeing an increasing trend towards merger — acquisition of small companies by larger ones, corporate concentration in the forest industry. A short time ago the Minister of Forests wrote a letter to the industry newsletter, Beale's Letter, saying that that was a trend that he was concerned about because it really didn't meet the criteria that the government themselves had laid down for economic stability of regions and for the preservation of employment opportunities in the forest industry. He decried that trend.

Mr. Speaker, these mergers are increasing. They're happening more frequently. We had the case of Atco Lumber Ltd. up in the Kootenays buying out Hadikin Bros. There's nothing wrong with one company buying another one per se, but the minister has stated his policy that when this occurs there should not be a net loss of jobs accrue from that merger, because that contributes to unemployment.

In the case of the company I referred to, the Ministry of Forests approved the sale and the transfer of their cutting rights from Hadikin to Atco Lumber, and he did it with a four-line letter. I'm going to read it into the record to demonstrate the kind of problem which is contributing to unemployment and economic hard times in the province now. This is a matter that must be dealt with now, not in March. This letter says: "Further to your request, and pursuant to section 50 of the Forest Act, I hereby consent to the acquisition by Atco Lumber Ltd. of all issued shares in the capital of Hadikin Bros. Lumbering Ltd."

The House will note that there's no condition set; it's an outright carte blanche approval. The fact of the matter is that as a result of that approval, Atco Lumber immediately closed down the Hadikin Bros. mill with a net loss of jobs. Perhaps they had a good and sufficient economic reason for doing so, but the point is that there is no indication that the minister conducted any economic survey to determine whether they were justified in acquiring these new cutting rights and at the same time closing down an existing plant, with a net loss of employment. The minister has the authority, under section 50 of the Forest Act, to refuse or approve on a conditional basis. In this particular case, no condition is attached. The transfer of valuable cutting rights to Crown timber, a net loss of jobs in that area, and people who had worked many years and had seniority and undoubtedly had mortgages on their homes, which were all of a sudden chopped off.... I want the Minister of Forests to explain why he does this kind of thing when his Forest Act and the five-year range and resource policy issued and printed by his ministry provides the power under section 50 to prevent the very kind of thing he approved in a four-line response here.

That's a denial of his responsibility. He's obviously willing to allow one company to acquire increased cutting rights, to allow unemployment to accrue, when that violates the stated and publicly enunciated objectives of his ministry. I say that's irresponsible, and I want some assurance — before we leave here, Mr. Speaker, not next March — that other mergers pending now will not be approved until the conditions and the criteria enunciated by his ministry are in fact enforced, so that our workers in the province of British Columbia are protected.

It's not just me who's concerned about this. I have a letter from the city of Revelstoke. We've had a similar acquisition of a mill. In this particular case, some 350 workers were laid off. That mill is closed for the first time in 30 years. The mayor of Revelstoke has written to me, and he expresses these thoughts:

"We have all heard of the plight of homeowners and small business across our country, but it never seems so bad until it reaches home. We as a council are writing to you, our representative, to express our sincere concern over the recent announcement of one of our major employers shutting his door. The closure of the Downie Street sawmill will affect about 175 employees. We also understand that the Canoe mill is also shutting down at the end of October, affecting a couple of hundred more employees.

[ Page 6776 ]

"We would request that you inquire of our senior levels of government how much longer must we put up with this regressive and damaging action. The government has just announced that thousands of new jobs will be created in western Canada, and in particular B.C. When do we see these new jobs? After we close down all the old ones? We want jobs, period.

"We feel it is time our governments got down to the real issues of our economy, not just the constitution.

"The council would request that you keep us in close contact with regard to these pursuits."

Mr. Speaker, this precisely outlines the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to give the members of the House an idea of the scope of the debate that is in order on motions to adjourn to a future date. This has to do particularly with a motion to secure a sitting of the House at a time or on a day other than the next ordinary time or day of sitting. Speaker Morrison says:

"I must point out that on a motion of this sort, which is a motion to adjourn until another day, it is quite allowable and proper to urge that the House should not adjourn to that date because certain subjects are of considerable importance. On the other hand, it is not in order to go into these subjects in any detail. They can be advanced only as reasons for not adjourning."

I wish the members would accept this as a guideline.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm attempting to do: give the general context of why we should be continuing to meet in this Legislature, and why we should be dealing with these very important matters that are important to the communities as well as the workers who are adversely affected. The mayor of the city of Revelstoke has written to me, asking that I keep them in touch with developments, that I keep them in touch with the government's plans for creating alternative employment so that the economy up there won't be irreparably damaged over the course of this long winter. How can I do that when I come here and I'm restricted to a debate on a throne speech having no content? Then the government puts forward a motion to adjourn until next March. I'd be completely derelict in my duty and my obligation to represent the small communities in my riding, as well as the people, if I did not stand and voice my objections to this kind of unspeakably lazy direction by this government. I find it unbelievable that, given the economic circumstances facing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians this year — particularly this winter — the government seriously suggests that we should adjourn and run away from our duties and obligations to the people who elected us. That's not only lazy, Mr. Speaker; it's cowardly of the government to suggest such a course of action

The mill I referred to is not the only one. My colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the massive impact of the mill closures at Honeymoon Bay. Again, the minister of Forests had the power and authority under section 50 of the Forest Act to require, as a condition of approving the transfer of cutting rights, that that plant continue to operate. The minister failed to shoulder his responsibility. He failed, not only in defiance of common sense but in denial of his own enunciated policy. This was the objective of his ministry. He allowed the mill.to be sold. He allowed the new cutting rights to be acquired by the purchasing companies and then he entered a pale and very weak plea that that company continue to operate the mill. The fact of the matter was that the minister had then and still has the authority under section 50 of the Forest Act to, require as a condition of transfer that that mill stay in operation and those jobs be preserved. Mr. Speaker, perhaps those cases are by the board, but I suspect that over the course of this winter when economic times are very difficult and more small forest companies are going to be obliged to close the doors permanently, there will be an increasing trend towards acquisitions of the failing companies by larger firms. Unless this Legislature can be assured, Mr. Speaker; that the Forests Minister is going to act in a decisive and responsible way to ensure that jobs and plants are preserved and continue to operate, then certainly we are failing to live up to obligations as legislators.

Mr. Speaker, we have many hundreds of young people in the province of British Columbia — not just young people; predominantly young people, I suppose, but many of all ages — who are facing mortgage renewals over this current year as well. We were promised a housing policy by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The minister laboured long and gave birth to a dud that, he had to scurry back and rewrite after consultation with his federal counterpart. As a result the people of British Columbia facing a crisis in shelter accommodation in terms of affordable housing and in terms of their ability to maintain mortgage payments are left without a vestige of hope over the coming winter. And this is the time that the government chooses to say we should fold up our tent and steal away. That's totally unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, every time this government gets into trouble, it seems, usually by their own devices and not as a result of anything the opposition does. They usually get into political trouble because either they try to be too cute and too smart or they try to manufacture nasty political tricks to improve their stock. Every time that happens and their image wanes with the public, their trend and their tendency is to run and hide. We see it with the Premier every time. As soon as the heat's on, he finds a place to hide out. We see that this evening as far as the government is concerned. Where's the Premier? Where are the cabinet ministers? I think we have two and a half of them in here at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has some compelling reason.... If they are working on some master plan or some blueprint that would haul British Columbia out of its economic doldrums, share that with the House. We're reasonable people. If they have some major strategy that they intend to unleash in March that's going to do dynamic things for the province of British Columbia, perhaps then they could justify this lengthy holiday that they are planning — this lengthy holiday in destinations unknown. If that's their objective, that's one thing, but I don't think it is. By everything we've seen — by their silence, their inattention and their unwillingness to enter in this debate — we can only assume that they have nothing in mind at all. They have no positive programs or policies outlined and prepared for a legislative session, so they simply called this one to get the throne speech put aside.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the government can really justify calling this short session.to debate a shallow, empty document that did not do one thing to initiate a program.

MR. RITCHIE: Be nice.

[ Page 6777 ]

MR. KING: I'll be nice, Mr. Speaker. I'll say to the member that the throne speech said some nice things. I'm not going to condemn it totally, but it didn't do anything. It didn' t do a thing. There was not one program initiated that is going to affect the life or the circumstances of the welfare of one British Columbian, be they a laid-off worker, a homeowner facing onerous mortgage renewal costs or a small businessman teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

MR. HALL: Just political mercenaries from Ontario.

MR. KING: Yes, perhaps it benefited Mr. Kinsella and some of his colleagues who were able to flee Ontario and find employment in British Columbia when no one else can.

MR., HALL: Political mercenaries.

MR. KING: Political mercenaries indeed, but not very smart ones, my friend..

I don't know what it costs to convene the Legislature and to bring all of the apparatus of the parliamentary process into play for a week or eight days, The Socreds at one time when they were in opposition criticized the New Democratic Party government for calling an emergency session of the Legislature. They said: "It's too costly; you should never have done it." At least we had something of an emergent nature to deal with, which we did. Mr. Speaker, we haven't dealt with one positive program during the course of this short session. What can possibly be the justification for the outlay of perhaps half a million dollars?

MS. BROWN: For the ball alone. They came down here to dance.

MR. KING: I wonder if the government is planning another ball, at Government House in March. The people of British Columbia have nothing to dance about this year. Large numbers of the people of British Columbia can ill afford workaday clothing and apparel, much less the fancy garb that would be necessary to rub shoulders with this gang of millionaires in Government House at the public expense. It's shocking and it's disgraceful.

I don't know what it costs. I don't think one can put a price on the democratic process, but when the democratic process is prostituted and perverted by this sham of a throne speech and this short session, which accomplish nothing for people, then that is not its intent — not at all. I say that it's a complete squandering of public money. Wastrels, lazy at that, they're not prepared to put forward a program. The big-spending boys, the fat cats, are free with the public coffers when it comes to their interests, but are tight when it comes to working mothers with small children: "We'll cut back on them." Typical millionaires: "Let the poor eat cake. We'll revel at the public trough. We'll put on a little charade of doing something positive, at huge public expense. Not one effective program, then we'll adjourn and we'll run away and hide in the sun." Shocking! Scandalous! Lazy!

These are the ones who are fond of saying: "We want people off welfare. We want them earning their livelihood." I say to them: stay here; earn your livelihood; bring in some programs for people.

The maverick from Omineca indeed! Represent your riding. Represent your constituents. Demonstrate that you're prepared to work, like you're so fond of saying you are, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm scandalized by it all. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that W.A.C. Bennett would never have done anything like this. W.A.C. Bennett, as much as we disagreed with his policies, was a hard worker and a compassionate politician. He wasn't prepared to turn his back on the people of British Columbia in dire need, in their moment of crisis. How can you ignore these people who are being drummed out of their homes? The people who are having a field day today are your friends, the millionaires and the sheriffs. They're the ones who are having the field day, at the expense of human suffering. They revel here in luxury, and then want to run off and hide, without doing one iota of work on behalf of the public. Shame on them!

Yes., Mr. Speaker, it makes me angry. I talked earlier in the brief opportunity I had in question period about the matter of a bridge in my riding that is a danger to public health and public transportation. An accident occurred on it — a school bus with 45 pupils on board. You know what their answer was, Mr. Speaker? Condemn the bridge and run the school bus around ten miles so that the kids have to get up an hour earlier and be an hour longer getting home. We can't afford a bridge for public safety to get kids to school, but we want to pour hundreds of thousands into football stadiums for the friends of these people who can afford to shell out that kind of money. It's public money you're dealing with.

When I see the basic services denied to my constituents, yes, I get angry! And then when I see a government that's so damnably lazy, Mr. Speaker, that they're not prepared to stay here and come to grips with these real problems that I want to make representations to them on, then I find that they are anti-democratic and they have no conception whatsoever of what their public obligation is.

This is the most shameful, shocking, scandalously lazy band of coalition politicians that I've ever seen put together anywhere, a rag-tag bunch of political opportunists who haven't got an ounce of human compassion within their veins. Leave the people to suffer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I know the hon. member feels very strongly about the contents of his debate, but nevertheless the English language is rich and expressive in descriptive language and vocabulary, and I think we don't have to resort to expletives or other terms which might be considered offensive in public speaking. I would recommend the same to the member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I've uttered any epithet which is offensive to any member of the House, I certainly apologize. I felt my language was singularly moderate, quite frankly, because my feelings are a good deal more intense. But far be it from me to insult anyone; that's not my objective.

On previous occasions I've appealed with every degree of reason I've had and it's fallen on deaf ears. I'm trying to drive home now as forcefully as I can, Mr. Speaker, the need to respond to the problems that people are having out in the communities. It's not just in my area. It's certainly in the north: the town of Terrace, totally reliant on the forest industry, without jobs, without hope for this winter.

Are they really satisfied to leave people at home languishing on unemployment insurance and social assistance when they could introduce a program to put those people to work in a productive way in intensive silviculture in our forest industry for very little cost and for massive advantage in terms of production?

[ Page 6778 ]

They say they're against laziness. They say they're against idleness. They say they're for productivity. Mr. Speaker, their lack of action and their lack of imagination belies those statements.

Mr. Speaker, if they don't understand what is needed, if they have no idea, please let's get together and consult. We'll go to the office of the leader of the opposition and we'll sit down and design a program together as legislators, rather than party politicians, that would give some hope to people for the coming very difficult, very bleak winter months. What's wrong with that?

You've subjected the public to the high cost of calling this institution together. You've produced nothing, not an iota of anything positive. The people are in identically the same position they were in the day before we arrived here.

It angers one. From a group who like to suggest that they are the doers and the movers and the shakers, that they have some business acumen.... Well, they don't. They're willing to leave people at home, getting paid unemployment insurance to sit in idleness — which those workers don't want to do. They have a mind. They have an intellect. They have an ego. They'd rather work.

Why not set up a program of tree-thinning? We need that in our forest industry. The minister is saying we're going to be short of timber inside of 15 years. Okay, here's a perfect opportunity. Thousands of people are unemployed, and they know something about the forest industry. They're committed to it. What would it cost you to put them to work? It would only cost you a couple of bucks more than to leave them sitting at home in idleness. You haven't got the brains to see that. The government hasn't got the brains, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mean the individuals; I meant the government collectively.

I don't know what else to say. I'm very interested in listening to one of the government members get up and....

Interjections.

MR. KING: There's my old friend, Mr. Speaker. Someone let him out of his cave and he's here now to heckle.

Really it's not funny. It's incredibly discouraging and unfortunate that any government, regardless of its party philosophy, would be so useless as to subject the public to the kinds of costs involved in calling this Legislature together, and then fold up and steal away without doing something positive for the people, in one of the most difficult economic times we've faced in many years. If this is your decision, and if by the weight of your majority you are intent on proceeding down this road, I predict that it's going to come back and haunt you. The people will forgive many things, but they will not forgive anyone, particularly publicly elected people, for abandoning them when they need help most. They will not forgive the waste of money for a foolish ruse, which up to this point is all this current session can be categorized as. They certainly will not forgive a government that abandons them and runs away and hides at a time when they need assistance. They need inspiration and they need help and direction from a government more than they've ever needed it since the 1930s.

It's absolutely shocking and scandalous that this government would contemplate folding up, stealing away and going about their business, whatever it may be, without respect to their public obligation to come to this Legislature, debate and put forward positive programs on behalf of the people in British Columbia who are hurting desperately tonight.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's been a while since we've heard so much debate on a motion to adjourn. I was hoping perhaps we might receive some convincing argument from the members as to why we ought to carry on. I hadn't heard it during the throne speech debate, so I was certainly looking forward to some hint as to what in fact might be offered by members of the opposition as alternatives or approaches that might be developed other than those which the government is actively and forcefully involved in now.

I listened to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke go on at great length. I thought perhaps I could gather some indication as to how or why we might continue with the session as we now see it. But no., nothing came. I must confess that perhaps as one of the government members who practically lives in the buildings, and spends 15 or 16 hours a day, day after day, here anyway, I thought maybe this session, as we've seen the opposition perform, could offer some comic relief. Perhaps in that respect I had a bit of bias when considering the motion. But, again, I thought about what we've seen happening.

Even though members of the opposition are for the most part resident in Victoria and occasionally travel back to their constituencies, I know that their attendance during these last ten days, as the record will indicate when you check the votes, has been horrible. Even the members who live here all the time and occasionally travel back to their constituencies.... This has got some members on their side into some bad trouble. Unfortunately, their leader recently had to go to Rossland-Trail to try to keep their forces together, because their member had no credibility with the constituency association. After all, he only goes back now and again. I don't know where he is the other times. He's obviously not here. That sort of attendance from the other side has been typical. And then, I thought perhaps....

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, I'm wondering if the first member for Surrey could explain to you, Mr. Speaker, whether what he said is in any way relevant to the motion on the floor, which deals with the question of whether we should or should not adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate on motions is much more restricted than the general debate on the address in reply or on the debate in Committee of Supply. It is strictly relevant to the proposition within the motion itself. I might further suggest that Sir Erskine May says that matters which have already been discussed, either in debate in supply or on the address, may not be raised in the motion for adjournment after the hour of interruption that evening, and that's where we are.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in considering whether in fact I should be supporting this motion or voting against it, I certainly have to keep in mind whatever contribution might have been provided, if we were to continue, by the Leader of the Opposition. But again, unfortunately — and I'm very pleased to see that he's here now — he's missed so much of the last ten days that I really couldn't count on that in my consideration of whether I should support or not support the motion. I realize that's a problem, and I thought about it a great deal more.

[ Page 6779 ]

Tonight I saw on television the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who unfortunately is not here now, speaking about books. He's not here now, and I don't think he was here this afternoon. I don't recall when he was last here, although I understand he lives in Victoria. I would expect him to be here for this debate, and certainly I would have expected him during the throne speech debate, so that perhaps he might have given me some clue as to why we ought to continue with this session. Because if continuing could be of real benefit to the people of British Columbia, I would be the first to support it.

As I watched the member on television tonight very briefly I was reminded about another television show on CKVU on November 20, 1981 — just a few weeks back. This is where I saw a picture of a group of Douglas College students padlocking the administration offices of a school. I remembered this incident as I was attempting to make up my mind as to whether I might go on speaking with respect to this motion. These students were protesting budget cuts in response to the federal budget, but they were saying that we're only doing this in advance of what government is trying to do because somehow, perhaps, they thought that the provincial government would suddenly latch on the example given by the federal government and all would end for the college students.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They were representing this, and then suddenly, as big as life on the television screen, appeared the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. He met with the college students and said: "There's one thing they" — that is, the government — "react to, and that is protest. They'll react to protest." It struck me as strange, because in my mind I immediately related this to the protests in front of the buildings, at the Hyatt convention and in various parts of the cities where people are getting together and carrying signs on different issues. And I thought: is this member encouraging this, or is he really telling me that he's been doing this all along and that he might have been a part of.... Maybe, as somebody suggested, in part these protests were orchestrated by the NDP. Perhaps that's a part of the strategy. I put this out of my mind, because I thought: no matter what party or what their political philosophy, they could not possibly be that irresponsible.

However, then I was really struck by the following comment, the shocking, shocking comment made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. The member said: "If enough students could get over to Victoria next week, maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature." Can you imagine that? This is the same member that represents the same group over there which wants to go on with the debate. One of their members said to- a group of students on television: "Let's lock the Legislature." That's democracy? They call themselves the New Democratic Party? If that's new democracy, I want no part of it. No British Columbian wants any part of it. Is that new democracy? Are those the new democrats? Is that what they've got to offer? Is that all they've got to contribute to the ten days that we've spent, in which time they had a perfect opportunity to address many issues of concern to all British Columbians? That's the only suggestion they had to make: padlock the doors, shut the place, and have some protests. Is that the NDP approach to government for the people of British Columbia?

I couldn't believe it. I thought, when the session starts, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will come in and apologize for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. Obviously there ought to be some explanation. Day after day I look at that chair in which the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be sitting, and he's not there. He's someplace else. I don't know where he is. He lives close by. He could be here, but no, I guess he's just at home. Maybe he was sleeping. Now that could be it. But he wasn't here. So anyway, I thought maybe he'll come in towards the end. He did come in. I saw him today. I knew where he was at one point. Hon. member, I knew where you were at one point. I heard you said someplace that farmers were real estate people. So I know you were someplace at one point. So I take back that I didn't know where you were all of the time, hon. leader.

But he did come in. Then all day he's in and out and he never speaks. He never says a thing. Can you imagine? When there are so many things of concern to all British Columbians, when the people are looking for leadership, not only from the government.... Obviously, as a part of the process, we expect constructive suggestions from the members of the opposition. But nothing happens, nothing is said, no alternative.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) made a great speech, and went on for 45 minutes. He called everybody names and said things that I'm sure he might regret. Another member from the other side only aped what had been said by the president of the Federation of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird. He said there are a bunch of right-wing thugs. That was repeated today. So I suppose perhaps somehow there may be some connection there, but even that spiritual leader of the NDP, Mr. Kinnaird.... Maybe he's the real leader, eh? Could be. Maybe we found the real leader, Mr. Kinnaird. My goodness, it suddenly occurred to me. I've been figuring out who the leader of that group might be. Maybe it's Mr. Kinnaird.

So anyway, I thought perhaps Mr. Kinnaird, the spiritual leader, will give us some advice. Maybe he will have some alternatives. Maybe he'll have some suggestions that could be of benefit to British Columbians. But no, their spiritual leader said nothing either. So we've seen nothing. We've had nothing.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it's been a real problem for me making up my mind as to how I might present the arguments, because, frankly, I would love to go on, if somehow in going on we could seek from them some proposals that could in some way assist even one British Columbian — one solitary British Columbian. Nothing's happened.

So I thought perhaps the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, when he suggested we lock up the place....

Obviously we could have no session at all if we locked up the place. That would give them a permanent holiday. They could stay in their homes in Victoria for a long time. Maybe that's what they were seeking. But that member that wanted to lock the doors — I thought of his neighbouring member, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I thought maybe he would have something to contribute to the debate, and perhaps I should consider which way I may go on this particular motion, because there's always a chance that the member for Coquitlam-Moody has something to offer.

I've been listening all of these days, and I still don't hear anything from the member for Coquitlam. Then I go through some of my papers and find out maybe why it is. The

[ Page 6780 ]

possibility of getting some contribution from the member for Coquitlam if we go on has been shattered after I see this article in one of the newspapers. You know, I'm sure this article must be accurate. It has his picture and it says: "Stu Leggatt is Man — Barrett's Successor?" Then it opens up, so now my hopes are really shattered. As a contribution to this debate, I certainly want to tell you what it is he said as it was reported. It says: "For a guy who is being touted as the eventual successor to Dave Barrett, Coquitlam-Moody MLA Stu Leggatt showed precious little in a small crowd of some 50 people at Echo Centre Wednesday night. It was a speech peppered with collegiate socialism and not one concerned much with economic alternatives."

So, you know, there is the man whom they see as the successor to the existing leader of the New Democratic Party, and I'm looking to that man to follow the present leader of the New Democratic Party, a leader who has offered nothing and who has lost all credibility with by far the majority of all people in the whole of British Columbia. Only the staunchest of die-hard socialists would ever think of supporting him. Obviously any good-thinking CCFer would have no part of him or part of them. So I'm thinking maybe their new leader — not the spiritual leader I mentioned earlier, but the new leader for Coquitlam-Moody — has something. So then he makes a speech peppered with collegiate socialism and not one concern with economic alternatives. So now I'm really worried because there he's addressing a total NDP audience — the whole of the NDP group remaining in Alberni, 50 people — and he can't even offer much there. As I go on reading the article I'm saying: "Hey, you know, maybe there is a chance if we continue that we'll hear something yet."

So I'm reading what it says about the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly): "Skelly pumped his brainstorm, a wood-fired thermo-generating plant for the valley. He also ridiculed local politicians vying for civic seats and went out of his way to insult the valley chamber of commerce." What do I do now? My goodness, what a hope. What do we do?

So really, Mr. Speaker, I'm still wondering where I might go on this motion with respect to adjourning the House. Now I see that the majority of them are gone most of the time, even though they live in Victoria. When they come in here they spend very little.... At one point today, Mr. Speaker, much to my sorrow, they had one member in the House — one member, that's the truth. O-n-e — I'm spelling it for the benefit of the opposition — uno, one, one only. Do you know the surprising part of it? Would you believe...? Hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), you probably won't believe this either. Do you know who he was? The guy whom I accused earlier today of being out there polishing his Mercedes, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I take it all back; he was out there. He was there all by his lonely self.

So again I'm wondering if we really should continue this when only one of their members has enough interest in the debate. Is it worth continuing when only one of their members remains in the House and all the rest of the troops have taken off? They're taking an afternoon nap. They've gone back to their home someplace in Victoria. I don't know what they were doing, but obviously they were not around. There was one member in the House. Maybe that's never happened before in this House, I don't know. I don't recall things ever being that bad. This is the last day in the debate, when we're looking to the opposition for some alternatives, some suggestions, some recommendations  — not a lot of name-calling, not a lot of nonsense, not a lot of frivolous stuff, but something concrete, something that you could really get your teeth into, something that would make you want to stay on and on, because while we have a lot of work as members in government and while we spend many, many hours day after day in these buildings, it's good to get advice from others. We should always be prepared to accept good alternatives, good recommendations.

I'm still very benevolent. I'm still wanting to somehow give them the benefit of the doubt, because I appreciate that our system must somehow provide for a constructive opposition. That is good. That makes for a healthy system. I'm hoping that somehow, if we persist, and we continually attempt to draw out some suggestions by telling it like it is with respect to the economic development and the wonderful things that have been happening in British Columbia; if we could somehow inform the opposition that there's more to British Columbia than Victoria or downtown Vancouver; if we could somehow inform the opposition of the diversity and the development that is taking place in the north, in the northwest, in the northeast, in the southeast; if we could somehow show the opposition that British Columbia is a positive place full of potential, with plenty of opportunities.... It's a wonderful province that we shouldn't be negative about. There are people here that can do things, people here that can make things happen without government. If we could convince the opposition of that, if we could get them thinking positively, maybe we should go on. Maybe there could be some constructive suggestions. But there's nothing.

I was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would be here. I was so sad he missed all of these days, because I was thinking that perhaps he would elaborate on a suggestion that certainly caught the attention of all British Columbians. He said: "When the mills go broke and the mines go bankrupt, we'll buy them up. We'll take them over." He would have them all go broke and take them over. That's his answer. Now there obviously must be better suggestions. Their leader could not have been serious. I was hoping perhaps maybe the second man in charge, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), might give some explanation for his leader's statement. Or maybe we could hear from their spiritual leader. But anyway, nothing happened. I didn't get an explanation as to why the people of British Columbia would pool their tax dollars to buy the losers. I just didn't get an explanation for that.

So time went by, and I thought perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, if he doesn't want to give an explanation for that, would maybe tell us about his interest subsidy program, where he was going to take a billion dollars the first year and a billion dollars the second year and a billion dollars the third year and a billion dollars the fourth and fifth years. All these billions of dollars, and he was somehow going to devise an interest subsidy program.

"We'll fix those bad old banks and finance companies." And I'm not saying they're very good; I wish you would have elaborated on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hey, I can certainly sympathize. "We'll fix them. We'll take the tax dollars. We'll take the taxpayers' money. We'll just somehow gather billions of dollars from the taxpayers and we'll devise a program, a good NDP program."

[ Page 6781 ]

He said: "Well, maybe we could get all of these billions of dollars by putting a few cents on every bottle of booze." Can you imagine the booze we'd have to consume? I mean, I just don't know. The distilleries would have an awful time keeping up. Obviously we'd have a good industry making booze. I'll tell you, that would suddenly become the biggest industry in the world. With a few cents on every bottle, you'd have to make a lot of booze to keep up with it.

Maybe he was somehow going to get into that business too. Probably not, though, because it makes money. No, I can't see him getting into that.

But you see, Mr. Speaker, again no positive suggestions, no concrete alternatives, nothing at all, Nothing's happened. So they've been rather sad days, and we certainly had every opportunity to speak during these past ten days and provide some alternative suggestions. There's so much good could come from helpful debate, and now we're discussing the motion whether we adjourn or don't adjourn. I suppose, looking at it from a personal point of view — and all members of government are spending their time here anyway, instead of perhaps working on the various programs, getting ready for when we meet again — we could possibly come back to this House day after day. If only I could be assured that there might be something positive, I would be very pleased to support that. But after ten days of nothing, after ten days of no suggestions — ten days of opportunity for the opposition to bring forth some alternatives, to zero in on some of the problems as they affect British Columbians, the most outstanding suggestion, the one that will be remembered most as having come from the opposition, was in fact not even made in this chamber.

Lock the Legislature. Shut the place up. We don't need a Legislature — have some protests, put the chains and padlock on the door of the Legislature. I truly hope that British Columbians won't forget that sort of statement, because it's perhaps indicative of some of the attitudes that we've seen displayed by members of the opposition.

Can you imagine when, on the one hand, I hear from the opposition the argument that we ought to continue — though they've contributed nothing — and on the other hand, I hear the member who's conveniently missing tonight say: "Lock the place, padlock it.... If enough students could get over to Victoria next week, maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature. Is that a responsible statement from a member elected to the Legislature of British Columbia? Terrible! Shame, shame, shame! I would hope that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) — you live in Victoria, but you're originally from Vancouver East — I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition will get up and explain for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) what it is that he intended here, why it is that on the one hand they want to lock the doors and on the other hand they're now debating to continue on. Mr. Speaker, as I try to make up my mind on this particular motion, I can't help but think that maybe the reason they want to go on is that they've been caught. They did not contribute. Their leader did not speak in the debate and all British Columbians must be aware of that. He did not speak in the throne speech debate. Shame, shame, shame!

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say that I can in no way support this motion.

MS. BROWN: On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express my most profound thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for describing the last ten days as accurately as possible: ten days of nothing. That's precisely what it was, Now after ten days of nothing, that minister, the person who insisted that every person in British Columbia should be given a shovel so that they could go out and work, wants to pick up his paycheque and slither off to his lettuce patch and not do the nation's business. Then he complains about the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) wanting to lock him into the Legislature, so that we can get some work out of that lazy, shiftless government over there.

I have no choice but to speak against this motion. Earlier this afternoon, when the Premier was in his place, before he went home to bed early tonight, he said that what his government wants for this province is work and wages for the people, not waste and welfare. I think we're going to have to start by getting them off welfare.

Earlier this month in a column in his newspaper, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kemp) congratulated the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for getting the bums off welfare.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We're going to start with him. We're going to start by getting that bum off welfare. I do not know one single income assistance recipient in this province who would have the gall to put in ten days of nothing, as described by one of his colleagues, and would want to pick up a paycheque and go home for another two or three months, and think that he had earned it. I don't know one income assistance recipient who would dare do that — living off the public purse; come down here, dressed up in his tuxedo, dancing at Government House, pick up his cheque, and then off for a holiday. Well, the opposition came here to work, and we're going to stay here and work. If they don't want to work, they can go home. They can do their holidaying. They can go elsewhere.

I can't believe it. I'm not even going to quote that minister any further — the one who went around this province, talking about deadbeats, lazy people and shiftless people, and trying to move the income assistance recipients from the rural areas to the city, from the city to the rural areas, shifting them back and forth. King PREP. Who remembers PREP? Can anyone forget PREP? PREP was supposed to find work for people who didn't want to work. We need PREP now for that minister over there. We're not going to have him rushing around at the taxpayers' expense and picking lettuce all over the place when he should be here. I don't know what he's going to do with the lettuce, but whatever it is he's going to stay here and work.

The Minister of Human Resources, in an article in April 1980, said: "The welfare problems of this province could be solved if only the clients would go to work." That's right. We could solve the welfare problems if only the clients would go to work. I can tell you that every single client — all 60,000 of them — would take on that job today, if they thought they could get her kind of salary for six days' work.

I believe that charity should begin at home. I believe it should start right here. We should set an example. The government that said to the single parent, "Unless you are lactating, get to work, " should themselves, unless they are lactating, get to work.

Interjection.

[ Page 6782 ]

MS. BROWN: I don't know what their excuse is. I don't know what the excuse of the Minister of Municipal Affairs is — why he doesn't want to stay here and work. Or the member for Omineca, who was so thrilled that the Minister of Human Resources was going to be getting bums off of welfare; or the minister of methane over there — what's his excuse? We don't know what the methane minister's excuse is.

The Premier is at home in bed. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is at home in bed. The Minister of Human Resources is at home in bed. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is at home in bed. The Minister of Finance is at home in bed. Highways is home in bed. Municipal Affairs has now gone home to bed. Energy is at home in bed. I don't know why they call it energy, but anyway, he is at home in bed. Let the record show they're all sleeping.

I'm telling you that even if we were tempted to go home and go to bed ourselves, we can't do it because the Minister of Human Resources said in the Times-Colonist not more than two or three days ago that any welfare mother who would rather stay home with her child than go to work does not have a leg to stand on. Single parents with children six months of age or over — they can't go home. They can't put in six days of work or ten days of nothing, pick up a paycheque and then go off on holiday until March. No, they can't do that. Once a month they have to trot down to the welfare office and say: "I have been looking for work. I have been unable to find work, because that lazy government hasn't created any jobs for us. Therefore will you please, for one more month, give me that lousy cheque that I have to live on." That's the kind of thing that the opposition is not prepared to allow you to go home and continue to let happen in this province.

In a page 5 article in the Sun the Minister of Human Resources says there is an alternative to welfare. It's a beautiful article. The headline is: "There is an Alternative to Welfare." Have you got the slightest idea what that alternative is, Mr. Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Get elected as a Socred.

MS. BROWN: That's what they'd like to think. But the alternative that the minister put forward to the welfare recipients was work. I think that that government should explore that alternative themselves. I think they should get some work done. We came here with a number of issues that we thought the government was prepared to address itself to.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name one.

MS. BROWN: Pharmacare. That's the first one I'm going to talk about. The Minister of Human Resources stood on the floor of this House and said: "You didn't tell the world about the great program of Pharmacare which we have."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was number one.

MS. BROWN: I am not finished with Pharmacare, Mr. Prep. The golden shovel shovels and having shovelled moves on. No way! You're going to stay here, Mr. Prep, until we get this thing done.

Pharmacare. What do we hear about that great program? Last year they discovered that the average person on Pharmacare submitted a bill for $130, which meant that the government had to cough up $30 for each of the 200,000 people who put in a claim for Pharmacare. Do you know how they dealt with that, Mr. Speaker? Do you know how that wonderful, wise, kind, lazy, shiftless, indolent government dealt with that? They raised the base by $25, so that this time all they have to pay, rather than $30, is five lousy, measly bucks. And they have the nerve to stand around for ten days of nothing and brag about that great program of Pharmacare. Making money off the backs of the poor — that's what your government has always done. That's your trademark.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm not through with Pharmacare yet. You are very uncomfortable when I point out that these programs that you go around bragging about and call universal, when you're through putting them into place, don't benefit anybody but yourselves. That's what's wrong with your universal programs. The government's going to start making money from Pharmacare. The government's going to start making money off the backs of the poor so that you lazy, indolent people over there can put in ten days of nothing, pick up your paycheques and go on holidays for three months.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it's okay if he interrupts me; I can understand his discomfort, because now the truth is coming out, and he doesn't want to deal with the truth.

In 1975, before the NDP was defeated, they increased the GAIN, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: How would you know? You'd be too lazy even to find out.

Mr. Speaker, GAIN was $38.88 for every person who needed that supplement. The GAIN supplement, when they came in in 1976, was $38.88. What do you think it is today, Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1981, when they're about to take off on their four-month holiday? What do you think their supplement is today? It is $38.88, exactly what it was at the end of 1975. And the Minister of Human Resources had the gall to stand on the floor of this House and say that they've raised the bus passes because the bus passes have never been raised before, and the senior citizens are living in the lap of luxury and so they should be able to handle an increase in the bus pass.

They haven't increased the supplement that they pay to the senior citizens, but they've certainly increased every charge that they've ever placed on the senior citizens. You know what the senior citizens are doing? For the first time in the history of this province, there are more senior citizens leaving this province than coming into it. Now that should tell you something. Young people always leave the province looking for work, because they know that this government is too lazy to create any jobs. The young people have always had to leave this province. The seniors used to stay, but they're not staying any more. They can't hack the increases. They can't afford the increases in utilities, in their heating, in their housing.

There's a little cafeteria, Mr. Speaker, called "The 44," which is specifically designed to feed people who are in receipt of the GAIN supplements or income assistance or on fixed income of some sort. They've increased the cost of food to those people. The Minister of Human Resources, when she

[ Page 6783 ]

justified that, said the same thing: the food hasn't been increased in a long time. But neither has GAIN. They have not received one single increase since they came into office in 1976. Can the Minister say the same thing about the perks and the benefits that the minister receives? Can she?

If she had to make do with her 1976 salary, would she be taking off on a four-month holiday now after ten days of nothing? Would she? No, she wouldn't.

Mr. Speaker, if that government is serious, as the Premier said, about work and wages rather than welfare, if that minister is serious about putting everybody to work....

The greatest waste....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent on us to remain with the subject matter before us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, please hear me out without the interruptions from the other side. There is every opportunity to discuss the estimates for the Minister of Human Resources when they come before the House, and certainly now is not the time to get into the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you keep the hon. members in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Again, it might be an appropriate time just to refresh ourselves with the actual motion before us. May I just briefly read it for the benefit of all. The motion is:

"...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."

Hon. members, that is the motion before us. We must not allow ourselves to enter the same latitude of debate that we had in the throne speech, or the debates that have just gone by. I would ask all members to bear that in mind, as both the present member and the previous speaker have done.

MS. BROWN: I will certainly carry on in the footsteps of the speaker who spoke before me, because I know he didn't go out of order even once. So I will certainly follow his example and stick to the motion, which is the reason why we must not adjourn. We cannot adjourn, because the work that we came here to do has not been completed. As much as we regret the demonstration of laziness on the part of the government, as much as we regret their inability to concentrate for longer than six days on anything, and despite the fact that we recognize that they really would like to get started on their four-month holiday, we cannot permit that to happen, because the people of British Columbia have work that must be done, and it has to be done by the members of this House. So we're just going to have to carry on.

In speaking to this motion, I can only address myself to the issues which I came here to work on and the issues which I came here to raise, and which must be raised before this House is adjourned. They are the reasons why I am speaking against this motion to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the senior citizens who sent us here to work and fight on their behalf. The first point I raised had to do with the Pharmacare program, which is now going to penalize them, and on which the government will make money. The second point I want to raise is the SAFER program. In each of these, I want to reiterate that the government goes around talking about the universality of these programs; how universal they are; how they help so many people and they do so many things. In fact, when you get to look at the programs, you find that that's not what is happening after all. Look at the budget for SAFER in 1978 and 1979. It was $12.2 million. In 1979 and 1980 it dropped to $9 million. In 1981 and 1982 it's still $9 million. Why is that? Because, for one thing, SAFER doesn't kick in until a senior citizen is paying more than 30 percent of their lousy benefit on rent. They don't get any assistance at all until they're paying more than 30 percent of their benefit on rent. Secondly, the base at which SAFER kicks in does not have any relationship whatsoever with the actual rent that seniors have to pay.

The House cannot adjourn until we pay attention to the kinds of things that the Council of Senior Citizens organization in B.C. are saying. They have called upon the government to re-examine SAFER so that senior citizens do not have to pay more than 25 percent of their income on rent. I remind you again that the federal government has an incremental increase in terms of what the senior citizens receive, but the provincial government has not given the senior citizens of this province one red cent over the $38.88 since they came into government in 1976. Chuck Bayley himself wrote in an article in Primetime in April of this year in the Vancouver Sun that Safer was becoming less and less helpful because the number of people who are eligible under the formula lagged far behind the actual rents. The problem is that rent goes up, but SAFER doesn't kick in to help.

It is easy for a government to create a program which gives some level of assistance. The fact that the amount and current rates don't bear much relation over time to the reality is hidden by the political posturing of the Minister of Human Resources and her colleagues, who go around and talk about the brilliant programs and the wonderful things this government is doing for the senior citizens. In fact, in 1980 there were 13,000 people who were in receipt of SAFER, and this year it's down to something like 866 couples and something in the neighbourhood of less than 10,000 single people.

The senior citizens recognize that, and it's because the senior citizens recognize that, Mr. Speaker, that they are leaving the province. I think it is disgraceful at a time when our senior citizens are being penalized. They cannot make ends meet when they're finding inflation — increases in the cost of housing, food, transportation and utilities — deliberately brought on by this government. All of these increases are making it impossible for them to make do on that lousy $38.88. This government has the gall to come here, Mr. Speaker, and spend ten days doing nothing. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Go to a ball at Government House, dress up in their tuxedos, pick up their paycheque and tell the world that they're going on holidays for four months." We cannot tolerate that; that is just not good enough. It's not just that they're lazy, but they also lack compassion. They have no care whatsoever for the people in this province, who unlike themselves.... And the Minister for Municipal Affairs now goes home to bed. He said his two bits and he goes home to bed. How many senior citizens cannot sleep

[ Page 6784 ]

tonight, Mr. Speaker? How many senior citizens cannot sleep tonight, because this government is shutting up shop and going on holidays for four months and not addressing themselves to the fact that they are asking for that amendment to the act to be brought in so that senior citizens don't have to pay more than 25 percent of their income on rent.

What percentage of income do any of those government members pay on rent? Do any of those government members pay 25 percent of their income on rent? No, and that's the reason, Mr. Speaker, that they can take a four-month holiday. They can take off for four months in the sun, in the lettuce patch, up north, down south or wherever. They can take off for four months because none of them have to put up 25 percent of their income for rent.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A quarter of a million dollar house on Rockland Avenue? Well, he probably needs a four-month holiday to recover from that, so we can understand it.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to stay here and work; I came here to work. I'm not satisfied with the ten days of nothing that we just went through. That's the reason I'm not supporting this motion. You should be fighting with your government on behalf of your colleagues in the IWA. That's what you should be doing. Instead of that you're voting yourself a four-month holiday. There are 15,000 colleagues out of work and you're going on a four-month holiday? Mr. Speaker, I know that 15,000 of your colleagues are not out of work. They're here, aren't they? But 15,000 of the colleagues of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) are, and that member is voting himself a four-month holiday after six days work and ten days of nothing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Anyway, I'm still speaking on behalf of the senior citizens, Mr. Speaker, because there is no one here — certainly not on the government side — who is prepared to speak on behalf of them. The SAFER program was just the beginning. You know, the senior citizens asked for increases in the SAFER benefits. They asked that SAFER benefits not be cut off from one spouse just because the other spouse had died. Do you know what they got? They got a telephone service. Now they have a phone to phone in and say....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The number is no longer in service, not for four months anyway. This line is out of order until March 1. That's what they'll get when they phone that information service. So all the complaints that they have about the bus pass and the lack of increase in their GAIN and about the SAFER and Pharmacare and all those other expenses can't be dealt with until that bunch of dilettantes over there come back from their four-month holiday — all brown as nuts from their four-month holiday in the sun, Mr. Speaker. We really can't support this. Even the auditor-general isn't taking a holiday.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: She works; that's right.

The auditor-general was so concerned about the Ministry of Human Resources that in her report tabled in this House in March 1980 she voiced a number of serious concerns about the way in which the income assistance program was being run and about the on-line computer system there. In the report she tabled in the House, the minister responded by saying that a formal view of the income assistance computer system has been carried out by consultants, and this report was going to be completed by October. We anticipated that it would be released in October. October came and October went. November came and November is gone. December is here, and we understand that everyone is getting ready to go home and won't be back until March. What's happening to that auditors' report? When is it going to be tabled in this House? The minister has it. I know the minister has it. Why hasn't that report been tabled in the House? We can't pick up and go on a four-month holiday until we find out what the auditors had to say in that report.

I wonder if one of the reasons the minister hasn't tabled that report is that the main findings and recommendations of the Currie, Coopers and Lybrand management audit of the on-line income assistance system are:

1. The objectives and goals of the system are not clear; the major features desired by the district offices have been omitted — further bungling and incompetence on the part of that lazy and inept minister and her government.

2. This finding was that the best use of the currently available technology has not been made — further bungling on the part of that inept and lazy government and minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Standing orders and the precedents of this House, which you have placed in my hands in order to assist you in your debate, say: "It is not in order to go into subjects in any detail. They can only be advanced as reasons for not adjourning." I'm waiting to hear some more reasons, rather than some more detail.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I'm not going into details. I'm just touching on the findings. First of all....

I can't believe this. Mr. Speaker, there are only six government members who are not home in bed. There are only six government members still awake, still around, still in this House. Of the cabinet ministers, there are only three here — who shall remain nameless. All the others have left, at a time when we are finding out from the auditors' report about the bungling going on in the Ministry of Human Resources, when we are finding out about the problems of senior citizens, when I'm about to talk about the problems of the disabled, to say nothing of the problems of infants being kicked off Human Resources because they're over six months of age. There are only six government members in the House. There are only six government members working. They're not even working, because one is rubbing his eyes and the other is sleeping.

However, the auditors' report on the on-line system said that the Ministry of Human Resources is not organized to get the job done. The lines of accountability, the roles of personnel, and responsibility for control of the project are unclear. That's the reason the report has not been tabled in the House. It has been devastating. It has been an indictment of the ineptness, incompetence and bungling that goes on in that Ministry of Human Resources.

[ Page 6785 ]

Something you also may not know is that, in fact, the Minister of Human Resources has already wired the system in order for it to be in place. Money has already been spent thousands upon thousand of dollars to put this on-line computer system in place, which the auditors now tell us is not able to do the job. They recommend that it is not designed to accommodate the needs of the user to the level possible, and that the ministry should redivide the project organization and related accountability. Do you know what the ministry has done, based on these recommendations? After spending thousands of dollars putting the system into place — having it audited, being told that it was totally out of order and that it wasn't doing the job — they have scrapped it. Mr. Speaker, I don't know, but I want to remind you that in this article in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, November 28 the minister said: "In times of ever-increasing costs it is essential that my ministry take a hard, look at how it spends taxpayers' dollars to ensure that they will go where they will do the most good." Putting in an on-line computer system costing thousands of dollars and then scrapping it.... Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that that was being careful with the taxpayers' dollars? Would you say that was taking a hard look at how the taxpayers' dollars were being spent? Would you say that that was ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars were going where they would make and do the most good? As I said, I am not going to table the report. I am not going to discuss the report, because that's not allowed and I don't want to be out of order.

But I do want to bring to your attention that I cannot vote for adjournment until March until we've cleared up this issue. We have to find out from that minister how much money was spent on the wiring for that on-line system. We want to know what it costs and we want that translated, Mr. Speaker, into how much is being taken away from single parents to pay for that bungle. How many fifty-five dollars had to be sucked out of the pockets of single parents to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How many thirty-five dollars had to be taken away from families on income assistance to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How many senior citizens had to pay the increase in their bus passes so that there was enough money to cover the cost of that Human Resources bungle? Because you know what happens when Human Resources bungles and wastes money, Mr. Speaker. The poor are the ones who pay for it, not the government members over there. They are the ones who pay for it — the senior citizens, the disabled, the infants over the age of six months and the single parents. They are the people who are being told that they must go to work so that the ministry can make money off their labours to pay for this kind of bungling.

After the auditor-general brought in her report, the ministry assured us that a study was being done that was going to be tabled in this House. It hasn't been tabled and we find out why. When the minister says that there is no money that's going to be made from taking away from the poor the $55 a month which they haven't got, or the $35 from the single parent families.... Now they won't make any money because that money has to go to cover the cost of this kind of bungling and ineptitude on the part of that incompetent ministry and that lazy shiftless government over there,

Mr. Speaker, the association for disabled persons in British Columbia has asked us to come to this House before the International Year of the Disabled comes to an end and ask that the Human Rights Code be amended so that their rights are protected and they no longer have to suffer discrimination because they're disabled.

We can't adjourn this House until March. That has to be done now. We want the Minister of Labour to bring in that Human Rights code and to bring in that amendment. We want to see the Human Rights code amended before the International Year of the Disabled comes to an end. December 31 is the last day of this year of the International Year of the Disabled. The minister who has been responsible, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), has done little enough, so may he rest in peace. But one of the things that the disabled people ask for and have never stopped asking for was that they be treated exactly the same as everyone else in this province. That's what they've asked for. They have asked that in the same way that the Human Rights code forbids discrimination based on age, sex, race or marital status. They ask that their rights be protected too. Now is that too much to ask this government to do before it takes off on a four-month holiday? Is that too much, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that my time is up. Very quickly, I just want to read into the record a letter which the Minister of Human Resources received from the council in Lake Cowichan. It said: "Dear Madam Minister:

"At the last meeting of council, I was requested to write on their behalf to express their dismay and protest the recent changes to the GAIN program. Council is not happy with the reduction in benefits and the interpretation of 'employable' for the following reasons:

" 1) Even if one were to agree that single mothers should be working, there are no job opportunities for women in Lake Cowichan. The 27 applicants received from unemployed women for the village's one secretarial vacancy last month is evidence of this.

"2) Day-care facilities in Lake Cowichan already have up to a two-year waiting list, and they are unwilling to accept children under the age of three.

"Last year, the Island Shake and Shingle mill, through a fire, displaced many employees. Last week Western Forest Products announced the closure of their Honeymoon Bay and Gordon Bay operations, displacing 357 employees. The immediate future for many people in this area is not bright, and for those people requiring social assistance it is even more dim. It is not a time to make social assistance more difficult to obtain, and we would urge your reconsideration of this matter."

I cannot, Mr. Speaker, support this motion to adjourn, because for the first time in 60 years of social services in this province, the money for income assistance is being cut back and the family is being undermined, threatened and dismantled.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind members to observe the relevancy rules as they continue. I recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there are two and a half million reasons why the official opposition cannot vote for this motion. Each and every one of those reasons is a citizen of this province. With the exception of those members in this House who were Social Credit Party members previous to 1975, I'm not surprised that the government members didn't come to this House with any idea of helping anyone. I am surprised, though, that Social Credit members prior to 1975 can vote for

[ Page 6786 ]

this motion, because Social Credit, like our party, Mr. Speaker, even though we have our differences, believes that government is an instrument that should help the people, not hinder people. We had different ideas, the old Social Credit and the old CCF, of how we would use the instrument of government to help people, but we both believed that government should. Not the Liberals and Conservatives over there; they don't believe in it. Look at the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Can anyone honestly believe that he believes government is an instrument that should be used to help everybody — not just the few, not just the elitists, not just the rich?

Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of people in this House. There's one group that looks at the future and, especially this winter, sees it as pretty bleak. The other group looks at this winter and the future and they see it as pretty bleak. We agree on that. But should we do something about it? Should we use the power of the state to actually help people over these coming months? Should we actually use the power of the state to help the economy in this province? We on this side of the House believe yes. But on that side, every time those government members get up to speak they do nothing but bad-mouth the state. They do nothing but bad-mouth government. They don't like state and they don't like government. Mr. Speaker, what would it be like if they actually had their way and there was no state? They're so fond of standing up in their places and talking about the evils of the state. If, for one moment, they would stop and think about the barbaric state we would be in without the modern state, and without democracy, maybe they would spout a different story. Just maybe.

The Premier stands in his place in this House. I've heard him and other members over there time and time again talk about how the state takes away from the individual. If only they'd read history. Without the state, individuals have no right except the right of the sword, the mighty, the rich. Without the state we are barbaric. Without the state we are not civilized. The reason that they don't think they should help is not that they don't want to; they're not bad human beings. They just honestly believe that the state should not help people. They believe that the government is only there to make sure that the state doesn't interfere with people's lives, whether it's good or bad. They don't believe we should.

They don't really believe that there is a role for government to play at this critical time in our history. They don't believe that the state has any business interfering with the economy. Well, we believe differently. We believe it is the obligation of the state to husband, nurture, guide and make sure that the economy serves everyone. What could be done? Over there, they have not one positive suggestion as to what could be done. It's a little inconceivable that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) stands in his place and lays out a program of putting IWA members to work in this province, doing something that should be done on behalf of the state, and therefore on behalf of the people, and they have no positive suggestions. They believe that you set the climate, and that you set the climate by not doing anything. But the state is there to do nothing. We saw a throne speech in the last ten days that proves that's what they believe: the state should do nothing to help people.

One of my earliest memories is my father getting up in the morning and going out. It was during the Depression. They used to dig holes and move the dirt down the road and pile it there. The next week, they'd get up and they'd take the dirt and put it back in the hole. They believe in that, because that's dole. They believe in welfare, but they don't believe in sharing.

Why is it, you have to ask yourself, that a group of human beings would come into this Legislature as government, in the most trying times since the last Depression, and offer not one bit of hope, not one bit of help for the coming months? It's because they believe it's dog-eat-dog. They believe it's a cruel world out there. They believe people should help themselves, and by God, if this government's in power they'd better learn to help themselves, because they'll get no help out of that bunch.

They are willing messengers of the rich. I love the words "free enterprise." They used to be called capitalists on that side of the House until it became a bad word, and then they changed it to "free enterprise." It's got such a nice ring to it. It's free and it's enterprise. They're not capitalists over there any more. They like to yell over here: "Socialist! Socialist!" But maybe we should start calling them by their right name. Capitalists. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), shakes his head and says that's right.

There are other words that get changed in time. When this kind of economic state first hit us, it was called "panic." Then it was called "crisis" because panic got a dirty name. Then it was called "depression." Depression became a dirty word, so now we call it "recession," and now some people call it a "downturn, " and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) over there calls it "hard times." Hard times for whom?

We know that we're wasting our time here tonight. We know we're wasting our time if we expect to get results from that government; but we're not wasting our time speaking on behalf of the people of this province. I don't believe that the people who are working in this province or the people who are in business in this province agree with what the government is not doing. I can't believe it. As legislators, we meet with some of the top business people from the biggest corporations in this province. And not once have I heard the insensitivity towards the working people in this province expressed.... Not by those people — they feel sensitive; they have to work with those people; they work for them and with them. But this group doesn't have any sensitivity towards what people are going through.

Does the Premier have sensitivity? Well, I guess it's easy to feel that it's a dog-eat-dog world and only the fit will survive when you've been born with that golden spoon in your mouth. It's not that big a feat to walk into the bank, when you're the Premier's son and your brother's a director of the bank, and get a little old loan to get you going or tide you over for the winter.

But when you're all alone.... Maybe you've just moved out here a year ago from New Brunswick — one of the people they're always talking about. Maybe you're somebody who saw an opportunity in British Columbia to come out, raise a family, send your children to school and make a living — not with all the connections that any of us in this Legislature have got. We're going to survive the winter and we're going to do it very nicely. But what about the people we represent? Who is going to help them survive? Who is going to get them through the winter?

I believe that that government is so callous they won't follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Do you know why? To put people into the forests to help replant trees, clean creeks and do all of those things that need to be done would take money out of the

[ Page 6787 ]

provincial coffers; but to leave them idle and collecting unemployment insurance takes money out of the federal coffers. It's as simple as that — no help from this government because they would rather see idleness than productivity; they would rather see federal tax dollars spent than provincial. Even if they're on social assistance, part of the money is picked up by the federal government. So it's not a bad deal for that group over there. No matter which way you slice it, the feds have to pick up a big chunk of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust the member will soon relate this to the motion.

MR. LEA: I'm relating it, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we should not be adjourning this House, because that group over there is irresponsible and will not do what people want them to do. I do not believe that there are any more than 30 people in this province — and I exclude you, Mr. Speaker — who don't think the government should do something, except the group over there. Maybe in the back bench, I don't know. But they want a cabinet post so bad they can taste it, and they're not even going to represent their own people.

What about the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) ? Is he going to vote for this motion? Is he going to vote that we leave this Legislature, and all of those people in Kootenay riding who don't have enough food, who don't have enough money to pay their mortgages, who don't have any hope over this winter, who are going to have to spend Christmas — not like we are, sitting around our fires and our trees with our children and our presents.... No, they're not going to be doing that, but the member for Kootenay is going to vote for this motion to get out of here without doing one thing for his constituents.

What about the new member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond)? What does he think of it all? Is it what he expected? Did he expect to come down and take his place in this august chamber, and then go home to Kamloops after ten days of doing nothing, having to tell his people: "I didn't do anything for you, because I'm in the back bench and I have to vote for them. Some day I want to be a cabinet minister. Isn't that important for Kamloops?" I tell you it's more important for Kamloops that those people have a Christmas turkey than that they get a turkey in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how those people stand up in the morning and look into that mirror and shave, if they do shave. I don't know how they get up in the morning and look into that mirror and comb their beards. I don't know how they can look in that mirror and look themselves straight in the eye and say: "We did the best for our people in British Columbia." How can those backbenchers say, "We did the best for the people we represent, " when after ten days of doing nothing — not one program for the unemployed, not one program to put them back to work — they want to go out of here voting for a motion to come back in March? How are they going to explain it, Mr. Speaker? How are they going to explain that we came back into the fall session of the Legislature and left without doing one thing for the economy or for any individual who is up against it?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says we're going through hard times. The Premier admits it, because no one can deny it. We're going through one of the roughest winters in the last 30 years, and at the same time we have said to single parents in this province: "You're going to take a cut. Now, the reason you're going to take a cut is so that you're going to have the opportunity of going out and finding a non-existent job." No training.

I've got a positive suggestion, Mr. Speaker: instead of putting people on social assistance and then offering them no hope, why don't we give them a little bit more money and put them into some training programs? Why don't we say that down the road we're going to need these skills in British Columbia? What better source do we have than the unemployed? What better source do we have than single mothers? What better source do we have of people who can be trained to do the jobs in industry?

The downturn isn't going to be forever; it's going to pick up. We all know that because we've all got faith in British Columbia; we've all got faith that things are going to get better. But when things get better, Mr. Speaker, surely the very people who are suffering the most now deserve a chance at that better life. What are we going to do? Cut down their money, with no training and no day care? That is unfeeling, and it's insensitive.

Did you see the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, when he was being interviewed by the press, and he kept insisting that we weren't in a recession, or, as they used to call it, depression; as they used to call it before that, panic; as they used to call it before that, crisis? He said: "Well, no, we're not in a recession; we're in hard times." The reporters pressed the minister and said: "But when you have two quarters in a row where there is a downturn and no growth, isn't that a recession?" The Minister of Finance said: "Well, I guess economists would call it that, but our government calls it hard times." We call it hard times too. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's harder for some than it is for most of us. It's hard enough to get along these days with the inflation when you're making money, when you're working for a living. It's hard enough to make the old paycheque stretch, Mr. Speaker, when your mortgage can double overnight, when your groceries can go up $100 a month from one year to the next if you have a family of four. Those are hard times, Mr. Speaker, and because those hard times are not in the future but here with us now, this opposition cannot vote for a frivolous motion to skedaddle — to run, to offer no solution, and not come up with one program.

I never thought I'd see the day when I thought it would be a bright outlook to hope for the old dole that the federal government used to dish out during the Depression, but those days are looking pretty good for some people. Mr. Speaker, for the length of this throne speech the government has stood over in its place and said: "We don't know what to do. Don't you in the opposition have any suggestions? We're out of ideas." When we give them an idea, they say: "No, not that one. That will cost us money, not the feds" — planting trees, cleaning out streams, making fish habitat a better place to be. Look at some of the things that can be done in public works — jobs that mean something to our society in the long term. It is not dole, but paying out taxpayers' money for jobs that need to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you as a family man: does it make sense? Let's equate the economy of British Columbia with the family. Really that's what it boils down to. It's the same thing. The numbers are bigger, but it's the same story. You can use the analogy. We have people out of work, and what are we doing? We're building Pier B-C, B.C. Place and northeast coal. Every time we point to those projects with some criticism the Minister of Science says: "Are you against them? Okay, tell us what they are. We'll tell the people. In 1933, 1937, 1944." It makes a cute speech.

[ Page 6788 ]

Take the average family, when times get rough. The family may have planned to build an extension on their home — a worthwhile thing. It's like B.C. coal — a worthwhile thing. It's like B.C. Place — a worthwhile project. A convention centre in Victoria, Vancouver and in other communities — worthwhile projects. But surely when times are rough on the family, regardless of how much cash flow you have to buy groceries for the table, you don't go out and build the extension to the house anyway. You'd probably say: "You know, it's a worthwhile thing that we were planning on doing — building the extension on the house. But while we have only enough money to feed ourselves and to put clothes on our backs, maybe we should cancel the extension on the house for a while — not forever but until the mortgage rates come down and until we can afford to build." Not these birds. They say: "We don't care whether our children get fresh fruit. We don't care whether our family has a nutritious diet. We don't care whether they have rubbers for the winter. We don't care whether they have fare to go to school. We don't care about all those things. The extension on the house is more important than the everyday requirements to get through this winter."

Does it make sense? Could anybody in his right mind say that it makes sense? The extension on the house might bring a better way of life in the future, as will the convention centre and the stadium and a sensibly planned coal export. All those things are good for the future, but you don't go ahead when you don't have any money to put food on the table for the people of this province. It just doesn't make any sense. Yet they like to think of themselves as the common-sense group, the people who know what a buck is. Obviously they don't.

Is there any one of them who would run his own personal affairs the way they are running the affairs of this province? I doubt it. Is there any one of them who would go ahead with the extension on their house at the expense of a nutritious diet for their children? I doubt it. Yet when they get in government they can't seem to see the forest for the trees — that's no different. The extension on the house and B.C. Place and Pier B-C are no different.

I can't honestly believe that they see the difference. They do. But the political opportunism that brought them together as a group of opportunists won't let go of them, even after they've had power for six years. They can't bring themselves to realize that they aren't there just to be there; they aren't there just to keep us out. Not everything goes to keep us out. That's why they got together in the first place. It's not because they had a common goal; it's not because they had a common dream; it's not because they had a common perception of what the future should hold in this province for the citizens and our business community and for the handicapped. No, they came together for a negative reason: they came together to keep the NDP out.

Now they want to go home. They bring a motion before this House saying: "We want to go home. We've been here for eight days. We talked about the throne speech. There's going to be a conference in the spring that will solve the economy. We're going to have coal going out in 1984; that will help people this winter. We're going to have big sports games in the stadium in Vancouver; that's two years away, and will be a big help. Oh, if we can just get Pier B-C on the way, won't that be great? The answer is yes, they will all be great, and they're needed. But they're not needed this winter when people are suffering.

One of the members here said one of the positive things that you could do is bring in a program on interest rates like they did in Saskatchewan. I heard Premier Blakeney said: "Well, you know, the banks may be a little mad, but our obligation is to the people of Saskatchewan." That's because Premier Blakeney doesn't owe the banks anything. These people owe everything to that group, because when you take a look at the directors of the banks, you see that it's the same people who pay the campaign funds to make sure they're here.

Now if you take money from the very people who are setting the banking policy in this country, then you've got to suffer the consequences. And that government and that political party over there can't seem to understand that when those people who are the captains of industry and the banking system in this country give them money to get elected, they want to be paid back.

There's only one thing they have to pay them back with, and that's the resources in this province that belong to us all in a commonwealth. They take our common wealth and they give it to a few, for their own personal desire to get into government, which they hate. They don't like government. They don't like the state. They think the state should keep out of everything, and what the state doesn't keep out of, the government should. The only reason they want to be in power is to maintain and perpetuate the status quo. And after ten days of nothing, they have succeeded in perpetuating the status quo: do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I can't figure out why they want to be here. I can't figure out why the government wants to be the government when they don't feel that they should be doing those things that the government should do. Are we so cynical that we have to believe that they want to bring a motion to get out of here because they're just in it for the money, or for the prestige, or for their egos? Why do they want to be the government?

You know, I think I'd go on the election campaign trail with that. That would be enough. Why do they want to be the government? They don't think the government should do anything except set a climate. And even there, they've failed, because the major projects that are underway in this province are underway with taxpayers' money. What climate was it that brought in all of this foreign money to invest in this province? Where is it, Mr. Speaker? What kind of a climate did they set? They must have set a pretty bad climate, because I don't see the entrepreneurs and the financiers coming into B.C. to invest their money under Social Credit. They actually had to resort to spending the taxpayers' money to get the economy going. Is that the climate they were talking about — the climate to spend the taxpayers' money in subsidizing private industry?

Yes, that's the kind of climate that the free enterprisers — no, I'm sorry, the capitalists — like. The free enterprisers may be a little bit different, because they're modern capitalists and believe in a mixed economy. In six years these people have not shown one reason why they should be in government.

I remember a by-election a few years ago where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Peter Hyndman) ran and lost. He ran for the Conservative Party. After that election, he sent a letter to us. He sent it to my colleague,, our leader, and said: "Boy, at least one thing: we kept the Socreds out." We still have the letter on file, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6789 ]

I don't know why. What change of heart! What a change of mind! What made that politician change his mind in such a very brief space of time? I think it was probably a couple of weeks later that he joined the Socreds. If you can't beat them, join them, and for what — to come into this House and for ten days, give us nothing?

Mr. Speaker, if we leave here now, this will be the winter of our discontent. Because if we leave here without doing anything for the people who need our help, not as political parties but as a Legislature, as government, government backbenchers and opposition members.... Are we so damned uncivilized that we can't talk to one another? Are we so uncivilized that we can't come up with a plan among all 57 of us here that wouldn't be one little bit of hope and help for the people? Are we so partisan that in ten days the government could do nothing but talk about the evils of socialism? Are we so bankrupt of ideas and integrity that we put all of that stupid, political partisanship in front of the people of this province? Have we fallen to the depths of that, that that government doesn't care as long as they're there? Until this session I didn't believe it, but how can we not?

After ten days we're going to leave the people of this province destitute of hope on interest rates, on jobs and in some cases on food. A cutback to us doesn't mean that much. The federal people bring in a budget. We have to pay a little more income tax; it means we can't go to Hawaii this year. But for some it means no meat on the table. Don't you understand that, Mr. Speaker? That's what it means to some people. A cutback to us means putting the new car off for another year. A cutback to us means postponing our holiday, not buying the new suit or only buying one suit instead of two. That's really what the cutback of the federal budget means to us as middle-class and upper-middle-class wage earners. I don't mean that in the class sense, only in earnings. It doesn't mean that much to us.

I saw John Crispo, an economist from Simon Fraser, on the Webster show last week or the week before. He said: "Yes, the federal budget is going to hurt me; I probably won't be able to keep my hobby farm." He said, "It savaged me, but I'm not sure I should have had it in the first place" — that tax break, that loophole.

You know, we're going to be just fine on that side of the House and on this side of the House. We're working. We've got a paycheque. Probably most of us have got a bit of savings. We've probably got some credit we can still go and get. It's all too easy to forget, but I think probably most of us can remember, if we think, that we weren't always in this shape. We couldn't always get through the winter without a bit of help from somebody — our parents, our friends, our neighbours. Have we forgotten that soon that just because we don't need help now there aren't others who do?

Has anybody here spent a Christmas with no turkey and no presents? Probably most of us have at some time during our younger years had something like that happen to us. But, my God, Mr. Speaker, do we want it to happen to our neighbours because it happened to us when we were young? I don't think so. I don't believe that the people of this province are anywhere near as callous as the government that represents them. I just don't believe that the people of this province want us to leave this Legislative chamber without doing something for the needy, without doing something for the unemployed — they don't. And yet we're going to, because the majority votes in here are government votes. We're going to leave, having done nothing.

When I said that this could very well be the winter of our discontent, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) laughed. It must have been real funny. That's the first time I've seen him laugh in six years. But I'm going to tell you that unless we do our duty, unless we do what we were elected to do — and that is to help the people in this province when they need it — our winter of discontent will see people doing things that they would never have dreamed of before. It's easy.... We on this side of the House believe that there should be social assistance, because we believe that we should help our brothers and our sisters and our neighbours. On that side of the House they believe in welfare, because if you don't give them something, you can’t sleep in your big house at night and feel safe. That's the difference. We believe in a civilized society in every way — not just socially but economically. That means we share, because if we don't we're barbaric and if we're barbaric we're not civilized. And if we're neither of those, we're Social Credit. Somehow this group of people over here feel that there should be constitutional law and order.

The only reason for constitutional law and order is to get a civilized, orderly society. When you act in a non-civilized way — and a non-civilized way means not sharing, not being neighbourly — then you will get disorderly conduct in your society and you will lose the thing that democracy stands for: civilized behaviour. The only way we can be civil to one another is to know where the next meal is coming from and where we are going to sleep tonight. Take those two things away and you will take away civilized behaviour. If it starts over here it won't be long before we are completely taken over by uncivilized behaviour.

We had a chance in this Legislature to help people, to act civilized. We've missed that chance, and now they want to go home. Mr. Speaker, we cannot vote for this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition. I would remind the hon. member before he begins that we are on a motion and that the scope of the debate is rather limited.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome your advice and I want to tell you that I intend to keep the scope of the debate within the very narrow confines of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he spoke.

I rise to speak against this motion, which I was not surprised to find coming after the formality of the throne debate. I am still trying to fathom the high-school antics that went on this afternoon, when the Premier got up and deliberately took all the time before I got up to speak. One wag in the corridor — and I'm not suggesting somebody who interfered in one of my press conferences; it was another wag — Mr. Speaker, suggested to me that the Premier didn't want me to speak. I can't believe that after all they have been saying about the democratic process, about how they wanted to hear from all the members before they shut down after seven days and went home.

Mr. Speaker, if we vote for this short work week that we have, it will be known as the eight-day fall. When we expect the working people of this province to show prudence and wisdom and work harder, the demonstration given by this government is that we come here for seven days, with two days off for the weekend. We've done our little thing here, and we're to go home with this message ringing in the ears of the citizens who are close to losing hope, who are desperately

[ Page 6790 ]

asking for leadership, who want some decisive action from a government, other than blaming Ottawa.

The only thing that we've got for those people is that little line in the throne speech of the debate that's now over. I want to read you this line, because I want to tell my friends there has been some comfort for those people out there who are facing the doubling of their mortgages, facing the loss of their jobs, hoping for the government to do something. They can go to bed tonight with these words from page 5 of the throne speech ringing in their ears: "My government is meeting this cyclical downturn with realism, with compassion and with a profound optimism about our medium-term economic prospects." What does that mean? That means that anybody who is now faced with the doubling of their mortgage can just take in a copy of the throne speech to the banker and say: "Look, I'm going to meet my mortgage payments with compassion and a profound optimism about the medium-term prospects of the bank. You can do without my money for a while." You can go to Safeway or the supermarket and say: "I don't have cash, but my government has compassion and profound optimism. Can I pay my grocery bill with that?" When it's time to buy gifts for your kids at Christmas, just go into Hudson's Bay and say: "If you're big business and you support Social Credit, will you take my chit that says I'm meeting this request with realism, compassion and profound optimism?"

That's all they said: one brief line about a serious economic downturn in this province, that is, without a doubt, compounded by the fact that world markets have turned down — something they have no control over. But it was only latterly that they found they had no control over the downturn in world markets. When they were in opposition and there was a far smaller downturn, they blamed the government of the day. Now here we are, six years revisited, and there's a downturn in the economy. Who are they blaming? The Prime Minister, the international marketplace and everyone else except themselves. I'm going to come back to that, Mr. Speaker, because we must stay here and we must defeat this amendment. We must deal with the deliberate policies of this government in creating this situation.

Who are we talking about tonight? I enjoyed the banter. I enjoyed the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) particularly. He was trying to figure things out. That was the most honest speech we've had from that member — a confession that he still hasn't figured out what's going on. I want to tell you what the consequences are of him not figuring out what's going on. I want to read into the record what's happening to people in this province. There are people in every single constituency represented in this House who voted for representatives to come here to fight for them, and there's not a single peep, not a word, not a whimper, not a sound from the government on behalf of these people.

MacMillan Bloedel — 1,900 workers have been laid off. Port Alberni has been hit particularly hard within the last few months. Has there been a single word from the government benches concerning the workforce at Port Alberni being laid off? B.C. Forest Products, Port Renfrew — logging and sawmill — 300 workers laid off on November 20, 1981 — 300 workers with families in that small community. Sooke Forest Products, 150 workers laid off on November 6. Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., 150 workers laid off on November 27. B.C. Timber, Nelson, B.C. — plywood plant — 150 workers laid off on October 23.

Peace Wood Products, Taylor — in the Socred haven of British Columbia, where we used to have outrageous, screaming speeches from those North and South Peace River members about the fact that there was no drilling going on during our term of office. What drilling is going on now? Not a peep out of the minister. Not a peep out of that member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). They want to close shop and get out of here, just like the oil rigs got out of North Peace River. Perhaps they want to follow the oil rigs south, and find out why they went under Social Credit. Social Credit scared them out of British Columbia. Do you know why I say that? They used to say socialism scared them out of British Columbia. If they said that, then I'm entitled to say Social Credit scared them out, am I not? Of course, both statements are absurd. The simple facts of economics forced them out. This government has not lifted its little pinky to deal with any of these problems. There were 175 workers laid off in Taylor. Did you get any letters from Taylor that were happy that you went to the state ball — the second one this year? Two state balls in one year. If anybody asked me what the purpose of this session was, I can honestly say that, well, it was an excuse to have another state ball. They want to get their money out of their tuxedos. Perhaps they rent them on a six month basis, use them twice a year and turn them back over Christmas.

Federated Cooperatives, Revelstoke, 175 workers laid off, November 1981. Doman at Cowichan Bay and Chemainus, 71 workers laid off, November 1981. B.C. Timber, Hazelton — in the great north that is booming — 100 workers laid off, November. B.C. Forest Products, New Westminster — plywood plant — 250 workers laid off. B.C. Forest Products, Annacis Island — plywood plant — 25 workers laid off. B.C. Forest Products, Victoria — plywood plant — 212 workers laid off. Western Forest Industries, 357 workers laid off at Honeymoon Bay. Not a word, not a murmur, not a sound about it; just compassion and understanding. Balco Industries, Kamloops. Kamloops, where they have a brand new MLA, who spent a lot of money in a campaign saying he was going to come down and fight for the people of Kamloops; and we haven't heard him say a single word on behalf of those 150 workers laid off.

Yes, it's great fun to have the Harris manipulation and the Kinsella heavies and all that junk you've piled on with the taxpayers' money. But when you're asked to produce for these people who stand to lose their homes and the little equity they have in the holdings they have, what does this government do? It calls us down here for seven days and says: "Shut up, boys. Collect your paycheque and go home."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm going to come to that, my friend. I'm glad you raised that. I'm going to come to that, because I have a great number of things to say while I'm on my feet.

Lamford Cedar, New Westminster, 100 workers laid off. J. H. Huscroft Ltd., Creston — a sawmill with 65 workers laid off. Wynndel Box & Lumber, Creston, 80 workers laid off. The total number of forestry workers who've been laid off in these few examples is 4,480. You want any reasons why we're here tonight saying: "Get off your duffs and get something done"? There are 4,480 reasons why we say it.

I wish I could give better news about the manufacturing sector. Windsor Machine Co. Ltd. in Victoria — chain saws — 70 workers laid off. They got their notice today. They're

[ Page 6791 ]

through on December 23, two days before Christmas. Merry Christmas from Social Credit. Spear and Jackson, Vancouver — saw manufacturers — 49 workers laid off. Simonds Cutting Tools — saw manufacturers — workforce reduced by half. Manco Home Systems Ltd., Agassiz. My good friend from Dewdney, how are you going to sell them cars if they haven't got jobs? I haven't heard a peep out of you about the closure and the layoffs in Agassiz — 135 workers laid off by a mobile-home manufacturer.

I'm sorry, Mr. Member. I apologize. It was Mr. Eckardt who took Agassiz away from that member and gave it to Chilliwack. Somebody slipped on that road map and got you in trouble. What have they got against you, Mr. Member?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we'll deal with that later.

Van-Can, Victoria — chain-link fences — 12 workers laid off. There's more, Mr. Speaker, but I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to these next two. Vanguard Trailers, 75 workers laid off in June of this year, Guess where? Kelowna, British Columbia. Who is the MLA for Kelowna? Has he spoken about this? Where is the MLA for Kelowna? That would be the more appropriate question. Frontier Manufacturing Ltd., Kelowna, 41 workers laid off. Here's a few more, and pages and pages that can never tell the story of human misery behind every single case of these hard-working people who pay the taxes in this province to keep this government going. Not a word, not a peep, not a murmur. Just close this place down, shut up, get out of here and let's hope it'll go away.

Panco Poultry; Cargill, 333 workers laid off. And it's not as if you didn't know about this one. It's not as if the opposition didn't tell you. It's not as if the opposition didn't warn you. It's not as if the opposition didn't advise you of the alternative. You sold out to an American corporation that deliberately set out to close this plant down and buy the marketplace over the long haul. It's the same story of wreckage of marketplaces for indigenous industries in this province by multinational corporations since day 1. What will they do with their losses? They will write those losses off in their taxes, laugh all the way to the bank, and then flood their products in from the United States, while they try to sell it to unemployed people from Cargill.

Labatt Breweries, 80 workers laid off in Victoria. Western Professional Film Laboratories, 28 workers laid off. Air B.C., 50 workers laid off. Cominco, 23 workers in their exploration department laid off. DeKalb Mining Corp., 70 workers laid off. Highland Valley is part of that.

On and on, and the list is growing every single day. We've been here seven days and what is their answer to that growing list? Close this place down, shut up, bury their heads in the sand — preferably in Phoenix desert sand — and hope that the problem goes away. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we know that your majority will eventually have its way in closing down this House, but I tell you I have never been more proud of my group or the traditions that it's had for over 45 years in this House than to tell you here tonight that you don't give a damn about the people, and we're going to make sure that the people know that that's exactly what your attitude is.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to repeat the speech of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but I do want to quote again from the same line in the Speech from the Throne, because my good friend talked about the single mothers, and how those members over there who aren't lactating should go to work. In this day and age, Mr. Speaker, that kind of statement has to be made by that member in the face of increased travel by cabinet ministers, increased cuckoo plans like the longest pipeline underground from here to Vancouver — cuckoo-land plans that they spend $100,000 on, the longest exhaust pipe in the world — and they want ideas. Well, I've got an idea: pay back the money you wasted on the study for that exhaust pipeline. Do you know who's paying for that? Every single-parent mother in this province who is having her welfare cut back by $55 can know that she has helped pay for that study in cuckoo land for the pipeline directly to UBC.

Do you know why that member called for an election today? He can hardly wait to get out of here and get back to the university and sniff that good old formaldehyde in the surroundings he understands — sterile, septic, no emotions, no need to care for people. "Let the riff-raff out there find their own way in the maze — I'm pickling brains out here at the university. I've got my welfare grants for my research. Loffmark secured my pension — Grace can't cut mine off for the threat not to run again. Loffmark won the case — I'm safe; I get my pension; I go back to university." Mr. Member, I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, because that's against the rules of this House, but I make an observation of some of your comments today. You were a proud leader of a once proud Liberal Party.

If somebody had said to me that I would witness in this House.... Never mind the new members. Never mind that, Mr. Member — we're talking about a little bit of time and space that soon you'll be out of. Soon you will be in that cocoon, nurtured in the protection of the ivory tower of the university, away from this rough and tumble of real life. But before you go I want to tell you that if somebody had told me that I would witness the day that in the wind-up of the throne speech one of the defenders of Social Credit in the province of British Columbia would be none other than Patrick Lucey McGeer, a minister in that government, I would have called that person a liar. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. The reason I would have done that is because I read his book. The moving hand, having writ, moves on, Mr. Speaker, but the moving politics will never be nailed down. I don't mind the Premier defending the gobbledegook of Social Credit; I don't mind the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) getting kicked around and losing his manhood to the Premier; I don't mind the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) sitting still in his seat while the rest of that group stood up like automatons applauding, but when I saw the minister stand up and applaud the younger Bill, it was a bit much. This is a little private exchange; I don't want the press to report it, but I'm disappointed in you, my friend. The least you could do is show some sanity and keep your mouth shut. You're the one who should have got Kinsella's advice.

Just a little side-lecture that is out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to come back to the motion. Mr. Speaker, why are we in this mess? We are told we are in this mess because it is the Liberal government's fault. Well, is it the Liberal government's fault? Yes, it is. Who is it that advocated those monetary policies of the Liberal government today? It is this Social Credit group over here, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to tell

[ Page 6792 ]

you something about beds and who is sleeping with whom: that group is in bed with the Trudeau Liberals and monetary policy and has been so for the last three years. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it's a crowded bed. Right next to Joe Clark is Pierre, and right next to MacEachen is Crosby, and trying to find a little space in the blanket is our Bill.

And how did Bill get a little space in that bed with Trudeau?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, no, they didn't find him sleeping there. They let him in the bedroom after he delivered this speech, "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada, the British Columbia Position" by Premier William R. Bennett, in February of 1978.

Now we are feeling the effects of government monetary policy that developed over the last five years, a monetary policy that has been developed in this country long before Reagan got elected, with the same slogans, and long before Mrs. Thatcher.

May I make an aside, Mr. Speaker? Correct me if I shouldn't. But do you remember the old days when Labour was in power in Britain? We used to hear during every single session that the socialists were ruining Britain. Maggie Thatcher is putting the socialists to shame, Mr. Speaker, Maggie Thatcher and her economic policies are ruining Britain. I don't hear a peep out of them about Maggie. We don't hear a single word about Great Britain any more — not a sound, not a whimper.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's true, ducks.

Now I want to read to you from page 13 — I think it's an appropriately numbered page, Mr. Speaker — and show why I'm opposed to this House getting out of here. I want an explanation from the government why it said the following. Why did you support this policy of high interest rates when you said: "Monetary policies, alterations of money supply and interest rates have powerful but complex impacts on Canada. The Bank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is largely in harmony with this view, should be supported"?

In 1978 they said: "Move away from long-term mortgages." Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when they used to have mortgages that lasted for 25 years? Can you imagine the sanctity of a contract that they used to talk about? They actually signed mortgages for 25 years. Do you remember the gobbledegook that they used to give about the sanctity of mortgages when they were in opposition? They supported the policy of removing those 25-year mortgages. Now we're down to five-year, three-year and one-year mortgages based on Social Credit support of the federal government's monetary policy.

Do you know any other time in our history when the whole nation waited for two events every week — the Provincial lottery on Friday and the bank rate on Thursday? The weekly bank rate is of as much interest now to the Canadian citizens simply because the fluctuation of that bank rate destabilizes any long-term planning that any single family can do. And what do we get from the government? "Compassion and understanding," when they supported that exact monetary policy themselves. Hypocrisy? No, Mr. Speaker, it's known as Social Credit politics.

My good friend, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), did me the favour of digging out this statement by the Premier. He pointed out to me that the federal government is now being chastized by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who's not in his place. Earlier tonight we got into this game about who was in here and who was not in here. Where is the Minister of Finance? Where is the Premier? Well, Mr. Speaker, they're not here in this debate. You would think that they would sit here and defend the government's decision to close the House down. We haven't had a word out of them.

We had the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is still trying to recover from the disaster of the speech he gave to the ladies' auxiliary of the Social Credit convention. We all remember that speech, don't we? That was his leadership speech. He upset Bill so much that he couldn't even show up for the dinner the following night.

Mr. Speaker, have we heard anything about this economic policy that they endorsed? It makes Gerry McGeer look like a flaming left-winger. Remember that famous uncle, Gerry, who used to slam away at the banks? He sat in this House, sat in the federal House, was part of the memory of the very chamber walls here, the very struggle that British Columbians have had since that time against the very ruthless role played by the central banking system — the very speeches made by Liberals in the west, now sitting as Socreds.

It ill behooves you to attack the federal government, because the federal government is only putting into place what you asked them to. Is that the way you treat people who do things you want them to do? You've got some nerve criticizing the federal government when you asked them to do it. You asked them to cut off their share in provincial funding of programs. Now we have the Minister of Finance going back east and saying: "Oh, my goodness, the federal government is cutting off money."

Where did they get the idea to cut off the money? They got it from the Premier, when he said: "In addition, the expansion of spending levels of provincial governments has increased, and their impact on the functioning of the national economy, likewise the transfer of tax points to the province in lieu of cost-sharing programs, has further strengthened the potential of the province to affect the performance of the economy." I want to read this again, Mr. Speaker. This was their position in 1978, when they agreed that the federal government was to cut the federal tax share in funding federal-provincial programs. They signed the accord in 1976 by consensus. They agreed, as government policy, that they wanted the federal government out of tax-sharing programs. They said that the transfer of tax points to the province in lieu of cost-sharing programs had further strengthened the potential of the province to affect the performance of the economy.

Well, the economy is in a nosedive, and they're demanding that the federal government restore the sharing of the programs they demanded the federal government cut. It would have been better if they'd got on the phone and told the feds quietly: "Pssst! Cut off the federal funding, because we can strengthen the provincial economy with our own tax points." The Premier and this government can't have it both ways. They asked the federal Liberals to adopt exactly the policy that they're complaining about. That's the first time I ever heard of a government complaining that another government did what they asked them to do.

Hypocrisy? Certainly not. I wouldn't say that, because it's not allowed here. But there are some people out there who might be angry enough to say: "How can this Social Credit

[ Page 6793 ]

government have the gall to go in front of television cameras in this province and say that they are against the federal government's formula of cutting shared programs, when they were the ones who advocated it and asked for it and signed the accord because they said they could strengthen the provincial economy." I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say those students better behave themselves. Oh, and those hospital workers are asking for too much. We've got to cut down home care. Whose fault is it that they signed those accords? Who was it who said they wanted that program? That government over there.

I'm proud to remind this government and the people of this chamber that when the federal government first came to the New Democratic Party administration with the bonus payment on the tax-cut formula, and the shared-program formula, we said: "No deal, " We said that yes, we might make a few bucks in the short term. But the reason why I'm opposed to this amendment to close the debate is that we must have an explanation of why they sold out for those short-term gains for the long-term pain that we're now having. I want to tell you I'm very proud of the philosophy adopted by the cabinet and the caucus of that day. They said that even if British Columbia benefited temporarily, we would never be a party to the destruction of basic health-care programs such as medicare; that if we had to pay a little bit more in any one year to benefit the Maritimes or some of the poor provinces, there wasn't a single British Columbian who would be opposed to it.

But even we did not predict the day that by falling for that tax formula, programs in British Columbia would be threatened — based on a program espoused by that government. I'm going to come to how they're threatened, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to come to tax accountability. I'm going to come to questions that have yet to be answered on the floor of this chamber — how money is being spent in secret by this government, shovelling it out of departments into massive projects with no accountability. That's a serious charge, and the reason I make it at this particular moment is that I'm opposed to this amendment which would block the expose of how they're shovelling money out of the back of the Minister of Finance's office while they're cutting programs.

One last comment on this report, and then I'll go to the results of their policy and why I'm still opposed to this amendment. This is what they said in their paper to the federal government. This is when they climbed into bed with the Liberals and got so enthusiastic they almost shoved them out of bed for a while. The Prime Minister actually climbed back into bed with the Socreds, it got so bad. Love at first sight, temporarily unrequited after a few months with the Tories — no change in policy, just bed partners.

This is what they said, Mr. Speaker: "The industrial strategy of that government would be based on two principles. First, competitive market forces rather than government policy would be relied on to set the level of activity in particular sectors over the long term."

Let me read this slowly so we understand exactly how we got in this pickle, exactly why these people are unemployed and exactly why this industrial strategy was fostered in this country and spawned by that government. Let me repeat, "The industrial strategy ... would be based on two principles. First, competitive market forces rather than government policy would be relied on to set the level of activity in particular sectors over the long term."

Well, Mr. Speaker, before I go on to the next line, how does that square with BCRIC's disastrous purchase of Kaiser's coal mines in southeast British Columbia, and this government taking $1 billion, most of it unaccounted to this House, and pouring it into competitive coal mines against BCRIC in northeast British Columbia, contrary to the policy you advocate? Where's the private gamble up there? As my friend from Prince Rupert said very clearly, where is the outside capital that you capitalists have attracted to this province? Not a penny.

You have the most generous welfare program, the capital support, of any administration competing in the coal industry. You have no idea what the Australians are doing. You have no idea what the Americans are doing, and the Japanese have every idea what they're doing. It is so incredibly stupid, but it is based on the policy contradiction of Social Credit as they announce where they're going.

I'm going to come to the Premier's homilies today. I really love some of those homilies. He's going to let people have a piece of the action. Do you remember hearing that?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, take it easy. Okay, I'll accept your word for it. The last time we used to hear those stories about, "We've got to let everybody have a little piece of the action...."

MR. BARBER: BCRIC.

MR. BARRETT: It was BCRIC, that's right. That experiment that has been an absolute disaster was not mentioned once by the Premier today, but all the rhetoric around it was mentioned.

MR. LEA: He's got a brick for a heart.

MR. BARRETT: No, my friend. He thinks that he can privatize something else in this province and tell them that the shares are worth 11 bucks and they're sold for 6 and are now worth 3, but when he was put to the test in this House of whether or not he would accept BCRIC shares as legal tender in payment of a debt to him, he said: "Not bloody likely." Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. He turned down BCRIC shares because he knows what they're worth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would assist the Chair if the hon. member would relate his illustrations to the motion which is before us.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to relate it to the motion before us, because I want the House to go a bit longer. I want to ask the Premier if it was Kinsella's idea to turn down the shares, or did Kinsella not get to him in enough time? What are we paying him 65 grand for?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Abbott and Kinsella. That's Doug Heal in the basement. What ever happened to Doug Heal and the money we're paying him? What ever happened to those Hollywood advisers who told him not to go on television with frizzy hair, or that other one not to go on television because he goes off the deep end, or the other one not to go on because he needs a shave?

[ Page 6794 ]

If the people of this province weren't suffering, we could have a lot of fun just talking about how stupid this government is; but guess what they've done? They've called us back for seven days and said their piece: "Have compassion. Now go home and don't bother us." Are there problems? Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil, not in this chamber, no, no, no.

The Minister of Finance, who refuses to stand in his place in this House during this debate and give us some accountability of every penny going into northeast coal, goes to Vancouver and announces in Vancouver — not in this chamber, but to non-elected members, after they told the elected members to shut up — "Boys, it's a little rough. We've got to goose the taxes, and we're going to call the House back the first week in March."

See all those books on the Clerks' desk. Somewhere in all those mouldy books, somewhere in all those rulings...

AN HON. MEMBER: Is a mouldy Clerk.

MR. BARRETT: ...is a mouldy Clerk. No, Mr. Speaker, I would never say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Somewhere in all those mouldy books is there not a ruling that the Finance minister's announcement on fiscal policy should be made in the House, not outside the House?

Back to the quote. "Second, industrial policy would be set so as to facilitate, not prevent, changes in the relative level of activity between sectors." Did you hear this? Let me read it again. "Industrial policy would be set so as to facilitate, not prevent, changes in the relative level of activity between sectors." That means that if you've got a coal mine in southern British Columbia and all the roads and schools are in and the transportation is in, you don't open another coal mine with taxpayers' money to subsidize new towns and roads so the profit can flow out in competition with what already exists. Australia knows that. They knew it when they wrote this paper, but they didn't believe in it. Now they want to adjourn the House. Policy would not be designed as it has been in the past to maximize or maintain production and employment in each sector. In other words, we have employment in one sector. Instead of maintaining employment in that sector, we decided to give it some competition within our own jurisdiction. This is the biggest pile of malarkey and boondoggle economics of the nineteenth century given to the federal government with the advice that Social Credit would support it. The federal government embraced them in their economic bed. It has been chaos ever since. When they are called to account, they say it's all the federal government's fault. It's true, it is the federal government's fault, because they followed Social Credit advice in the first place.

We talk about the time of the session and the motion to get out of here. There's nothing more to talk about. They want to get out in seven days. Do you remember the last emergency session, my friend? Do you remember what the emergency was? Related to this particular motion of adjourning the House, I think it's important to recall the last time we were called here for an emergency session, other than the time when Social Credit seized the old B.C. Electric. Do you remember that? Social Credit seized private property in this province. Guess who was against it? One of the most brilliant speeches I heard was from the former leader of the Liberal Party, when Social Credit seized private property — nationalized, seized, expropriated, took away, stole with sweeping powers, embraced it in the public domain and kicked the shareholders right in the teeth. We had a special session for that seizure of private property. Who voted against it? The socialists voted against it because they respected the rights of private property. Who voted to seize it? That gang over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you the designated speaker?

MR. BARRETT: It is to my honour that I refer the Speaker and the member who is wise in the rules to check page 17. Motions and debates on motions have a designated speaker, and I am he. Just read the little red book; it's not Chairman Mao, even though you belong to a group that seized property in that special session.

What was the second special session that we had to rush in here for, Mr. Speaker? I remember. Do you remember? I bet you that if we gave a test, half of them over there wouldn't remember what the emergency was. Do you know what it was? It was the constitution. The whole country was on the edge of falling apart. The whole country was disintegrating, but our Bill came here to the special session with a resolution that we had to debate immediately because the unemployed wanted a resolution debated, because the people on welfare wanted a resolution debated, because industry wanted a resolution debated saying that there had to be unanimity in dealing with the constitution. The Premier got up and said: "That's my position. I'll go for nothing less than unanimity." We had that little meeting called together, and we wasted a lot of dough. We were sent home and the government voted for unanimity. We voted against it. Guess what the government settled for. Almost unanimity. No one should dare read the Premier's speech back to him. I can't think of any worse punishment than reading some of those old speeches of Bill's back to him, even if some of them are partly coherent. You know, it is incredible that the leader of this government and this province called an emergency session to play politics with the constitution and abandoned his position as soon as the politics turned sour on him, but he wants to close this place down when the unemployed are demanding some action by the government to resolve some of the economic problems.

For two years after he advocated those ruinous federal policies, he ran around this country ignoring the economy, ignoring problems at home, ignoring suggestions from the opposition and saying that the most important thing he had to do was settle the constitutional issue. Then he discovered something — the light went on. In the Times-Colonist of August 12, 1981, the Premier said: "Constitutional matters were never a priority of the people." Is it true? Yes, that's what he told a press conference. " 'The economy and particularly high interest rates are the first concern of the Canadian people,' Bennett said." On August 12 he discovered this. September and October went by. The last week of November came for the throne speech, After he discovered that high interest rates and the economy were bothering people, we came here for six days and we heard not one word of a position this government was going to take in solving some of the problems that they belatedly discovered in August of this year.

[ Page 6795 ]

Isn't it funny that they can call together an emergency session in a matter of hours to deal with a constitutional matter, because the Premier wanted to put his position on the record — which he latterly denounced? But when people are suffering and it calls for some decisive action by a government with guts, who is the last one to show up here? After at last showing up here, who is the first one to want to go home? It's that lazy government over there which doesn't want to do a bit of work.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I say lazy. Two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve cabinet ministers not in their seats tonight. Only one of them defended this motion to adjourn. The rest of them are hiding in their offices hoping that this will go away and will all be a forgotten memory. They don't have the guts to stand up here and say: "This is what we believe in. This is what we want for the people. This is what we intend to do." They just say: "We have compassion for you, and we hope that you get through Christmas."

MR. LEA: They're sending Christmas cards to the unemployed.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there's the Minister of Labour signing those gilt-edged Christmas cards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Gilt? Oh, no.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they're sprayed with gold on a toothbrush. I bet he learned how to do that in grade 3. And he's been spending his time in the front seat of his brand-new Mercedes. It's not a broken-down Mercedes like my friend has. How does a cabinet minister buy a $40,000 Mercedes on his salary?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't know. You tell me. I saw it in his parking spot. I bet it's all piled up with gilt-edged Christmas cards that he's been signing away in his Mercedes. It says: "Love to you from Victoria, written in my Mercedes in the balmy weather while you're unemployed in Mackenzie." Why don't you stand up, Mr. Minister, and tell us what you're doing for the people of Mackenzie other than writing them a few Christmas cards? I hope they're on thick paper. At least when they burn they might last a little longer for fuel.

Seriously, Mr. Member, when was the last time you were in Mackenzie? When was the last time you went into your constituency and spoke to those middle-class small businessmen who voted for you? They've been on the phone telling me that they're losing their businesses. There are foreclosures, and the banks are calling the notes in that town. They'd like to know what the MLA is doing for them. I'll tell them what the MLA is doing. He's sitting here tonight signing Christmas cards saying: "Merry Christmas. Write me if you have any problems. Address unknown."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You've got some nerve, you member for.... Where are you from anyway? You're from somewhere. You're the first or second member for Surrey — whatever. You've got some nerve.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Numero Uno.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you'd like to be. And you say it in Spanish because you know Bill can hardly speak English, and won't understand what you're saying when you say: "Numero Uno." Oh, yes, my friend, we know why you're pushing this motion. You don't want to look any worse than you have so far. If you have to speak again, other than that pious pile of junk you got up and peddled tonight What is the opposition doing?" I'll tell you what. I'll take your request to heart. Resign, get the hell out of the way, and we'll show you what can be done in this province. You've got about as much warm blood in those veins as an icehouse. You stand up in this chamber, and you make nonsense speeches. Sit down, my friend. We sat through your speech. Now you sit down and take the heat that's coming to you before you close this House down.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're very familiar with the rules. I'm wondering what all of this has to do with the motion to adjourn, and I would ask that you address the member and ask him to pertain to the subject matter before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister does have a point. Throughout this evening there has been some latitude. But it will assist the Chair if the speaker refers to the motion and draws his points toward the motion which is before us, which is: "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 in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your guidance, and because of your guidance I will keep my debate in the exact, narrow confines that the member who has complained kept his in — somewhere within the same bounds. That member is a paragon of following the rules, as exemplified by his particular contribution to this debate — talking about meetings in Alberni, and all those things related to the adjournment. I'll just stick to those same things.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll take the advice of that learned member, who is an expert on the rules of this House. He simply does not recognize that the government is elected to govern. People expect them to govern. For him to give a pious, silly little speech saying, "What have you got to offer?" to the opposition, without putting forward one single new idea of his own, is a minister admitting that his own government is bankrupt and is incapable of showing any.

He did mention one policy proposal of mine, and I want to clarify his error: it was not exclusively my proposal. The Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia was not a proposal supported exclusively by me when I was Premier. The records will show that seven sitting cabinet ministers spoke positively about that initiative as an alternative method of financing in this province back in 1975. This was a bill that seven presently sitting Social Credit cabinet ministers embraced unto themselves. When the division bells rang, they voted for it, and included among them was the Premier. Did he vote for that bill for political purposes, or did he vote for it

[ Page 6796 ]

because he believed in it? We can't question the motivation, Mr. Speaker. But we can certainly bring to mind, in opposition to the adjournment of this debate, that we don't want to leave here until we get an explanation as to why seven Social Credit cabinet ministers voted for that legislation that is still o n the books, supported it, spoke in its favour, and then, when they came into office two months after they were elected, they were given a report as to how to implement this idea that they voted for, and they have kept the report on implementing it secret since February 1976.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I say to that member, when you make an appeal to us and ask where the new ideas are, there are ideas that you spoke of that were voted on by seven Socred cabinet ministers. You've kept the report secret ever since. And I tell you when you ask, "What is a new idea?" I say that you don't even know what you're committed to. You don't even have the determination to follow through on policy that you voted for. That's a fact.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much money were you going to put up?

MR. BARRETT: "How much money were you going to put up?" I'll tell you how much: as much money as you're pouring out the back into northeast coal.

Now we're getting into the essence of the debate. Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty as to why we should stay here. Now the minister doesn't say he's opposed to my idea any more, because he's discovered that his colleagues voted for it. Now he's asking how much it costs. Release the secret report and we'll all find out how much it's going to cost. When he gets into the hallway, he'll say it costs too much money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us about it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it's right there in Hansard. You voted for it. After you voted for the bill, we set up a committee between the Finance department and the B.C. Central Credit Union. To implement the bill, we asked that committee to give us a report. We told the House that that was the procedure we'd follow, when the government members who were in opposition voted for it. They said: "That's a good idea. Let's have a committee study it." Yes, the committee studied it, and they gave the report to the Social Credit government in February 1976. That's the secret report I'm referring to. You've deliberately hidden a report on a measure you voted for that would give mortgage relief to hundreds of people in this province. You've got the nerve and the gall to stand up here tonight and say there are no ideas? Come on, tell us about it. You go and ask the Premier why he's not releasing that report, so we can put into effect the idea you voted for.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You've got the floor. You tell us about it.

MR. BARRETT: If you're refusing to do what you should do as government, then quit. But don't yell over to me to release the report. You're the ones who are sitting on it.

Before we leave, I'd like to ask some questions that need to be answered before any vote is held on this motion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us about it. Don't change the subject.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I've got the minister's attention. It's the longest attention span I've found. You go and ask Bill for a copy of the report. I don't mind the interruption, Mr. Speaker. It's at a level I find amusing, but it hardly shows any serious intent behind that minister's vacuous speech, in terms of dealing with ideas to solve some of the problems.

Before we leave this chamber, I'd like to know how much money from general revenue has been spent by this government on northeast coal. I'd like to know from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) if any money has been diverted from their voted funds to go into the northeast coal project. If so, how much? How was the money diverted? Have there been any roads built up directly for the northeast coal project which have come out of the regular highways budget and caused potholes to be neglected elsewhere in this province? If that's so, tell us. I see the Minister of Highways smiling. Just nod your head, Mr. Member, if you're willing to tell us how much money has been taken out of your budget and tunnelled into northeast coal.

Mr. Speaker, they want us to adjourn the House without accountability for tax dollars that I charge have been diverted from the intentions of the vote in this House — to be spent on general purposes — into northeast coal so the cost can be kept down and buried out of general revenue. I make that accusation, and I ask the government to deny it. I ask any single cabinet minister to get up in this chamber before the vote is taken tonight and tell us and the people of British Columbia, when he is supporting this motion — which is, in effect, closure, after a piddly seven days here — if one penny of any single vote that we passed in this chamber in the last year for general purposes, under any one of their votes, has been diverted to the northeast coal project. I'll give them 30 seconds to fess up.

Before we vote on this amendment, I'll ask the Minister of Highways: is any of the money that we voted in this chamber for your department been diverted to the northeast coal project?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the answer.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he can guarantee this House that no money allocated for general purposes in any of his votes, to serve existing municipalities around this province, has been diverted from that purpose and spent on northeast coal.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It has gone, has it? Has your ministry spent any money on townsite preparation for northeast coal?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, there's no nod there.

When you other MLAs get a letter of complaint about the condition of highways and the holding back of grants to municipalities....

[ Page 6797 ]

I make this charge in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker. Those services normally accepted out of general revenue and taxation votes in this House have been diverted from department after department after department and buried in that sumphole up there with no accountability to this House. Perhaps I am going way out on a limb in making that charge, but the charge is clear. I challenge the cabinet ministers to get up one by one in their places and tell this House that to their knowledge not one penny of their funds has been diverted to that northeast coal project.

The other question I want answered before this House is adjourned....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: We're not dealing with your money — through you, Mr. Speaker. We're dealing with money we take out of the hides of the taxpayers of this province, and we're being told outside this House that more money is going to be taken out of their hides.

To this day, what is the total expenditure of public funds on the northeast coal project? Do you know who else wants the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who raised some important questions months and months ago about this project. He wrote letters to the editor about those questions he had. Before I leave this chamber on this debate, I'd like to ask that member if he has had satisfactory answers to the question's he has raised in his letters to the editor. That member can't go in the cabinet room any more. He can't even call the Premier "Bill" any more — as if he was ever allowed to. Only a few can do that. Has that member had an answer to his questions about northeast coal and the expenditures there? Just nod your head, Mr. Member. Silence.

I ask the minister of universities, technology, high industry and the chip manufacturer if he knows how much they've spent on northeast coal. He's gone. Here today, back to being Dr. Chips tomorrow. He can hardly wait.

When I ask these questions, who is it that I'm reminded of? It is said that this chamber is a place where we should avoid secrecy. Who is it? It is none other than the Premier of this province, who said in his 1978 paper on government: "In order to achieve the objectives of the proposed economic strategy, the share of the nation's resources dedicated to governments must be reduced." Did you hear that? "The share of resources dedicated to governments must be reduced." We've got to give them away as fast as possible to initiate our economic strategy. That's creating a climate. Come and get it, gang. We're going to give it away.

The paper continues: "Moreover, the growth of government in the future must be controlled in line with the public's desires." Did you hear that one, gang? Listen to that. "To accomplish this, governments must adopt effective procedures for financial management and must be made more accountable to their electorates." Who said that? The Premier of this province. And they want to close this House down before we have any accountability for the amount of money that has been siphoned off by departments into the northeast coal project.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have you got a point of order over there?

MR. BARRETT: What is that? Oh, my good friend is holding up a pillow. Mr. Speaker, that is the most productive work that Minister of Housing has done for months. He's holding the chamber up by leaning against the wall.

What about the housing program that has been announced for weeks? We've waited for this program. Seven days in November and nothing. Now they want to close the place down. They can hardly wait for a four-month delay, so we can have another state ball and they can prance around again up there in their tuxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. BARRETT: I refused to go. I will not participate in that charade. One state ball at the taxpayers' expense is enough for me. You can't pour booze in forever for free and think that you're fooling the people. My dear friend, it was symbolic to me that in a time of economic turndown, at a time when this province is desperate for leadership from a government and at a time when we call the House back for a throne speech, going back to the free booze trough at Government House twice this year is your answer to dealing with unemployment. I'll have none of that.

You just came off a $100,000 cabinet tour through the interior. You had free food and free booze. "Listen to your problems, " I'm going to get to that too, and why we shouldn't adjourn here. "Listen to your problems." What a joke! What about those mothers in Lumby who wanted to come in and see the cabinet? They were told that they didn't write for an appointment so they couldn't come in.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We saw them.

MR. BARRETT: You saw them, eh? You did, but did Bill? You're a nice guy. Just tell the newspaper up there to print a front-page story saying that Zalm saw them. I'm sure those mothers will be happy to know that they saw you. They're a very nice group of ladies. They're taxpayers. All taxpayers are very nice, Mr. Minister. The ones who don't complain when you gouge them are the nicest ones of all.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister loves me. But whether he likes it or not, I love him. I'm going to come over and give him a big kiss on the cheek.

Now that we've established that, my friend, and we're still good friends, why aren't you doing something? Why didn't you stand up tonight and say: "As far as I'm concerned, what I'm going to do as Minister of Municipal Affairs is create a winter works program in every municipality in this province and I'm going to spend money. I'm going to say to those municipalities.... Because I'm a lovable person, and I like to speak to the Social Credit ladies' auxiliary in homilies and clichés, I'm going to say to the unemployed that we're going to give you a chance to go to work in the cities and towns of this province cleaning up, beautifying and painting?" Do you know why you can't announce that, Mr. Minister? Because every single spare penny you've got has been tunnelled into northeast coal, and you know it.

You didn't announce that tonight. You got up and you made a fool of yourself, and that was not difficult to do. Why don't you do a hard thing, like thinking and doing something for a change instead of sitting there?

[ Page 6798 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against northeast coal?

MR. BARRETT: I am against giving welfare to the Japanese when our own people are unemployed here in British Columbia.

The Premier spoke about unemployment, and he was going to send us home with his statistics and his announcements. He said he created 60,000 new jobs in British Columbia this year. I heard him say that unemployment is at an all-time low. What he should do is tell Mr. Kinsella to abolish the provincial Ministry of Labour, because the latest B.C. labour report is making a fibber out of the Premier. He has enough trouble with that without another ministry adding to those troubles. Unemployment in British Columbia for October 1981 is 105,000 — up 25,000 from a year ago. That's almost 25 percent more unemployed than a year ago this month in British Columbia. Did we hear the Premier say that? They want to adjourn the House and get out of here, because they don't want to talk about that.

I want to quote something else, Mr. Speaker, and I rarely do this. Here is a B.C. Business Bulletin. It arrived only yesterday. It has a nice logo: "B.C. Business Bulletin, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development." Who is that one? I would like to quote from that ministry's report released yesterday. Doom and gloom? Downturn? Bad news? I couldn't come up with anything as bad as this. But this is what he's telling us when the Premier has said things are wonderful: the numbers of unemployed, rising; the amount of timber scaled, dropping; retail trade, dropping; numbers of employed, dropping; imports through custom ports, dropping; factory shipments, down the tube. The only thing that is up in the six important economic indicators from the ministry's own statistics is the percentage of unemployed. It's going up, up, up. What am I quoting from? I'll ask leave to table it before the motion is voted on. I'm quoting from the B.C. Business Bulletin, issued by the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

The Premier is telling us things are rosy, and this minister's latest report indicates that the number of employed is down and dropping rapidly; timber scaling is down and dropping right out of the graph; retail trade is dropping rapidly; imports through customs ports are dropping rapidly; factory shipments are going off precipitously. The only thing that is up is the unemployed. Who am I quoting? So help me, wash my mouth out with soap, Mr. Speaker, I am quoting a minister of the Crown. Now who's telling the truth, the Premier, or that minister? You decide, Mr. Speaker. You ask us to support 'a motion to close this House down when we receive a report like this 24 hours before we are to close after a seven-day session?

MR. KING: Shoot the messenger.

MR. BARRETT: Shoot the messenger? No, that minister doesn't deserve that fate.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that this government speaks with one mouth through the Premier, but issues a report from the minister that, in effect, calls the Premier a fibber. Now, Mr. Minister, you shouldn't do that. Can all those people in the ministry who drew up these statistics. Call in Kinsella. Tell them to shut up; we'll do it the Ontario way. If the news is bad, we won't release it at all. Mr. Speaker, why bother pretending? I'll bet you that these charts don't show up in the Socred mailing machine from Bernie and the boys. "I don't want the newspapers to quote from the government. Just quote the Premier. It's much more comfortable."

There are cutbacks, shortages, everything. But is the government telling the truth to the people of British Columbia all the time? Is the government keeping the people informed all the time of what is going on? I mentioned why I am opposed to adjourning this debate. The minister went to Vancouver and told them how things were. Has the government in this session told us how they are driving the taxpayers of this province into deadweight debt at a rate never before experienced in this province? B.C. Hydro, this year alone, $700 million.

Now I want to read something to you, Mr. Speaker, about what they tell the Americans, because they are required to by law. You see, they have in the United States of America the Securities and Exchange Commission, and before B.C. Hydro can borrow any money they have got to tell the truth as to what is going on. I'll read these figures and you'll get an idea why they want to close the House down, why they want to rush this motion through. Information from the British Columbia Hydro registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Committee as of March 31, 1981: the total direct and guaranteed debt of the province, net of sinking funds, was $7,990,400,000. It has almost doubled since they have been in office, since 1976. The debt has almost doubled under your administration.

What are the projections that B.C. Hydro must honestly answer about the province's financial condition when they have to file a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission — not told us here in the House during the throne speech, not mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), not even referred to by the Premier. What is it that they told the SEC? "In the fiscal year 1981-82 through the fiscal year 1985-86 the province will borrow a further $9,586,000,000" — approximately $3,600 per person in this province. They are going to double the debt in this province in the next five years, and they have not given one single explanation in this House as to where that money is going. They are mortgaging the future of British Columbia, putting future generations into debt, with no accountability to this House, and we have that cliché speech from the Premier saying: "We would never put the future in debt."

If he made that statement in the United States of America, in the face of what B.C. Hydro has filed, the Securities and Exchange Commission would want an inquiry into who is telling the truth, the Premier or B.C. Hydro. I don't believe that British Columbia Hydro would dare give false information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, because it would not risk its credit rating. It is telling us something we can't learn anywhere else — not in this chamber, not in the debates from the minister, not in the speeches. It is telling us that in the next five years the Social Credit government is going to borrow $9,586,000,000. And what's the accountability? A seven-day session; get out of here,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's Rosemary?

MR. BARRETT: Where are your brains?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

[ Page 6799 ]

MR. BARRETT: Clever, Mr. Member. You know, I try to contain my sense of humour. When you were a Liberal I used to laugh at you. Now you're a Socred and I still laugh at you. Nothing has changed. How do you justify sitting over there with the old speeches you used to make about accountability and debt? I have never heard you say a single word. A year ago I said — and I repeat it — that the one member of the Liberal gang who walked across that floor and has maintained a thread of self-respect is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Even today he didn't stand up and applaud the Premier, and he has yet to say one word publicly supporting the Premier. He was the only one who didn't stand. Even he has some limits. But when I see the former Tories and former Liberals all standing, oh, boy.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've got a little more time as designated speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: All the time I want? Thank you very much, Mr. Member.

I want to deal with a typical problem that I picked up in my travels throughout British Columbia in the low profile areas of the outback. Yes, my friends, in the area where there's not the big city television and where the big city reporters don't often venture because their hard-hearted employers won't given them a travel budget to leave downtown Vancouver. It's not that the press won't travel into the outback; it's just that the mean old employer is Scrooge-like, so they can't cover those tours. My good friend from Atlin (Mr. Passarell) had a reporter with him, and it was great. Good coverage. It's beginning to be understood, by those excellent reports throughout the papers, how other people in British Columbia live.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this province don't have all those big city amenities that we're so used to, but because they are of pioneer stock and they believe in the stories of this government — that it is in the rural areas of British Columbia that the pioneering work must be done — they provide all the tax money that fills the coffers of this government so it can build that bauble downtown for the big city dwellers.

Mr. Speaker, before we leave tonight I want to recount to you how sometimes these small city folk go to their MLA with a local problem and say to them: "We're not asking for the moon or the stars; we're just asking in this case for a little simple health clinic." It's true that as much as we have an excellent health-care program, there are some areas in this province where there's a shortage in the health-care delivery system. It's true. Our minister tried his best and did a wonderful job. The present ministers tried and they've overlooked some areas.

I'm talking about correspondence with the minister, the hon. Pat Jordan, who is the MLA for North Okanagan. Mr. Speaker, 44 local organizations made up of local citizens in the Lake Country Health Planning Society have asked their MLA to please help them establish a health clinic in their area. I've met with them twice. What has been my advice to them? Please work through your MLA. She's very busy, but I know that she should be given the opportunity to respond to her mail and deal with this problem. Please work with your MLA. If you want to send me copies of the letter, by all means do that. If you want to prod the minister a little bit, I would suggest you use a device that has been very successful in other instances. Put "copy to Dave Barrett, Leader of the Opposition," on the letter.

Some ministers who are wise see the opposition has been advised of a problem and quickly get on it, because they don't want any heat. It's good politics — logical and sensible. That's the way to use the Legislature. Very good stuff. They've done that.

Mr. Speaker, this correspondence goes back week after week, month after month. They met with the minister — a very brief meeting — and they laid out their problems. The minister said: "Submit a brief." They submitted a brief. The brief was submitted in July of this year. Since that time they have tried politely, cautiously and carefully to contact that minister and ask her what action has been taken on that brief. I am informed by Miss Sharon Redecopp, who wrote me again this week, that the minister has not even answered the most recent correspondence, let alone responded to this brief. Is that so, Madam Minister? Is that why you were angry in the hall? Did you know I was going to bring this up? Had that been the case, you could have come down to my office and we could have discussed it privately, so you wouldn't be embarrassed.

Who is it that is supporting this application? Who are these groups? Are they radicals? Are they hippies? Are they revolutionaries? Are they the solid stock that doesn't vote Social Credit? Let me quote to you who it is in this community that wants some action from the minister, and she doesn t even reply. I want to read the list: the Winfield United Church women: the Parents and Tots group in Winfield; the Winfield Memorial Hall Association; the Independent Order of Foresters: here is a group that ought to be watched — the Kelowna Jaycettes; oh, the Pacific Region Jaycees; the Royal Canadian Legion, No. 189, Ladies Auxiliary; TOPS, No. 1349, Winfield; TOPS, No. 3074 chapter, Oyama; the Oyama Community Club; the Winfield and District Minor Hockey Association; the Royal Canadian Legion; the Lake Country Senior Citizens Housing Society; the Senior Citizens Society; the Winfield Missionary Church; the First Winfield Scouting Group Committee; the Winfield Recreation Committee: the Wood Lake School–Parent Advisory Council; the Winfield Elementary Parents Auxiliary; the Lake Country Senior Business Society; the Winfield Volunteer Fire Department Ladies Auxiliary; the Winfield Volunteer Fire Department; the Seventh-Day Adventists; the Kalamalka Women's Institute; the Girl Guides of Canada; and the last name I'll read — though it's not the last one on the list; there are many more — is the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

Forty-four citizens' groups have backed this appeal to the minister. I'm told she's been rude to some of those people; I haven't witnessed that. I've never witnessed her being rude, except....

AN HON. MEMBER: I think she hit one.

MR. BARRETT: No, she didn't hit one.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the time that I was in the minister's riding, she was travelling in Europe; perhaps she was checking out health clinics there. Will the minister stand up and give a reason to this House for why she's supporting that the throne speech debate should shut off and we should get out of here? Is it that she's afraid to answer her own correspondence from these basic citizens in her riding who've been pleading with her for months to take some

[ Page 6800 ]

action? They're not hippies; they're not radicals. They are the solid stock of taxpayers in this province who are patient and tolerant and expect their MLA to do something for them — not to be insulted.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I said to the group before I raised this issue: "I will not raise this issue until you contact the minister again. I think it's important. I've asked you to contact her once. Keep me informed with copies of the letters. But I will not raise it until the minister has been given another chance to respond."

MR. BRUMMET: You're all heart.

MR. BARRETT: I'm all heart; I'm responsible.

There is no need for this kind of thing to come to the floor of the Legislature if there is going to be proper action taken by the minister. But I want to tell you this: when that government comes in and attempts to close down this House when people aren't even getting civil answers from their MLA or action on requests, then the place to which we bring those requests is this House, to serve the people of British Columbia, not to run and hide on holidays somewhere while the health services are not being given.

Yes, yes, yes, you go ahead and vote for this; you sit there and seethe, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker; you get angry at the nasty Leader of the Opposition for daring to raise a constituency problem of yours. I want you to get so angry at me, Mr. Speaker, that you're going to leave this chamber right now and do something for those people. You show me; you shut me up. I challenge the minister to shut me up by going and doing something about this clinic, so that I don't have to raise it again on behalf of her constituents.

It's not as if those people didn't go through the proper channels. It's not as if those people, who were responsible every step of the way in dealing with this, didn't go to the minister with the letters backing up their request. It's not as if they could witness tonight the witless whining of that minister's seatmate, who has something wrong with his throat. The witless, smug silence of the cabinet-benchers in the face of the problems of this province should be shown on television tonight.

Oh, Mr. Member, you sit there and make all your funny noises. You're safe. Up in the Cariboo right now they are so busy cutting wood to keep warm they don't know what you're doing down here. But guess what! Some politicians are going to go into your town and tell them how you voted tonight to close the House down because you only believe in an eight day fall. Some people have to work a seven-day week just to make mortgage payments, but you're going to work an eight-day fall and let it go at that and close the House down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you when we needed you?

MR. BARRETT: Where was I? I was in government, and you were one of the dumb ones that got rid of us.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just about a quarter of the way through making my argument on this particular amendment.

MR. LEA: Will you stop if Pat gets the clinic?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. If she makes that promise, yes, I will. I will stop if Pat gets the clinic. I'll take her word for it.

. Mr. Speaker, I now want to come back to another part of the Premier's speech today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't interrupt, Charlie. He'll tell you to shut up, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: Is Kinsella here?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but his advice was sound.

MR. BARRETT: "His advice was sound." Did you hear that? That's the mentality; once in a while it just sort of creeps through. It gets through the ozone. What they were mad at was not what Kinsella said. They were mad that he was stupid enough to get caught. That's what they were mad at; that's what all the gossip was around the corridor. "Why does he hire those stupid guys? Why don't they keep their mouths shut?" They're not against the tactic, it's the lack of PR. The problem with Kinsella is that he didn't consult with Heal. It wouldn't have happened had he done it; that's a fact.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to go back to the amendment, because I've been distracted. Mr. Speaker, I want to read something to you, because it's reminiscent of what the Premier said today. I want to read this little paragraph to you, Mr. Speaker, as to why we shouldn't adjourn the House, because we need some accountability. I am talking about the BCRIC propaganda sent out by the Premier. "To you the individual citizen the shares represent real ownership, or a portion of a resource industry. To our province the move will mean a greater opportunity for British Columbians to guide their own destiny through ownership, and stop acting as money-lenders to others, and harness their savings to the task of building a secure future for all British Columbians."

The Premier said that about BCRIC. Do you know what he said today? "That's what we've got to develop for British Columbia — an opportunity for them to invest so that they can become..." What was the expression he used?

MR. KING: Individual capitalists.

MR. BARRETT: ...individual capitalists. You know what? The Premier has a selective memory. He's taken out a lobe — scrubbed it clean. "Out, out, damned spot" — he just scrubbed it right out, like Lady Macbeth. Do you remember what lady Macbeth said, Mr. Speaker, when she was...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're a burned-out has-been. That's what she said.

MR. BARRETT: Now, be gentle, my friend. Anybody that is spending the amount of money you are without any accountability should be gentle.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're straight from the bottom of the barrel.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you, to deal with this government the only place to go is the bottom of the barrel. There sure isn't anything left in the rest of the barrel, the way you're shovelling money out of the back of the truck.

[ Page 6801 ]

Before I go any further, I want to remind the minister that he was advised by Heal to shut up. If we're going to spend all that money, I don't think it's wise of the minister, who was given advice not to talk because he has a tendency to go off the deep end, to ignore that $14,000 we spent in Hollywood to get you that advice. You're a minister of the Crown. Show some dignity, self-respect and restraint when you vote to close down this House so you don't have to give accountability for the money you are squandering.

When the Premier was in opposition it was like Lady Macbeth saying to him: "Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be what thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature; it is too full o' the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way." Do you remember that? That was the criticism — too full of the milk of human kindness. Well, he's sure learned since then. Now he's gone to the second stage.

Macbeth is the most appropriate of Shakespeare's plays applying to this government. There he was scrubbing out the memory of BCRIC in his speech today, forgetting that he told the people of British Columbia: "You the individual citizen will become a real owner of a portion of the resource industries in our province. The move will mean a greater opportunity for British Columbians to guide their own destiny through ownership, to stop acting as moneylenders to others, and harness their savings so the task of building a secure future for all British Columbians.... He was seeking out those whom he thought were gullible. He said: "I am particularly hopeful that our young people will seize the opportunity for a practical education in individual ownership and recognize the potential it has for lifelong benefits." How many young people took the savings they had waiting for a down payment on a home, and on the Premier's advice went out and bought BCRIC shares, and can't buy a home now?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Dave Stupich did.

MR. BARRETT: Dave Stupich offered the shares back to the Premier and the Premier refused to take them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did. The Premier is a millionaire. He's had his lessons on the piece of the rock.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: They've forgotten the admonition in caucus that they were to be quiet. You go ahead and chatter, fellows.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: It was the Premier who told the people of British Columbia to buy BCRIC. It was the Premier who implied that it would be a shortcut to the wealth of capitalism. It was the Premier who said: "The shares are worth $11, but have I got a deal for you, they're only $6, " It was the Premier of this province who, on television — interfering in the marketplace — directed people to buy shares in a company which he said was private. Why was he favouring a company that was private, just like any other company — touting those shares and telling them to buy those shares? Now that it has turned into a disaster, there's not a word. He wants to rush through this motion and adjourn the House. There's not word in the throne speech about BCRIC. There's not a word about that disaster. There's not a word about his own turndown of those shares, but he's still spouting the same old garbage: "You can be an individual owner." What is he going to privatize now?

As another reason for opposing this motion, I want to refer to another part of our criticism of government policy. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did say — and I was quoted correctly — that if private enterprise was going to abandon regions of this province, then we would buy those mills.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now, my good friend, I want to give you a lesson in your own economics. Who bought Can-Cel after Celanese Corp. had lost $80 million? Were you opposed to that? Yes, you were. We bought it for $1. We got a mortgage for $69 million at 6 percent. In the first two years that the people owned that company it made $154 million, which was spent here in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they get for it?

MR. BARRETT: What did the taxpayers get for it? I'll tell you what the taxpayers got for it. They had a guarantee of those profits being reinvested here in the province of British Columbia. What did you do with it, my dear friends?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: That's why they're yelling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The occasional interjection may be tolerated, as I've said on many occasions, but interruptions are out of order. I would ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to please restrain himself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand the interruptions.

It was those companies that we bought that were the foundation of BCRIC. Those companies were the assets that you boasted about, that you were going to have the people buy back when they already owned them. You squandered those assets in the incompetence of BCRIC, allowing all those assets to escape in one lump-sum payment of cash to Mr. Kaiser for those mines. Now BCRIC is saddled with $600 million in debt. There's not a word in the throne speech about it, not a word about the people who lost money on your advice, not a word about the squandering of those assets that we bought in a downturn of the cycle because we knew the cycle would turn up again, just as the cycle would have turned up again in British Columbia.

You can buy now and make the same deals and the same money, but they are not committed to that policy. They believe the public sector should go broke and the private sector should have its free will at any time in the economy. They're not about to interfere in the marketplace, particularly after they squandered all those assets in BCRIC. There's not a word from the Premier, not a word from the government in the throne speech bragging about BCRIC, because there's simply nothing to brag about. You wish it would go away as a

[ Page 6802 ]

bad memory. It was politically conceived. You are politically responsible for it. You haven't said one word about the disaster that you brought upon tens of thousands of British Columbians who you told to go out and buy shares in the company.

MR. BARNES: Even their own convention condemned it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I won't bring up the problem of their convention asking about BCRIC, but could you not at least shut up, could you not at least convey some silence? At the end the Premier announces that they're thinking of a similar scheme — once unlucky, twice maybe they'll be lucky. What are they going to pawn off this time? What is it that they're going to unload this time? What is it that they're going to privatize?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Marguerite.

MR. BARRETT: They've already done that once. That was a disaster. They subsidized an American jetfoil coming in. They paid the Americans $3 million to hire American crews so they could have jobs coming into Victoria. Did you talk about that?

Did you talk about the heroin treatment program? I would like to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) in this brief session about that wonderful heroin treatment program. We warned them. Others told you that it was a disaster. But you got up in the same manner that you got up and told us how the gas pipeline was going to built on the southern route. You were told in a parking lot by the press that the Premier had announced that there's a second look. You said: "I don't believe it; I want to hear the tape." You heard the tape, and guess what? You were cut off at the ankles.

I feel sorry for that member. I know why he's supporting this motion tonight: because he doesn't want to give an accounting to this House as to why he lost the decision-making in his ministry about where the gas pipeline should go, or give an explanation about the heroin treatment program. You think it's a joke? Fourteen million dollars was thrown up in the air on the heroin treatment program. The minister was cut to pieces by his own Premier. He asked to hear the tape, and when he heard it, what did he say? You had nothing to say. Your whole policy was wiped out. You were made to look foolish by the Premier. I don't think that's fair. You do a good enough job on your own. You don't need the help from the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, please.

MR. BARRETT: In speaking against this motion, I see no need for us to be brought in here for seven days to be given a nothing throne speech and told that we're going to close the House now for four months.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy?

MR. BARRETT: My dear friend, my purpose, more than anything else, is to see the defeat of this disastrous government that is absolutely insensitive to the people's needs in the province of British Columbia. My policy does not include giving welfare to the Japanese, no matter how many steambaths I have in Tokyo.

Mr. Speaker, lay the contracts in front of this House. Tell this House....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy, my friend?

MR. BARRETT: We're seeing the minister at his best. I ask the minister to lay the contracts on northeast coal in front of this House. If the minister's arms.... What is that salute he's giving? Where have we seen that one before, my friends? It's just a Doctor Strangelove reflex.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, no. We heard the Premier speak about the national socialists.

They treat this six days here as a bother. Why do we have to come here and spend this time with the opposition? Why do we have to come here and spend this time in the House? Why do we have to come here when they ask these questions? We'll just come here for six days, give them a PR throne speech and send them home to be nice boys.

There is not a single sign of maturity in that government in the six years they've been in office. They have never gotten over their opposition mentality that brought them together as a coalition. They have never shown the graciousness or the understanding of the use of power in this chamber or throughout the province. They have flaunted tradition, accountability and responsibility. They make statements without substance; they backtrack and fill on policy without giving any explanation to this House; they spend vast sums of money; and they make incomplete decisions in the face of some information already in their hands purely for political purposes. When they're asked questions, they say: "Don't ask us. We know best. We'll do what's best. Just shut up and get out of here." I'm not surprised at us getting out of here. Mr. Kinsella gave away the whole purpose the first day when he said, "shut up." He was only expressing government policy.

I gave one example and there are many more examples of local problems being ignored. I gave an analysis of questions about northeast coal without any minister answering. I asked questions about how much money has been spent there and asked for a complete accountability, but they're still not answered. I will expect that the minister will get up and tell us how much money has been drawn from Highways, Municipal Affairs, every ministry and how much money in total has been spent. I will ask the minister to tell us why the Crown corporations committee was denied the request to hear federal navigators as witnesses and also denied the request to hear details about the deal with the National Harbours Board. The Crown corporations committee asked that they appear and were denied by the Social Credit majority.

I ask the minister to stand up and tell us what the total commitment is and how far they are in the tunnels. Is all the exploration done in the tunnels? What will the final cost be? Are those contracts open-ended? Will the minister file with this House the copies of those contracts that he will sign in those tunnels? Will you file those in the House? Will the minister file in this House the contracts on those tunnels?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy?

MR. BARRETT: I don't expect the minister to answer those questions. I expect the minister to go along with the

[ Page 6803 ]

kind of mindless political rut that this government has been in simply because it refuses to deal with accountability in the Legislature, simply because it treats this House as a bother and simply because they have reduced the whole concept of a session to just a short time before Christmas where people will forget what's gone on and hopefully the problems will go away.

We have not seen one move by this government against high interest rates, not one move in the area of housing and not one move in helping the unemployed. Now they want to finish off the debate as quickly as they want to.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that the government has an opportunity tonight to demonstrate that while they ask the people of this province to work harder and show some restraint.... I ask the government to give some leadership to the people of this province by keeping this session gong so the government can lay out in detail proposals that it intends to carry out, to give those thousands of citizens some hope. More than anything else, beyond specific programs, beyond promises, the people need hope. When they lose hope, they lose the potential of gathering the forces in their own lives to take them through the crises they meet.

Mindless quips across the floor, cabinet ministers who do not participate in terms of accountability, will leave a vacuum out of this particular throne debate that will not be filled by anything other than despair for the people of this province. Your own supporters are asking for leadership. Business people are asking for leadership. The trade union movement is asking for leadership. This province is rich. It does have the potential, but it needs the leadership and the participation of a government that says in spite of the economy they sponsored and favoured they are now going to spend the time here in this House, laying out policies, taking action and saying to those people that they will give them some provision.

One small thing that they could do is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) could stand up in this House tonight and say, as Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan said to every homeowner who has been threatened with foreclosure by the banks, that the government will not stand idly by and allow the banks to foreclose on their homes. Let's have that much. The Province of Saskatchewan doesn't adjourn the House, but says clearly to the citizens of that province that it is the government's responsibility to promise those citizens, in these times of fluctuating mortgage rates and the week-by-week pressures of high interest rates, that the government will say to the banks: "No person in this province will lose his home. We forbid foreclosures for a year." I advocate that policy for the homeowners in this province. Why don't you?

If the government of Saskatchewan can say that people will have a year to determine when they will renew their mortgage, at the interest rate they prefer within that year, so they can make plans to salvage the equity in their homes, why don't you do that here? If seven cabinet ministers in opposition sign and vote for legislation, known as the B.C. Savings and Trust.... If they believed that in 1975, why don't they implement it now, when the people need it?

What's my policy, Mr. Member? My policy is to come to this Legislature, detail the problems that our citizens are having, and appeal to the government to do what other governments in other jurisdictions have had the courage to do: nothing radical, nothing revolutionary, but certainly moral and sound in terms of protection.

Did we hear one word about doing the same as Saskatchewan? Not a word. Did we hear one word in the throne speech about pleading to the federal government to lower that interest rate and help homeowners? Not a word. Did we hear in the throne speech a new plan to train youngsters in this province so that they could be equipped to find jobs with skills? Not a word. They've closed the Rossland Mining School in this province, as a budget cut, I haven't heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) get up and explain why. They say that the mining industry is going to develop, as government policy, but they cut the only mining school open in this province. They cut it off one week before the students were to register — sent them letters and told them not to show up. You didn't know that, did you, Mr. Member? You didn't know that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources cut out allocation of funds for the Rossland Mining School, and told the students they would no longer be allowed to enrol. That wasn't in the throne speech. That's why I'm opposed to this amendment.

I'm opposed to this amendment because junior colleges in this province right across the board have been told to slash their budgets, while students who believe speeches by the Premier and the Minister of Education, telling them to go out and get an education and they'll get a job, have been cut off from funds. Not a word. You've got the gall and the nerve to come in here with an amendment to say, after six days: go home and shut up; we're not going to do any work, and those problems will go away. I can't support the motion.

Tell me about the Rossland mining school. Why did you close it? Why? You're getting tired, are you? Well, that's fine, Mr. Member. Maybe the lights are too hot on you. I understand why they are. Why hasn't the government dealt with these real problems throughout the province?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You know, there are times when I truly wish there were television cameras in this House. Just a couple of shots of the minister would do wonders for his posture. his presence, and his intelligent interruptions of the debate.

Fortunately, within the confines of this amendment, I have said almost everything that I intended to say in my 40 minutes, when I was to speak on the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look like a chickadee.

MR. BARRETT: A chickadee is better than a turkey, my friend. One wag said the only way some of the poor people will have a turkey at Christmas is by bringing a Socred home.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I like to hear the dulcet tones of the former high-school principal. One of the wisest things the voters in that constituency did on behalf of the children of that town was to remove him as principal and send him down here. We can handle him, but God help those poor children if he ever goes back to the classroom.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the motion.

[ Page 6804 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, to the motion. I have a logical suggestion to make, and one that I think would be welcomed by the government. It's not an amendment to the motion, which would be in order. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition amended this motion, we could all get to speak again? Yes, you know that. I was surprised to learn that, when my learned friend the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) came to me and said we could amend this motion and it would be within the rules. Then everybody could get up and speak again, and I could have a designated speech time so I could fill in the 40-minute time I had on the throne speech.

So rather than go through considering that process, I have a suggestion to make. I move adjournment of this debate, and that the House stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The only motion that I could accept would be a motion on the adjournment of this debate.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Well, I've got two motions ahead of me. I know the first one will be accepted. I move the adjournment of this debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion I would like to welcome the government members back from their beds. There go some of the lazy, shiftless government members now — all cabinet ministers.

What this motion says is that we should go away from here without having taken care of the responsibilities vested in us by the people of this province. That government has done absolutely nothing except put some hollow phrases before us. They have given us no programs, and then have spent the entire six days talking about the years of 1972 to 1975, totally ignoring their responsibility for the year 1981-82.

There are people all over this province hurting. Yes, we know this government with its lack of talent. Yes, we know there is not too much they can do, because they're bone-weary after six years of total frustration. But there are some things they should do, or at least try to do. The first responsibility that they have is to come into this House and put programs before us to be discussed so that people in the province have some hope.

Did we hear one word from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) or the Premier on how we could put people to work in the forests in this province? We know that many people are unemployed. We also know from our foresters, if we're listening to them, that we are heading toward a failure in terms of the amount of timber available. Wouldn't it be a remarkable way to utilize people who are available now by hiring them to go out and plant trees, to go out and weed the forests, fertilize and generally assist in the future of this province? No, Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard anything like that; we haven't heard any suggestions that would lead us to feel that there is something going on in terms of looking at our future. I believe that the government, as my good friend and colleague from Surrey says, is a government that represents bankers and bailiffs, not the people who so badly need the services of government.

I guess probably the best criticism was put forward by the other member for Surrey, that beloved member — and I'm talking about the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — when he said: "We've been here ten days and we've done nothing." The last resolution that brought us here was a resolution that the Speaker would be asked by the government to bring us back to the House if there was something important to do. So obviously the government felt that there was something important to do. How come one of their important ministers, the one who likes to read cornflakes boxes, says we've been here for ten days and we've done nothing? It's the government's responsibility to see that programs are put before the Legislature. It is not the responsibility of the opposition to put programs before the Legislature. It would be ridiculous to even consider this government listening to whatever program we might put forward, no matter how virtuous.

Mr. Speaker, that lazy, do-nothing government, with an attention span of six days in the House, are on their way to the nice warm spots in the sun. I assume that they've been reading the travel folders and will be heading off and coming back nicely tanned, well rested, while the people in this province continue to suffer. There are so many things that should be addressed. These are just a few plants in New Westminster where there have been layoffs: 80, 20, 250, 25, etc. I would like to see some of these questions addressed. But no, people in the country are going around.... These buttons, I'm sure, will increase in numbers: "Citizen of Dire Straits." I remember that there was a Prime Minister of the country who talked about those people, and I don't think he has an easy time looking over the mountains. Sometimes when he comes over here, he wishes he was on the other side of the mountains. But aside from all that, he was the person who talked about people in dire straits, and I think he was talking about the citizens of B.C. who in their innocence have relied on this government to get things going again.

I believe that we have to ask why it is that when jobs go down the tube in this province there isn't a move by that government to protect those jobs. For the longest time the government has criticized the Panco situation. How they

[ Page 6805 ]

laughed at my colleague who said in a note to a union leader, which incidentally was duplicated and sent to everyone under the sun, that if the Social Credit were returned — I'm talking now of 1975 — those jobs in Panco would go. It took them a while, but they finally did it. What does the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) do in these six days — or as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has difficulty counting, would say, ten days of doing nothing? What has the Minister of Agriculture said? Nothing. He hasn't suggested any alternatives for those people who are going to be out of work. For that matter, he has not suggested alternatives for the agricultural industry, which is going to be hurt on account of this silly decision that has driven people out of work.

They sold it to Cargill. So much for the jobs. Who cares in that government? When you're down in Palm Springs, taking in the sun, it's easy to forget the folks back home. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) runs off to the Orient to do business, and criticizes the Leader of the Opposition, who once or twice went to the Orient and made a significant contribution, incidentally. He jokes around about a football game, etc. Either the minister is going to the Orient and not paying attention to business, or he is being most unsuccessful. We continue to ship our jobs there. We continue to send the most raw of our resources, with as little labour input into those resources as is possible, to that country, to refine, saw, manufacture, etc., where there are millions of jobs.

I believe that there are so many things, that we should be hearing so many programs that should be put forward; but we've heard none from a lazy group who like to put responsibility for running government in the hands of their own bureaucrats and take it away from the Legislature. One day, some political scientist is going to do a study on how much erosion there has been in this last six years on the power of the Legislature which has been vested in cabinet. That is going to be a very significant revelation. When you do that, you just sit in your nice, warm cabinet room, where we're all on the same side. You assign the work to the bureaucrats, and then you run off to California, the Bahamas, Hawaii, Palm Springs. Everything is in great hands. Certainly those awful opposition people haven't got anything to do with the direction.

A while ago the Premier, to show this marvellous policy about women.... Remember, he visited the Social Credit convention. He spoke to the women's auxiliary, and he told them all the great things he was going to do for women. Then he extolled the virtues of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). He said: "Look at that. The Minister of Labour has a woman deputy." It begs the question, doesn't it, colleagues? Where's Kathleen Ruff, whom they inherited from the NDP? They inherited her from my colleague the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) in that department — a woman with a great deal of responsibility. They canned her, fired her. Nola Landucci, Gene Errington — we could go on and on, Their antipathy for women in responsible places is obvious. Now suddenly there's great repentance. We see in the constitution that women exist and are going to have some rights. I wonder how many. I'm a little suspicious, even yet. But, you know, you have to at least do something. Anyway, we commissioned the Minister of Labour to reinvent the wheel. It's Kinsella's idea. There's no question about that. I just feel that we'd like to see some direction.

For some time I've been either critic or Minister of Health in this province. Before we walk away from this chamber, having been dismissed until March, I would like to hear some of the alternatives that should be coming from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Where is he? I'm sure his own department would like to know where he is. A long time ago they announced that they were going to hire a bunch of new deputies. I would like to know where they are. They're going around the bend, Mr. Speaker. It strikes me that they're just not doing anything about health care in this province.

The minister disappeared tonight. He disappeared another time recently. He was to speak to the ambulance workers' conference in late September — you know, the emergency health service. We remember how important they were to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). They're obviously not very important to the Minister of Health. At the last minute he cancelled his attendance, with the excuse that it was due to administrative changes. What administrative changes? He hadn't been relieved of his position; he's still Minister of Health; he still sits in that chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit your frowning.

MR. COCKE: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Peace River, I have to frown when I look across at such an unpleasant creature.

We would like to know about reorganization. We would have suggested, however, that before they reorganized their telephone book — which they did, incidentally.... The Ministry of Health has been taken right out of this 387 number that we have and has been given another 387 number, but you have to dial the full number. But they do it before they've appointed all these new deputies.

MS. BROWN: No one will come. No one is going to work for you.

MR. COCKE: I guess that's it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're losing steam.

MR. COCKE: It's easy to lose steam when you get to be my age, old chap.

Before we leave here I want to hear from the Minister of Health about all those vacancies in public health. I heard the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) today in question period say there is no hiring freeze. That's a bit hard to believe when every health district in this province is short of public health nurses, health inspectors, nutritionists....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your leader just said we had an excellent health service.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for South Peace River doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm talking about the public health in this province. It is being starved to death. Why is it being starved to death? Why do we debate this adjournment motion? We debate it on this basis: while they're starving public health they're spending money like drunken sailors in other areas — shovelling it out of the back of a truck, only this time it's a big truck.

In the North Okanagan — because the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is here, let's review the situation there. We can do that by just reading a little note into the record. This is a copy of a letter to the minister. It should be addressed by one of those members before we adjourn. He says:

[ Page 6806 ]

Dear Mr. Minister" — a nice, polite salutation.

"Numerous times over the past five years this union board of health has requested that the Ministry of Health consider increasing the number of public health inspectors within health district 4. Our request for this consideration has produced a reply acknowledging the need for an additional health inspector in district 4. However, budgetary restraints made it impossible to hire additional staff.

"The union board of health has been informed by the health district of certain facts relating to the public health inspection field. It is the opinion of this board that your office should be in receipt of such information. For your consideration we present the following: present staff complement — one chief public health inspector, four public health inspectors. The last increase in staff....

Guess when the last increase was in that very powerful minister's constituency. It was July 1, 1974. The population in 1974 was 64,000. The population now is 90,340 — an increase of 40.8 percent.

MR. MUSSALLEM: What's that got to do with the motion?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is what it has to do with the motion: we want these matters addressed before we leave here. We need, in my view, some kind of definitive direction from the government in terms of what's going on. We need the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us.... I'll read the headline to you from the Vancouver Sun, November 13: "Curtis Says Hard Times Ahead for Schools and Hospitals." Oh, sure. He talks about MacEachan's budget and so on and so forth. He should come in here, Mr. Speaker, and report to us before March and tell us definitely what those hard times are going to be. We can't go back to our constituents without the answers. Why should we?

Mr. Speaker, it's another responsibility of mine before I go home to find out how come the Minister of Finance is holding back payments. Ask every contractor working for the government....

MS. BROWN: Ask every little doctor.

MR. COCKE: Ask the doctors. Here is a doctor: Dr. David Jones, a Burnaby general practitioner, can't resist the challenge from government bureaucrats, and believes Victoria may be holding back doctors' payments totalling not $45, not $45,000, but $45 million. The government should answer....

MR. LEA: Or pay interest.

MR. COCKE: Yes.

The poor old psychologists, friends of the government — remember, they brought in a Psychologists Act — are telling us the same thing. "B.C. doctors aren't the only ones fed up with the length of time it's taking the provincial government to pay its bills; psychologists are fed up too."

MS. BROWN: Family day-care workers don't get paid either.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they're all in the same boat. Why should we go home in the face of this without any decent explanation, without the minister who's responsible getting up in the House and telling us his direction? " 'Health Standards Call Faces Opposition,' Nielsen says. A call in Thursday's federal budget for national health-care standards may 'run into provincial opposition,' says the B.C. Health minister." Now, Mr. Speaker, what has he done? What is he going to do? Is he going to tell us how he's going to handle it?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. COCKE: How is he going to fight for us? Is he going to make an impact?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. COCKE: What's his plan? Has he flown to Ottawa?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. COCKE: Is that why he's not here tonight? What's he doing?

MS. BROWN: Nothing.

MR. COCKE: Nothing. No, Mr. Speaker, we don't hear anything.

MS. BROWN: Tell us about Cuthbert.

MR. COCKE: I had hoped in the last while that the government, in reply to the ombudsman, would have said: "Mr. Ombudsman...." Roy Cuthbert, that poor little guy in Delta who has his home expropriated, a home that's been in the family since 1886 or thereabouts.... Years ago it was expropriated for Roberts Bank; then it was found it was not needed. It fell into the agricultural land reserve, and all they want to do is live there and have their family's right to live there....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did you refuse it when you were government?

MR. COCKE: I'll discuss that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You just hear me through.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it should be carefully looked at. What did the ombudsman recommend? Return the property. What has happened, however, is that now the minister has taken it to arbitration.

It's not a big piece of land. It's not hurting anybody. You were told by your bureaucrats exactly what we were told by ours, I'm sure: that it would be a bad precedent. That's nuts. That's crazy. I'm here to tell you that our Environment and Land Use Committee recommends returning that land. Somehow or other, accidentally in our cabinet.... I saw it.

[ Page 6807 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No. In response to our bureaucrats, we did exactly the same thing. We proceeded. We didn't do anything. We actually didn't restore the property. It should have been restored. We should have done it. You should have done it. You've had six years.

Let's go over the history. First, it was the Social Credit government that took it away from him. We were in power for three years and four months. We didn't restore it. We should have. One of our most powerful committees of cabinet recommended it. Incidentally, you've been government since then for six years, and you've not restored the property. It's absolutely, totally unjust.

I'd like to have heard any kind of argument put forward in this session before we leave. But no, we heard nothing. I guess we're going to have to debate that issue. I'll take as much responsibility for the injustice to Cuthbert as anybody else. I don't recall it coming back. It must have come back very late. In any event, I do believe that that property should be restored, precedent or no precedent. There is no better use for that property than for its original owners to have it and hold it and live in it, as they're doing now. They're living in it, but renting it from the Harbours Board.

MS. BROWN: Going to bed, oh, Don?

MR. COCKE: There goes that lazy minister. Go have a little sleep; it will do you good.

Mr. Speaker, I also am very interested in another area; the whole area of transportation. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has given us a little hot air. He told us some of the things that are going to happen. He could have made a great contribution, and so could this government, if they had leaned heavily on the federal government over the reduction of passenger rail service across this country. They did zero. They are one of the few governments in the whole country that paid absolutely no attention to it whatsoever, and they want us to leave. They want us to leave this House, go back to our constituencies, while they go flitting off to the southern sun, having done nothing about this whole question of conservation of energy: conservation that is gained by passenger rail service.

We regretted giving up light rail transit in Vancouver years and years ago to the energy gluttons, and now we're turning back to it. We're going to do the same thing with longer transport. All over Europe now they're improving their rail service and making it more attractive; they're getting people to move by rail. This is something for energy conservation and good, comfortable transportation. That's what we should be doing. But we hear nothing from this lazy, do-nothing government.

I suggested that we should have had some direction. We could even have debated one of the bills that have been put forward. I know the police are anxious to get hold of the new act on motor vehicles. The roads today are covered with blood. It's a very serious situation. We have been sitting and waiting for.... Well, we were given the bill at the end of the last session; they called it a White Paper. We went home, and we're back. We're given another bill and told we're going home for another three months. Meanwhile they want to get tough. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) keeps putting out press releases saying that they're going to get tough on drunken drivers, speeding drivers and every other kind of driver. They're sending us home before we even debate the bill.

What's going on? Laziness, Mr. Speaker. They could have found out very quickly how long it would have taken. It might have taken a very short while. But no, let's sacrifice the situation. Let's send them home so that we can go back and rest. It's not good enough. I suggest that every thoughtful person in this House should vote against this resolution and get back to work. I just ask everybody to do so.

HON. MR. McGEER: It seems like old times. We haven't had an all-night debate in this chamber for more than ten years; it's probably closer to a dozen. Do you know why these all-night debates were abandoned years ago? Because of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He was the one who railed against the all-night debate: how criminal it was, and how unparliamentary. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know you weren't here, and you can't believe it. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said: "Never, ever again will there be a late night debate in this Legislative Assembly." Never again until tonight. Why was it necessary? I'll tell you why it was necessary: because it was inconvenient for the Leader of the Opposition to appear during the throne speech debate. It was inconvenient for him to defend his party when the time came for their non-confidence motion. Nobody saw the Leader of the Opposition. He couldn't work it into his schedule.

If you'll recall, there was much said in that debate pointing out the absence of policy from the New Democratic Party — no policy at all and no constructive suggestions. There was no thought at all in debate until the time came to adjourn the debate. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition found it convenient to attend the House, and then he found that the time had come when neither he nor anyone in his party had advanced any reasons at all why they should be in opposition, much less government. We had gone ten days without a single thought of any consequence coming from the New Democratic Party.

Then in some death-bed repentance this evening we've engaged in something which is, to use the Leader of the Opposition's own words, "a cuckoo plan." It's a cuckoo plan to do something which, I suppose, has never been done in the history of British parliamentary debate: to engage upon a whole throne speech in a motion to adjourn. In the history of legislative debate, I don't think there has ever been a circumstance where the Leader of the Opposition, having found it inconvenient to be present in debate, initiated a whole new throne debate on a motion to adjourn. Mr. Speaker, I've never seen anybody come into a chamber before with a podium to debate a motion to adjourn.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the members of that party should be restless. I'm not surprised that during their convention there was some pretty heavy thought as to whether there should be a new leader of the New Democratic Party. Because I can tell you, the disorganization which marked the period in which they were in government, and has now marked the period when they've been in opposition, has not been cured one bit by another attempt at a throne debate — in the middle of the night — on a motion to adjourn.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 6808 ]

It's really a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that suddenly people should realize that the purpose of this Legislative Assembly's being called together is to permit the members an opportunity to debate during the throne speech, to bring forward all of the proposals for constructive change and to bring forward their criticisms of the government. Several times this week there has not been a quorum in this chamber, when members of the New Democratic Party have risen to make whatever speeches they've been able to prepare in these many months when they've been at home, while all the lazy ministers have been at work administering British Columbia. They've been at home not being able to prepare any kind of speeches or lessons for this assembly, and then arrive in this House and deliver a stream of consciousness so that even their members won't attend. Then, Mr. Speaker, at the hour of adjournment they suddenly realize that they were supposed to come here and engage in some debate and present some ideas. So there has been another effort — a last spasmodic gasp — producing nothing more than the empty rhetoric that we've been hearing for this full week, but not one single idea.

I have a suggestion for the opposition party. They'll have an opportunity to go home and spend some time preparing speeches. I don't know whether four months would be enough for them, because certainly four years — or five years in opposition — have not been enough for them to reflect on the disaster they brought to British Columbia when they were in government.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me after this evening's performance that they might well give careful thought during the weeks and months ahead as to what they ought to do, as a party, about leadership, because surely that's the first step to developing quality. Perhaps in this hiatus which they badly need — this having been demonstrated this evening — they could give some consideration to how to address the problem of leadership, since they obviously lack it in the House, and what they should do about the problem of policy. Mr. Speaker, if they could come back as a revived party with some capacity for debate and some ability to present a program to the people of British Columbia, then they might be taken seriously by the public of this province. But as it stands now....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to dwell on the past, as the Leader of the Opposition spent his time this evening doing, trying to recall the bygone days when he was in opposition — and more effective in debate, I might say — and trying to fit the history of this province into the context of tomorrow. What is required is not reliving the past, but to develop contemporary policies for the contemporary problems and opportunities that face British Columbia. This is what is so conspicuously lacking, Mr. Speaker, in the presentations that the New Democratic Party have brought forward, even to this dying effort of putting forward some show of force, some ideas, before they go home to reflect for a few months' time on their performance in this House.

Certainly, if we can believe the statements made by individual members — if we can accept in the present disorganized state of the NDP the statements of individual party members as a reflection of the policy of that party — then the public of British Columbia should take cognizance that the disaster suffered under the NDP from 1972 to 1975 would pale by comparison with what would take place if the present group in opposition ever were to gain power. We've heard member after member stand up and advance ideas that would be total disaster for British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Like human rights.

HON. MR. McGEER: You're against the development of the economy, Mr. Member. You don't want to dam any rivers. You don't want power in this province. You don't want natural resource development in this province. You're against northeast coal. What are you for? Yes, we've heard the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) give a long diatribe this evening about the lazy members, and how all the people that she represents have to be helped in British Columbia. We agree with that, except there's one thing. This party delivers. We deliver because, too, we believe in the development of the economy of British Columbia, and it's only through the development of the economy — only by having people working, not on welfare — that the others can be supported. As the Premier of the province said today, "work and wages." That's the policy of Social Credit. Your policy is welfare, because you don't know how to develop the economy. All you understand is how to shut it down.

It is appropriate that the House adjourn this evening. It's appropriate because nobody needs that adjournment more than the NDP. No party should ever hang its head in shame as should the NDP for their performance in this House during the past week. They're the ones who need the rest. They're the ones who need to go home and do some thinking. They're the ones who need to reflect upon the leadership of their party, on the policies that they've developed, on their program for British Columbia, and only when they have done that kind of homework should they appear again in this Legislative Assembly, so as not to be an embarrassment to the public of British Columbia. That's what you've been through this debate this past week.

Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, and we should put this session of the Legislative Assembly, characterized by emptiness of debate from the opposition, out of its misery, and have this Legislative Assembly reconvene for debate when these members in opposition are ready for debate. In the meantime, the government of this province will be in the sound hands of Social Credit, as it has been for this past six years, and will continue to be — not for six, not for twelve, not for eighteen, but another two dozen years or more. Why? Because the New Democratic Party, by their performance in this House, proves session after session their incapability of governing British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: It is now five minutes to two, and I hope that we can keep the House awake for the next forty minutes. I couldn't help thinking, when the last member was speaking, that I recall twelve years ago, when that member and I were both sitting on this side of the House. That member was up making the same attempt at a venomous attack on the Social Credit government. At that time, of course, he was complaining, as we were, about the barbaric late hours of sitting. No one appreciates staying in the Legislature until this time in the morning when we've all had a fairly long day. I can assure you that the opposition didn't take this step very lightly.

The reason that we're here debating at this time in the morning is simply because we have no intention, as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, in just folding up and

[ Page 6809 ]

leaving this Legislature in December, 1981, following a vacuous throne speech that has given no hope to the citizens of British Columbia that this government is competent enough to deal with the economic problems today.

We have a responsibility to stay here and to hope that this government somehow or other will be able to listen to some of our constructive policies and suggestions, and hopefully will be ready, after they have listened, to take some positive steps to help the economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with some of my colleagues who have been referring to this Social Credit government as being a lazy government. I don't thing they are really lazy; I think they are just incompetent.

MR. BARNES: And impotent.

MRS. DAILLY: Right — and impotent. I really feel that even at high speed they would still be incompetent and impotent, because they simply are not able to come up with anything inventive. They are not able to cope with the problems of 1980 and 1981.

Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is look at the throne speech again. I am going to be negative to start with and hopefully will end up on a positive note. You know, most of our speeches throughout the last week have contained some very positive statements, but naturally that government over there is incapable, apparently, of assimilating positive statements from the opposition. Instead, they like to spend their time, as did the former member who just spoke, in just regurgitating over and over again the same old tired, negative aspersions against the former NDP government. But, you know, the people of British Columbia are getting very, very tired of that. They say: "Look, isn't it about time that this Social Credit government accepted their responsibility and came out with some positive policies, and stopped talking about a former government?"

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the throne speech again, when it comes to the forest industry, which is the biggest problem that this province faces right now.... Whether it's to do with the American economy or not, it's certainly accepted by the members of the House on this side also. But when you listen to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) speak, there is no hope that he has any grasp on, or any intention of trying to ease, the situation with some alternatives — despite the fact of the American situation. Surely he could have listened to some of the positive programs put forward by our critic and others on this side of the House for trying to alleviate some of the problems in our forest industry.

Whether people liked the demonstration in the gallery or not, it was certainly very clear that this government faces a serious problem because of their lack of understanding, apparently, of how serious the situation is for the many unemployed in our province today.

Mr. Speaker, I understand there is no quorum, so I will s move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has determined at this time that there is a quorum present; 11 members are present.

MRS. DAILLY: I never could count. It gave me a little pause for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, we have no hope from the Forests minister that he seems to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps he does, but he seems incapable, as does the government, of trying to alleviate some of the problems.

When it comes to the concern of the citizens about the increase in taxes imposed by Social Credit — sales taxes, ICBC rates, medicare premiums.... . Do you know what the throne speech says, Mr. Speaker? It says: "We must not obscure the basic strength of our economy." You know, that gives great hope to the people out there, doesn't it? No wonder we're up here — no wonder we are delaying the closing of this House when we and the people of the province of British Columbia have to deal with this vacuous statement.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Finance was out talking to a group yesterday, and he let it drop that the poor people of British Columbia will have to expect increased taxes again. Even some of his business friends attacked him for making that statement. Finally, in despair, the business people of the province are asking whether this government understands that the imposition of more and more taxes is just going to cause further stagnation of our economy.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, not only have they lost the faith of the average working person in this province because they're incompetent to govern and to meet the problems today, but they are beginning to lose more and more every day the faith of the business community that this is businesslike government that can govern.

Mr. Speaker, there's an almost naive complacency in this Social Credit government about our economic problems. As I've said earlier, I don't think we can attribute it just to laziness, I want to repeat again that the government is absolutely incompetent, and we in the official opposition say to you, step aside and give the NDP an opportunity to step in with some positive policies. I want to give you an example of some positive policies that the NDP would bring in and did bring in in the past.

Housing is the one area that stands out as being one of the greatest problems we face, and yet it is one area where this government shows complete incompetency in dealing with the problems. We almost felt sorry for the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who had a major press conference, and at the end of it no one understood what he was saying. I don't think the poor minister himself was able even to understand what he was told to say. I suppose the problem is that Treasury Board did not give him the money to produce a good program, and that is tragic.

It is tragic when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) can spend hours upon hours trying to promote a convention centre and raise more money for it. Why doesn't she show one-tenth of that energy in raising money for housing for the average citizen in tis province? Unfortunately, that energy is diverted entirely only to the things which interest that particular minister.

What we did when we were government.... This comes from a meeting I attended where someone who was not involved with the NDP was just commenting on the great success story of the cooperative housing movement in the province of British Columbia. One of the great tragedies of that government, since they came into office, is their seemingly almost calculated moves to obliterate every good housing policy that the NDP had created. If one area showed that more than anything else, it was their callous disregard for the importance of the cooperative housing movement in British Columbia, which took some gigantic steps ahead when the NDP became government. If you want to talk about policy, here are some positive policies which an NDP government would move on again.

[ Page 6810 ]

Between 1972 and 1975 it was a real success story for cooperative movement. We moved the cooperative movement in British Columbia to a point where it became the envy of other provinces in Canada. Do you know why? First, the NDP government recognized squarely and honestly the failure of the private development industry to meet the housing needs of a significant percentage of B.C. residents. That is the basic problem with that government — that they still sit back and say: "Leave it up to the private development and have no government intervention; let's sit back" — just like Reagan is doing in the United States. We see the results.

Isn't it interesting? You're endorsing the same policies that Reagan is. You're suffering here from Reagan's policies and you're making the people of B.C. suffer from your stupid conservative fiscal policies.

If I can digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if anything is frightening it is what is happening to our neighbour, the United States, where we find the perfect example of government saying: "We musn't interfere in anything. Let's remove all government regulations so that there is no government interference. Keep government out of the people's business." One of the tragedies is that one of their first moves down there has been to deregulate so many things in the area of the environment and in safety, with the result, I'm sure, that because of this obsession with non-government intervention, we are going to find some pretty tragic things happening in the United States because of a very conservative government which mistakenly believes that if they take their hands out of any involvement for the betterment of the people through any form of government regulation, society will progress. The tragedy is that millions of people are going to suffer from this idiotic approach. I'm really concerned that this government over here is moving more and more in that direction. They're throwing up their hands and saying: "We can't do anything about the housing crisis, because we don't want to interfere with the private developers." So nothing is happening.

The co-op movement under the NDP government: first, we recognized the importance of involvement by government. We recognized the need for an alternative approach and for efficient and effective mechanisms to deliver that approach. We recognized that the key factor in the provision of housing was land. It's almost farcical the way the Minister of Housing in the Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia has been talking about the release of land for housing for years. Nothing has happened. What nonsense! You have been government since what — unfortunately it seems like an eternity to everyone — over six years? And he tries to tell us that they've got an enviable record in housing? The record of that Social Credit government is the worst in Canada.

In December 1980, the Minister of Housing announced major provincial initiatives to stabilize land prices. On December 11, he said: "Foreign ownership of housing is not a concern to us." On December 14, Mr. Chabot said....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Rosemary, you're asleep!

MRS. DAILLY: I wish that member across from me were. His contribution and his interjections are really raising the level of debate on the floor of this House. We've had to put up with that for years. We just have to ignore it.

On December 19: "Curtis indicated the government will soon approve a capital cost allowance plan to assist in new housing development." On January 29: "Hyndman says he is examining shared appreciation mortgages." On February 21: "Chabot says the federal-provincial shelter allowance program should be established to help renters." On March 3: "Chabot says he will ask cabinet to approve a provincial housing program." On March 7: "Hyndman says the rental crunch will soon be eased by new construction." On April 9: "Chabot and Hyndman are reported to have a new plan for housing." On May 1: "Hyndman says there'll be a major housing policy." On May 30: "Bennett tells the B.C. Chamber of Commerce there will be a major housing announcement." On June 3: "Chabot says, 'We're ready to take more action in housing.' " And so on and so on. The record of that government in housing is.... It's incompetent. You are absolutely incompetent.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: You've had enough trouble with northeast coal in your own portfolio. If we put him into housing, could it be worse? I doubt it. As I said earlier, this government's record in housing is one of the worst in Canada. We're standing here tonight, debating at 2:10 in the morning, because we cannot leave this floor until the people across from me, including the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), understand that they do have a responsibility, not just to interject with inane remarks.... If the people of British Columbia were watching this on television, I think they would not be too pleased. I think they would be saying: "How much money do we have to spend for these people to stand and argue?" They want some concrete action. We are here to demand that concrete action on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Everything this government has attempted to do is too late. The housing crisis has reached a point where people are suffering. They haven't come to grips with the mortgage situation. Saskatchewan has announced a policy. The new government of Manitoba has already announced a policy. This government has been in office since 1975, and they still can't come up with a housing policy.

In the area of services to people, they have not given any hope to the people of British Columbia. Again, that's why we are here asking for some concrete statement from this government.

The Minister of Human Resources, as I referred to earlier, has spent most of her time on Pier B-C — with the seagulls, as you say. She has spent far too much time there and not enough time looking at the serious problems in her own department. Certainly her great statements about putting people back to work.... Everyone wants to see people working, but the interesting thing is that it's all talk. She talks about putting them back to day care. Yet for the last seven years that Social Credit government, particularly the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Pat Jordan), has said: "We can't go for day-care centres; that's gross state inference with the bringing up of children." Do you remember those speeches?

The Minister of Human Resources, year after year....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Her critic, who is sitting beside me and interrupting me at the moment, has asked over and over again for that Minister of Human Resources to produce some day-care centres. We will have much time, I'm sure, later in the

[ Page 6811 ]

spring, to go over the history of that minister's remarks on the importance of day care, which she completely brushed aside. Suddenly, very belatedly, the Minister of Human Resources has discovered that day care is important. But it's not important for the right reasons to her. It's only important because they fit in conveniently with her new welfare policy. She is not committed to day care, any more than the minister for Peace River even understands what I'm talking about at this moment.

The Minister of Tourism has much to answer to when it comes to day care, because I'm sure that her attitude helped hold back the development of day care in this province.

So suddenly, we have all these young women and mothers told to go out and go to work, put your children in day-care centres — and where are they?

MS. BROWN: They don't exist. The Minister of Tourism kept saying mothers should take care of their children.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Who is....? Would you ask this member who is making this speech, Mr. Speaker?

We've had to listen to so many half-truths, so many myths from that Social Credit government, it's almost pathetic. They just spend their time over and over again in so-called debate with the opposition. They can't even seem to understand our policies, how we're trying to give them some help. Instead, they go back and talk about the years of the NDP administration, completely glossing over the many glorious, important policies that happened in those years. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia have had time now to compare the two governments. I say we're ready at any time to go to the people and face that comparison. May I also say that the policies that the NDP is enunciating in housing, economics, where we want some equity in our resources, and not just subsidies....

The policies the NDP are enunciating, even at 2:15 in the morning, still sound pretty good, don't they?

I think it's tragic that this government is sitting here without the Premier even in his seat — showing absolutely no interest in this debate, and yet the losers are the people out there. The losers are the people of British Columbia who are waiting for a government to give some leadership to help them out of this economic crisis. That is why it is time for the government over there to concede they are incompetent, they are bereft of policies. I think it's time for a change.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's been a day or two since I've sat in this Legislature at 18 minutes after two in the morning, and I was thinking to myself, as I support the motion, why I would be sitting here at quarter after two on December 2. We're sitting here at quarter after two on December 2 because the opposition has frittered away their time since the House has come into session. They have not put forward any programs for the people of B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has hardly been in the Legislature since the session opened. I don't know where he's been, but maybe he was out, Mr. Speaker, trying to do a little homework; trying to come up with some positive program. Unfortunately that leader is burned out. He's had it, and his party knows that he's had it. They're questioning his leadership. He was a poor leader when they were government and he's been worse since they've gone back into opposition some six years ago. No wonder we have all-night sittings, because, believe it or not, the Leader of the Opposition finally woke up and said: "I haven't even spoken in the debate." He was away and didn't even speak when that frivolous non-confidence motion was brought forward by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and he did not support it. As my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey said, this is a death-bed repentance.

The truth of the matter is that that party is completely devoid of policy. I have listened since this House opened, and I have listened since we went back tonight at 8 o'clock — now it's 22 minutes after 2 o'clock. I've listened intently to the Leader of the Opposition: not one single, solitary, positive aspect, note or policy emanating from the NDP benches.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there is that member for Victoria over there who is great on policy but has never done a day's work in his life. He has functioned very well on grants from the government — I guess you'd call him an armchair wonder.

The NDP have had really no debate whatsoever during this throne speech. I listened to them standing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, asking questions about the economy and questions about northeast coal. During question period there was not one question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on economic policy, not one question on northeast coal. What were they busy doing during question period. Mr. Speaker? They were busy muckraking. Smear and innuendo is all they know how to do. Not one question was put to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development during question period — not one question about northeast coal, not one question about the forest industry, not one question about the economy. No, they're too busy down in the gutter. The trademark of the socialist hordes in British Columbia is muckraking and guttersniping.

I was listening with a great deal of interest about them yacking about the forest industry, but their spiritual leader was supporting the IWA when they were out on strike. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I've just come back from some overseas missions where we have the opportunity to sell our lumber on the international marketplace. What was the first question I was asked? "What about security of supply? You want to merchandise your lumber; we want to build houses with your lumber, but we want to ensure as we switch over to using British Columbia lumber that indeed there is going to be a secure supply." You can't have a secure supply when your industry goes out on strike. That's the policy of the NDP Their spiritual leader, supporting strikes in this province.... I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's time the NDP and the labour union leaders in this province recognize that British Columbia, to survive, must sell in the international marketplace, because I happen to think that the working people of this province want the opportunity to work.

It's great for the NDP now to stand up and talk about layoffs in the lumber industry. There are markets out there other than the United States, but we have to break into those markets. And if we want to break into those markets, let me tell you and the other members of this Legislature and all the people of British Columbia, particularly those that are working in the lumber industry, they want to know that they're going to have security of supply. Oh, we've made some great strides. We've made some progress into the international marketplace, and it's just a little embarrassing to go into those areas and say: "Well, we don't know whether to buy from

[ Page 6812 ]

you or not because, Mr. Minister, we're not positive that you're going to be a reliable supplier."

Mr. Speaker, that group of socialists over there support strikes and union bosses, but they don't support the working man. The government is out there to support the working man and to ensure that we sell not only in the United States but indeed that we make progress into the European community and make further progress into the Japanese market — which is almost as big as that of the United States — that we break in a new market such as Korea, which is going to embark on a tremendous major housing program, and that we continue in the European community into the countries of the United Kingdom; Holland, France, Germany and Italy. If we're going to market our products — not only lumber but our other products — in the international marketplace, the workers, the union bosses and the NDP better realize that we must be a reliable supplier and that we must supply our product at a competitive price and that it must be of high quality.

It's great for the NDP to stand up here and mouth about layoffs in the forest industry. Yes, we've got some problems, and we're working with the forest industry. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and myself have met with the forest industry and we will be working with them. We will be surveying new markets. We will be coming up with new merchandising ideas. But all of our efforts will be in vain unless the union bosses, who, in my humble opinion, do not really speak for the working man any longer.... I just happen to think the union bosses are living back in the 1920s and 1930s. They haven't kept up to date with the modern world, but that is not going unrecognized by the working people.

You talk about housing. There have been more housing starts in British Columbia this year than there has ever been. There have been more housing starts per capita than in any province in Canada. What are they doing by standing up here criticizing? Have they offered any alternative? I've listened to the criticism about the layoffs in the lumber industry, and I've also listened very keenly to a suggestion — a policy.

MR. BARBER: Proclaim B.C. Savings and Trust.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, to proclaim B.C. Savings and Trust is going to save the world. What they're really saying is: "Let the government take over the credit unions in the province of British Columbia." If they couldn't run the credit unions any better than they run the government of British Columbia, I wouldn't want them running anything in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, will you quit your yacking? You've had lots of opportunity, and all you've stood up and done is talk about prophecy and airy-fairy deals that you read out of a book. You've never met a banker in your life. You've never met a payroll in your life. You don't know the meaning of a dollar. You've got all your money from government. So why don't you shut up and let me talk, Mr. Member for Victoria? You're just an armchair airy-fairy socialist. You've never gone out and earned a day's living in your life. It's great for you to go on television and expound your policy....

So why don't you just shut up? Why don't you ride your bicycle up the path?

MS. BROWN: You're a welfare bum.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're not a welfare bum. You're one of these capitalist socialists. Your dress probably cost $500. You've never worked a day in your life either.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If one member speaks at a time it helps greatly in debate. Also, if the member speaking would address the Chair, it does have a tendency to keep other conversations to a minimum.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what their policy is, and I've listened intently to it since the Legislature started sitting a few days ago. Every comment that has been made by the socialist opposition is: give more welfare, give more welfare. I'd like to run down just a slight record of....

They talk about jobs. They haven't come up with any policies. They natter and yatter about the forest industry, but have they come up with...?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, they've come up with a policy for the forest industry. The Leader of the Opposition is going to buy up the forest industry with taxpayers' money to keep the jobs. I don't know what he's going to do with the lumber. That's the policy of the socialists opposite.

We have a good record in this government of creating....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You speak for your record, my friend, and I'll stand on mine. We have a good record in this government of creating jobs, and we have a number of programs on the planning boards. But what is the record of the NDP? They are against every positive project that we have put forward. Yet they talk about creating jobs. They're against northeast coal, which will create thousands and thousands of jobs in this province, not only for this year, but for decades to come. As new mines come on, new people will be employed. They talk about jobs in industry, yet they're totally against any further development of power in this province. They're against every power project that we have proposed. Negative! Oh, they say: well, you should create more jobs in the province. I don't know how we're going to create more jobs unless we have power. They're against nuclear power, they're against damming our rivers and they're against thermal power. Maybe they're for candles; but, I'll tell you, I'm glad they're not for lanterns, because their oil is running very low and their light is getting very dim.

They are against the Hat Creek development. They don't want that.

MR. BARBER: Do you favour nuclear power?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you just shut up?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the terminology the member used is hardly in parliamentary keeping, and I would ask him to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought he might understand that language, because he doesn't understand anything else.

[ Page 6813 ]

They are against the development of power from Hat Creek and the project of coal liquefaction. They're against the development of Site C on the Peace River. Yes, you're against it. Sure, you're against everything that is good for the working man in British Columbia — you're against everything that will provide jobs now and into the future. You're against the Laird and the Stikine. In total, Mr. Speaker, they are against every power development in this province. It doesn't matter whether it's from a renewable resource like water power, from coal, from nuclear or from anything. They are against power, yet they piously stand in this Legislature and say: "Oh, but we're for jobs." I guess their policy is that we should have more power from waste wood products. I don't think they understand that 17 percent of the power generated in this province today is from waste wood products. They have no understanding and no conception of the power needs of this province.

It always amazes me when I hear the socialist hordes opposite talk about jobs. They're against the development of a petrochemical manufacturing facility in this province. They would far rather see our natural gas put into a pipeline with a couple of compressor stations and sent down to the United States. We used to have a take-or-pay contract with the United States. But when they were government they did away with the take-or-pay contract. So what did the United States do? As soon as they discovered a little gas of their own they shut off the valve. Now that we can establish a petrochemical manufacturing industry in the province which will not only create thousands of man-years of employment during construction but will also provide solid employment on a steady basis for decades to come, they're against it.

They're against the development of mining in the province of British Columbia. Witness how they drove out the mining industry when they were government. They're against the port of Prince Rupert, which will be the second largest west coast port development in British Columbia. They're against the port, even though it will hurt the province of Saskatchewan. This port is necessary in order that goods and services from Saskatchewan can flow into the Pacific Rim. The NDPers in Saskatchewan believe in international trade. They know they must export their products. The NDP are against the development of Prince Rupert.

They were against the development of Duke Point; they fought that as well — a great development here on the Island, which not only provided thousands and thousands of jobs during construction, but also has provided an industrial park for future development to help the economy of the Island.

They were against the development of Roberts Bank, because they don't have a common policy. Their environmentalist member from Port Alberni is against any development. Yet some of their other members stand in this Legislature and talk about jobs. They have been against B.C. Place. They don't seem to understand that during the development of B.C. Place — which the Premier talked about this afternoon, and there's no sense my repeating it — there were thousands of jobs in the construction industry, plus hundreds of jobs thereafter, in running the facility.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

I wish the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) were in the Legislature tonight. He was against the development of downtown New Westminster, that $250 million development initiated by the British Columbia Development Corporation, which will give that city a new lift during construction. It will create thousands and thousands of jobs. Even the member for New Westminster was against it.

They were against the development of Lonsdale Quay, which is providing thousands and thousands of jobs during construction. It will give a lift to the North Shore, and it will provide thousands of jobs well into the future. It's a great development by the British Columbia Development Corporation in rehabilitating that piece of land. Oh, they were great for buying land, but they weren't much for developing it.

They're against Pier B-C. They do not realize the advantages of having a trade and convention centre at Canada's great gateway to the Pacific. It will not only help the province of British Columbia, but it will also help all the provinces in Canada and all the industry of Canada. It's our showplace of the great Pacific Rim, where the action is going to be in the next several decades.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ocean Falls — what is it now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, you like losers like Ocean Falls, Swan Valley, South Peace Dehy.... You back all the losers. Yes, when they're going broke and can't survive, buy them out, take them over. That's the socialist philosophy. Don't go with a winner. Don't go with something that's good for the people of British Columbia. Don't go for something that's going to make a profit for the people of British Columbia. Don't go for something that's going to help us in the international marketplace. No, go with all the losers. That's what your so-called leader wants to do. As soon as somebody's going broke, buy him out and the government takes over. Spend the taxpayers' money on losers; don't go with winners. No, you're against all the winners, my friend. That's why you're losers. That's why you're not even good opposition. That's why you were no good as government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, they're also against Transpo. They're against the rapid transit system. They're against further coal development in the southeast. Oh, they had a lot to say about the southeast in the spring session of the Legislature. They stood here and they organized the mayors from the southeast and they came into my office and said: "Oh, if you develop northeast coal you're going to steal all the markets from the southeast." I want to tell you: today another announcement came through for another 100,000 tonnes. It happens every day as a matter of course. The southeast can't handle the sales. Why?

Oh, they're great to stand here in the Legislature and criticize travelling by the minister of economic development, who goes into the marketplace and who had to tell the international marketplace in all the countries in the world that British Columbia is no longer the Chile of the north; no, we want to sell.

I remember when I first went to Korea some five years ago. I started talking to Korea Electric Co. and Pohang Iron and Steel. I said: "We'd like to sell you some coal." They said: "Don't talk to us about coal from British Columbia. We went there in 1974 and we talked to the government of the day and they said: 'We're not interested in selling coal to Korea; we're not interested in selling coal to anybody.' " I said: "My friends in Korea, let me tell you, there's a new day in British Columbia."

[ Page 6814 ]

What happened in that span of five short years? Let me tell you, because it's a revelation. From buying no coal from British Columbia, writing off British Columbia as a poor place to do business, today Korea Electric Co., which provides electricity to 38 million people in a country with no natural resource.... You think B.C. Hydro's got problems? They want to take a lesson from Korea Electric Co., which provides all the power for the country of Korea with 38 million people and no natural resources.

Anyway, they're building a new boiler, a huge new thermal plant. They said: "We're not going to buy coal from British Columbia." So I sat down and had a talk with them. They had their boilers all designed. Six months later they changed the design of the boilers to accommodate British Columbia coal. Today British Columbia will be supplying 26 percent of the coal for that new plant. They can criticize the little minister of economic development all they want, but I'll tell you, the sale of that coal provides jobs not only today but tomorrow and the next year and the next year, because they're long-term contracts.

Same thing with Pohang Iron and Steel. They came here to do business with the province of British Columbia in 1974, and nobody would talk to them. When I first met with them they said: "You can forget trying to talk coal to us. We've written off British Columbia. Those socialists over there don't want to do business with us." I said: "My friends, just a minute, the socialist hordes have gone. It's a new day. We want jobs for British Columbia. We're going to compete in the international marketplace. We can be better than Australia, better than South Africa, better than the Unites States."

Today, my friends, what's happening? Large developments of Pohang Iron and Steel. They designed their mill for 8.5 million tonnes of steel a year. They're producing 9.2 million; they're running 110 percent. And guess where 30 percent of the coal is coming from? It's coming from the southeast of British Columbia. Why? Because we went and asked for the order.

Those men that are employed down there, in the southeast, those coal-miners, are happily employed. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we didn't steal the markets away from the southeast. They can't handle the sales today from the southeast because of restrictions on the railway transportation system.

They're against the copper refinery for British Columbia. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — I can see him now. When we announce a new world-scale copper smelter in British Columbia, he'll say: "Oh, it's going to pollute!" I'll say: "Oh, it's going to employ thousands and thousands of people."

Further processing of our natural resources — oh, it's on the drawing board; it isn't going to happen next week, but that's part of the plans of this great government. That's how we're going to create jobs and how we're going to further process our industry. But how are we going to do it without any power? They're against power. They stand up here and piously talk about jobs, but they're against everything we do to create jobs.

I listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is back in the House now. When we worked with the federal government to put a new drydock in Burrard Yarrows, oh, he stood up here and he was against it. I want to tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that there are people gainfully employed in that new drydock. What did I read in the paper just recently? B.C. shipyards, because of that new drydock, get millions and millions of dollars worth of business.

He was against it. He stood up here and condemned it. The NDP over there, Mr. Speaker, has been against every project that this government has ever brought in. Negative, negative, harping criticism! When the Ministry of Highways says we've got to build a new Annacis Island bridge in order to accommodate transport and industry at Annacis Island and in the Lower Mainland, they're against it.

How many items have I named so far? Northeast coal, Hat Creek, coal liquefaction, Site C, Laird, Stikine, petrochemicals.... Oh, power to Vancouver Island; I missed that one. I heard talk from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) about what this government has done for industry in Victoria. When we wanted to bring power to Vancouver Island to accommodate the growing industry on the Island, who was against it? That second member for Victoria. Yet he stands up here and says: "Oh, what are you going to do for industry in Victoria? You haven't done anything for industry in Victoria."

You'd better run out to Saanich and take a look at the new marine technology centre. You'd better go out to UVic and see the high-technology industrial park we're building, my friend. You'd better wake up. I've said in this Legislature before, and I'll say it again: industry is going to go to those communities that want it. If we were to bring industry to Victoria, you'd stand up and be the first one against it. Everything we do in Victoria — it doesn't matter whether it's a convention centre or what — you're against it, because your whole party's philosophy is negative, negative harping criticism.

I want to go back a few years, Mr. Speaker, and not too many at that. We wanted to start developing the economy of British Columbia. We said there was gas down in the Grizzly Valley area, so we should build a pipeline, a new scrubbing plant, and develop the area so that the oil wells and the drills would go in there and develop more gas. What did the NDP say? They had the opportunity to build that pipeline and that scrubbing plant when they were in government, Mr. Speaker. They killed the project. Oh, leave the gas in the ground. Maybe they think it's like ants: it will multiply or something if you leave it there. Oh, they were against it: hundreds of jobs, great development, people gainfully employed today.

They're against new pulpmills. They're against new sawmills. They're against everything that moves in this province, and yet they stand up on their high horse piously talking about new jobs. Oh, how fictitious can they be! They are a party devoid of policy, or any concrete plans. As a matter of fact, I think they're all encased in concrete.

But what are they for? They're for more welfare, more Pharmacare. They're for all the social programs. You'd think that they had captured the market on social programs. I want to ask you who has brought in more social programs in this province than any other government? It's been the Social Credit government, my friends. I want to tell you, if this province had continued to decay the way it was decaying in the three years they were government, the people would not have the social programs they have today, because there would be no money to pay for them. Make no mistake about that.

What else are they for? What is their policy? I've listened intently. All I've heard them talk about is Swan Valley, what a great deal it was — the biggest loser in the history of this province. Yes, that was their swan dive. Oh, they were great.

[ Page 6815 ]

They started a big dehy plan up in the great Peace River country. Biggest loser the farming industry has ever known. But that's their policy.

Oh, yes, I've heard the Leader of the Opposition. That guy that's run out of steam over there, the guy that's dead — lost all his wind. He has no heart in being the leader of that rump group any more. What does he talk about? He talks about Railwest. They're going to put people to work manufacturing railroad cars. The fact that the taxpayers are going to have to subsidize every railcar they manufacture to the tune of $34,000 doesn't mean a thing. We're going to put people to work, We're putting people to work, gainfully employed — long-term jobs that are good for the private sector, not losers.

MS. BROWN: Fifteen thousand woodworkers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're for more welfare. All you know is welfare. If I've ever seen a capitalist socialist, you're one, my friend. Yes, yes, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen, brothers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to remind you again, but I mentioned this in the Legislature the other day. Compare those dark years of 1975 with 1981. Oh, there was a downturn in the world economy, sure. What was on the drawing boards? Absolutely nothing. I want to tell you they would have had to pull down the blinds as the last person left British Columbia, because they were leaving in droves. Compare that with today. They left British Columbia absolutely destitute. People were fleeing our province. They didn't have any housing problems. I take that back. Yes, they had a housing problem — all those empty houses, because people were leaving British Columbia like fleas. What did they do? The province was going broke. They tried to hide it under a snowbank, and got an election in the middle of the winter.

I want to tell you we generated enough heat during that election campaign. We melted those snowbanks and the facts came forward. The people were enlightened, and they elected Social Credit. What are we doing? They said we haven't done anything for jobs. Just look at the record this year alone. Highmont mine, employing hundreds of people during construction, will continue to employ hundreds of people — just recently opened up. A $150 million investment. Lornex Mining is expanding — a $160 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah.... The green light...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. I'll rush along. Yes, I'll rush along. Amax is employing hundreds of people during construction, and will continue to employ hundreds of people. They were against it. Oh, but they stand on their pious horse here, and talk about jobs. We've created jobs, I want to tell you, and we'll create jobs well into this decade and into the next because this government is planning for the future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There is the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) ; she never worked a day in her life.

They talk about manufacturing shipments — I just want to give you some figures. Mr. Speaker, about manufacturing shipments. Oh, the Leader of the Opposition.... You know, his wax is burning very low, and the red light is on. I wish I had more time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his speech. The time has elapsed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about all the great ski areas: I wanted to talk about tourism. There were dozens of things I wanted to talk about that this great government has done to create jobs. They are not only jobs now, but well into the future — all jobs without government takeover. Oh, we're planning, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker! Oh, we're planning not only now....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who's doing it? Us! Yes, we are planning.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker. that's a tough act to follow in some ways! [Laughter.] Some of the things the minister says are interesting, and we should reply to those.

On the one hand he talks about going to these foreign countries — to Japan, to Italy and to Europe — trying to persuade them to buy our timber or our lumber over there, and they suggest to him that it is the strikes and lockouts in the labour situation in B.C. that cause problems with the security of supply. I'm wondering what he's suggesting. Is he suggesting that we initiate legislation in this province to ban strikes and lockouts, or that we control strikes and lockouts in some way, or cut down the power of the unions in this province? Is that what the minister is suggesting" Should we sacrifice the rights of working people in this province to organize and to bargain collectively for better wages and conditions in order to gain markets in Europe and in Japan? Is that what they're demanding of that minister, and is that what that minister is suggesting in the way of legislation to control the labour force in the province of B.C., to make our industry more accept able to some purchasers of commodities in foreign countries?

Should our workers submit to the demands made upon them by foreign purchasers of our commodities? Is that what the minister is suggesting? Should we curb the freedom of individuals here in British Columbia in order to make our commodities available to the countries of Europe and to Japan?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one suggest that that is not what is being demanded of our government. However, I believe it's what is being demanded of the minister by his own party in their convention, and I believe it's the propensity of the minister himself to cut down the rights of working people in this province and to curb their right to organize and bargain collectively to improve wages and working conditions in the province of British Columbia. That's what that member has always stood for — curbing the rights of working people in this province and curbing their ability to bargain fair wages and working conditions. Mr. Speaker, not even the Employers Council of British Columbia would go along with nonsense like that, and I certainly don't believe for one minute that the overseas purchasers of commodities from the province of British Columbia would ever attempt to impose that kind of a condition for a purchase on the government of British Columbia.

[ Page 6816 ]

What the minister also fails to mention, Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasons why we're against some projects that the government has proposed — but not all, some projects....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them!

MR. SKELLY: We've got lots of time, and will name certain projects.

But one of the reasons why we're against some of those projects is that the projects themselves are dangerous to the health and safety of the people who will be working in or near them. We will not for one minute, Mr. Speaker, support projects like that until it is obvious and clear to us — and clear through environmental impact analyses and other studies, and also through an effective public hearing process where workers can be involved, where the public can be involved effectively.... Not until those projects have been cleared by that process will we accept projects that appear on their surface to be dangerous to the lives, health and safety of working people and people working and living near those projects.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll get down to naming some in a minute.

It's interesting to note the contradiction in the member's speech. At one time he stood up and said: "We're having all these new projects coming ahead in New Westminster, at Hat Creek, in the Peace River, in the northeast coal sector, in the southeast coal sector, Roberts Bank, Prince Rupert, all of these projects that are on the drawing board."

If those projects are creating such wealth and employment in British Columbia, then what are we doing cutting back on our programs? What are we doing cutting single parents off welfare, cutting back on the amount of money we make available to those people? What are we doing cutting back on health programs, on Pharmacare, on programs that provide necessary services to the people? If this province is so rich, so wealthy, and people are employed in such vast numbers, why do we have to cut back on these programs? Probably because of what the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said.

It's one thing to have these projects. The NDP has always stated that they're in favour of development and growth in the province, but only development and growth on terms that are favourable to the people of the province of British Columbia and in which this province is a participant. If we have all these projects going ahead in the province of B.C. and they aren't providing adequate revenues to the provincial government, then there must be some problem with the competence of the provincial government and their ability to develop revenues from new developments in this province. That's the real problem: fiscal mismanagement and government incompetence from a government that's totally lazy, totally ineffective. They leave everything up to the private sector and cannot generate from those new developments the revenues we require to provide needed services to the people living in this province who have a right to those services as a result of their citizenship.

I support the motion that we should keep this session going, There is business for this Legislature to do. There is business that needs to be done for the people of the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to explain some of the problems that are being experienced right now in the constituency of Alberni, some of the problems that relate directly to the mismanagement of this economy by the Social Credit government. Now they blame world market conditions, interest rates and the federal government, but the problems in Port Alberni can be related directly to the inefficiency, laziness and incompetence of the Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia.

What is happening right now in Port Alberni? There are over a thousand people laid off in the forest industry in Port Alberni. The town has a population of roughly 19,000 or 20,000. I'll tell you what the effect is. It's that something like one breadwinner in every six families is laid off in Port Alberni. If you can imagine the problems that that would cause in the community of Nelson, Mr. Speaker, it is a serious problem in Port Alberni.

The whole economy is affected because there is naturally a spinoff. The wages and salaries earned in the forest industry in Port Alberni are passed right through the economy of that city, having an important effect on the local economy. The results? Businesses are shutting down. Businesses are moving away from Port Alberni. Salaries aren't being paid. People are being laid off. As a result money isn't trading hands and retail sales are down. People are having extreme difficulties in Port Alberni.

One family in six is affected right now, and under the present government's policies, by the time spring of 1982 rolls around, it's expected that the problem will be double, so that one family in three will be affected. And it affects everyone in Port Alberni — not simply in commercial terms, not simply in terms of the success or failure of business or the ability of people to find jobs and to work, Those aren't the only terms in which the city is affected and the population is affected. Social service workers and teachers tell me that under the conditions we're now experiencing, social problems increase — crime increases, family violence increases, assaults on children increase. This economic situation is causing serious social problems. I realize that the government couldn't give a darn about those social problems, but there is a serious social cost involved in the economic conditions which we're experiencing now in Port Alberni.

What happens in the middle of all these problems? When people are experiencing these problems, then there's a cutback in the social service payments made by the provincial government. What happens with cases of domestic violence? What happens in cases of assaults on children? The staff in the Human Resources offices are being cut back, assistance to families who are experiencing these problems is being cut back, and those social problems are being made worse. And that's from the Social Credit government that just a few minutes ago we heard was doing such great things for the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I don't know where these great things are happening, but they're certainly not happening in many of the resource-associated communities on Vancouver Island and, I suspect, on the mainland and throughout the province as well.

What the minister was talking about in his speech a few minutes ago was nothing but a bunch of hot air. He said that when he took office in 1975 there was nothing on the drawing board, and now in this province all we have is drawing boards. All we have is these wild plans and projections by the minister, plans and projections that seem to disappear as they come out of the wild mind and imagination of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

[ Page 6817 ]

He talked about housing and how there have been more housing starts in British Columbia during the Social Credit period of office than there ever was under the NDP. If you look at individual communities, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false and without foundation in fact. If you look at the housing-start statistics for Port Alberni and the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District that I represent, housing starts have gone down consistently since 1974, with the specific exception of 1977 when there was a mini-boom and housing increased.

In the last little while, Mr. Speaker, companies from Vancouver have moved into Alberni. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has been advised, a big investment company has now moved into Port Alberni and is buying up a lot of the old housing stock in Port Alberni, which for a long time escaped the kind of price increases we had in Vancouver. Those investors have now taken advantage of the low prices of housing in Port Alberni to drive up rents, to drive up house prices and to drive people who are already suffering from economic conditions in that city out of their homes. They're allowing those houses to run down, they're ignoring the provisions of the residential tenancies legislation. They get very little assistance from this provincial government in resolving their grievances with landlords and with that investment company.

One of the problems with this government, Mr. Speaker, is that it totally ignores the transportation needs of areas outside the major areas of the province where it's having its megaproject developments. And places — small remote communities like Port Alberni, Tofino, Ucluelet — that I represent are suffering, for example, from the lack of investment of highway funds in those areas, for which the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is directly responsible. Now he says that during the 1972-1975 years they called the NDP Minister of Highways "Pothole Lea." In Alberni, Mr. Speaker, the thing that we remember is "Pothole Fraser." His own Highways ministry staff say they are being undercut in the budget by their own Minister of Highways, that they need a million dollars extra a year just to keep the roads from deteriorating and the minister is allowing those roads in that particular area, and in other areas of the province, to run down while he concentrates on these megaprojects that benefit only very small areas of the province and a small number of people in the province.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the other side of the House say that we're not in favour of energy development in the province, and they mention a number of developments. They talk about the Site C development. The Site C dam produces something like 900 megawatts of power at a cost of almost $2 billion. Many of the people in the province are opposed to the Site C development, and this party has also expressed its opposition to the Site C development for good and valid reasons. It's going to destroy farmland in the Peace River area, farmland that we are going to desperately require in this province.

Now the minister talks about energy, about bringing in industry, bringing in smelters, bringing in shipyards, bringing in ports and new resource-development facilities. But if those people can't eat, Mr. Speaker, than there's no point in having that industry in this province, because if you can't feed the workforce, what are they here for anyway? The one thing we have to secure most strongly for the people of this province and for the people who will come to this province as a result of economic development is a strong agricultural base — based on agricultural land and strongly protected through agricultural land protection legislation. We have to secure the food supply for our people first. Otherwise, it's a little pointless to have all this economic development that the minister imagines is going to come to this province.

Definitely we're against Site C because of the impact it's going to have on the forest industry, a renewable resource, and on the agricultural industry, a necessary and life-sustaining renewable resource, and because of the effect it's going to have on water in the province of British Columbia. We're also against it because the government has not yet demonstrated that the Site C dam is necessary even for energy reasons, and that's the battle going on right now before the Utilities Commission in Fort St. John which will continue in Vancouver in the new year. If B.C. Hydro changed its pricing policy and changed its energy efficiency policy — or you can call it conservation, if you will — and was mandated by this government to be more effective in the way it produces and markets power, and if this government would provide incentive to people and industry to be more efficient in the way they use electrical power, then we would have a situation where in fact the Site C dam and some of the other projects mentioned by the previous speaker may not be necessary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair I

We're not talking about pie in the sky, as the minister just speaking before me was. Conservation is possible and energy efficiency measures are taking place elsewhere on this continent and they are being effective. They are able in other parts of the continent to cut back on their huge, expensive, capital-intensive generation and transmission projects in favour of more labour-intensive, capital-efficient conservation projects and alternatives-renewable projects.

Mr. Speaker, it's happening even in the states just south to us. The United States federal government has mandated the Bonneville Power Authority to go after conservation and renewables as a priority. We do that last. Billions of dollars of Hydro money is being spent on huge centralized transmission and generation projects. Only a very small amount is spent on conservation. In the United States and in the states just below us it's the other way around. The people have told their energy authority that they do not want that kind of centralized development. What they want is more efficiency, more conservation, less debt, more access to and more public control over the utilities, and because the people down there are able to influence their legislators, and their legislature — particularly their government — listens to them, those states are changing their procedures and changing the mandate of the utilities.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed alternatives. Those alternatives have been developed elsewhere on this continent, but this government, hidebound by the traditions of the 1950s, still hide conditions which they didn't create themselves back in the 1950s but are still bound to. Because they cannot think originally, those traditions still propel them ahead with this huge, centralized energy utility type of development. It's unfortunate for the people of British Columbia, because what Robert Bonner is still now talking about in San Francisco.... In spite of the promises of the Premier and some of his cabinet ministers, Bonner is still travelling around the country and the continent telling us that B.C. is going to have a nuclear future in the 1990s and B.C. is going to be spending in the next ten years something like $28

[ Page 6818 ]

million in borrowed money. Because B.C. Hydro cannot generate sufficient of its own revenues to pay for these projects, we're going to be borrowing, on the assets of the two and a half million people in this province, something like $28 billion and saddling our citizens with that kind of debt.

This party believes that in energy terms we should be paying as we go; we shouldn't be saddling the future with those kinds of debts which they're not going to be able to pay off in the energy regimes of the future.

They talk about the Hat Creek development: 2,500 megawatts of power generated in a coal thermal generation plant near Hat Creek, a very isolated part of the province. It is a beautiful valley, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you've been there. I'm sure the people have asked you to go up there and take a look at the valley and at what's going to happen to the valley as a result of that project. We went up there at the invitation of the people in that area. Environmentally they are going to totally destroy the region. They are going to totally destroy the existing ranching industry in the region, which produces something that the people of this province are going to be desperately in need of in the future, which people cannot live without — protein food. It's a life-sustaining resource. It doesn't matter how much energy you produce, it doesn't matter how much coal you produce, and it doesn't matter how much gas you produce from coal in this province; if you cannot feed the workforce that produces that material then you're not going to produce that material. It's as simple as that.

What this government always neglects to look at are those life-sustaining resources that are so invaluable that they haven't yet attached a reasonable price to them. Yes, we are against the Hat Creek coal project. Yes, we even said we were in favour of it at the last election. But rather than be hidebound by the way we've been thinking in the past, as the Social Credit government is, rather than being in that same kind of strait-jacket which they were in in the 1950s, we are able to re-evaluate projects such as Hat Creek. When the environmental impact statements come down we read them and get our researchers to read them. We consult the people in the area and the people at universities. We question what Hydro tells us. We don't take everything as gospel. You have to do that if you're going to be a reasonable government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that questioning and as a result of some of the information that came out of Hydro's own studies, we changed our minds on the Hat Creek development. Perhaps under some other circumstance — some other coal-burning technology or smaller plants located in diverse areas of the province and producing less pollution — we would not oppose coal thermal development; in fact, I think we would probably support it. We would recommend that to the government as something they should look at. I'm not sure that the government would accept that as a positive recommendation, because of the strait-jacketed commitment they have to those huge centralized generation technologies. It's unfortunate, because no matter what positive suggestions we make in the House the government sits stone-deaf and ignores them.

Now they say that we're against all hydroelectric projects in the province of British Columbia. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Let me point out this: we support none of the ones that the government has proposed, with some possible exceptions. We selected from a whole range of programs which Hydro presented to us when we were in office, and we took the least damaging alternatives: the Seven Mile hydroelectric dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River and the Peace Canyon dam in the Peace River area. They were the least damaging projects available to us which were presented by B.C. Hydro.

You have to remember that when we came to office in 1972 we didn't even have a Ministry of Energy in the province of B.C. It's hard to believe in this modern era. When this government was involved in the Columbia River project and in the Peace River project, we didn't even have a ministry responsible for energy or for coordinating energy development and studying future energy alternatives in the province of British Columbia. We had a stone-age government which belonged before World War II, in the way it was structured and in the way it operated.

We set up a ministry responsible for energy when we took over this government in 1972. You will recall this, Mr. Speaker, because you and I were elected at the same time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, what has all this to do with a motion to adjourn? We've heard about energy and alternative energy. I haven't yet heard any reference to the motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. I've been listening very carefully and waiting for the member to relate his remarks to the motion before us. I'm sure I'm about to hear it.

MR. SKELLY: It was my next line, Mr. Speaker. Before we get heavily involved in these energy projects, this Legislature should be discussing the alternatives available to the people of British Columbia.

Right now, after Mr. Bonner's speech in San Francisco, the people of British Columbia are saying this province is going to have a nuclear future — after Mr. Bonner's speech saying that we're going to have the Laird, the Stikine, with all the extremely damaging impacts of those dams. The people of this province are living in fear that those projects are going ahead right away. They're living in fear that we're going to be saddled with the $28 billion in debt that Mr. Bonner is planning to generate on the backs of the people of this province. This Legislature should be meeting right now to do something about that, and not putting the decisions off until some time in March or April, in the spring of 1982.

We should be discussing those issues in this Legislature right now, and that's why we should not be supporting this amendment to adjourn the House so that the cabinet can take another holiday — their third of the year. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker. The minister said: "I heard everything the member was saying, but I didn't hear him relating it to the motion." If you heard everything I was saying you would know exactly what we're proposing. But like any Socred, sitting there in that strait-jacketed attitude of the 1950s, you refuse to listen. You can't understand. It's beyond you. It has to do with the seventies, the eighties, the nineties; something that's passed you by completely, Mr. Minister.

I'm sure if the minister reads Hansard — or if somebody reads Hansard to him — he will find out what we're proposing. If the minister is willing to listen, I have suggested that we are absolutely opposed to the hydro projects that are presently on the drawing-board for the province of British Columbia. We have asked Hydro....

Interjection.

[ Page 6819 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: You're going to miss it if you keep screaming and waving your hands.

We have asked Hydro and the government time and time again to look at the renewables, to look at small hydroelectric projects that are less damaging and can serve local areas or local industries, projects that don't destroy whole fish runs, projects that don't destroy whole valley bottoms, and projects that don't take out of production thousands upon thousands of acres of timber, which are the renewable resources that the workers in this province depend upon. Those are the kinds of things we are proposing. If the minister would like to learn a little bit more about it, all he has to do is talk to the energy agencies in Washington and Oregon.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not in Canada.

MR. SKELLY: Well, that's one thing he's learned.

He had an opportunity just last year to go to a seminar which was conducted by the utilities and by the state governments of the four northwestern states with which we share power grids and exchange power. The Washington government and their utilities, the Oregon government and their utilities, the government of Idaho and their utilities, and the government of Montana and their utilities were represented. The only government connected to that power system that wasn't represented was the government of British Columbia and its utilities. But the opposition party in British Columbia and its research staff were represented. The Governor of the state of Oregon made a point, during his address to the seminar, to recognize the fact that some people from British Columbia were interested enough in the energy regime in the northwest sector to come down and attend that seminar and to find out what the northwestern utilities were doing and exchange ideas with them.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talks about going to Japan, Korea and Italy. It's hard to believe that he had time to get off the plane to stop in at the Legislative Assembly. He talks about selling all of our raw resources to those countries. He talks about sacrificing rights and freedoms of our workers in order to create markets in some of those countries. In the one area where we could learn new things about energy that would be extremely valuable to this province and would cut down on our debt load and our requirement for new energy generation and transmission, the government of B.C. isn't even represented. It's like the old Canada-wide conferences of the past, where B.C.'s was the empty chair. When it comes to dealing with modern ideas about energy, and dealing with energy efficiency, the government that's not represented across Canada and throughout the northwestern United States is the government of British Columbia. But the opposition is represented there, and that is recognized by those other governments. We know that energy efficiency can create more jobs. We know there's a relationship between energy and labour, because in the past — in the 1950s, in the era that you people are thinking about and thinking in — energy replaced labour.

In my constituency, energy has replaced jobs. Fifteen thousand jobs have been replaced in the forest industry in the last few decades by modernization, by substituting energy for human labour. Fifteen thousand jobs have been lost.

In the last little while, as a result of a mill modernization in Port Alberni, 300 jobs were lost in a single mill, and we're looking at several hundred more to be lost at a mill that MacMillan-Bloedel is in the process of shutting down.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you suggesting that we go back to the 1950s?

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying that you are in the fifties, and we want to get rid of that mentality. We want to get it out of British Columbia for good. We want to become more efficient and we want to develop energy systems which are much more labour-intensive and which involve people in the decision-making and in the conduct of those energy utilities.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is being done. The problem is that these people in government in British Columbia cannot see that it is being done. It's being done in Alberta. It's being done in Saskatchewan. It's being done in Manitoba. It's being done in Ontario.

MR. BARRETT: Alberta?

MR. SKELLY: Alberta is developing a wood-fired thermal generating plant.

MR. BARRETT: You're kidding — those Tories?

MR. SKELLY: One of the people who spoke here — I believe it was the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — said that the opposition cannot understand that 17 percent of the energy in the province is provided by wood.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall interrupting the speech of the minister who is now shouting across the floor. Do you, Mr. Speaker?

In his speech, he said that I was promoting "some kind of wood-thermal generating scheme for Port Alberni," and I am doing precisely that. Right now wood technology is the premier energy technology of the province of British Columbia. Seventeen percent of our energy is produced from wood in this province. More energy than was produced by hydroelectric is produced by wood-thermal energy.

A study was done on Vancouver Island in 1979 by the federal Forest Service, and they found out that there were 200 potential megawatts of electrical power that could be developed from wood-thermal energy on Vancouver Island. A quarter of the power produced at the Site C Dam, and that's just on four communities on Vancouver Island: Duncan, Port Alberni, Campbell River and Port Hardy.

What I'm asking the government to do is to advance those studies and take a look at that wood-thermal electric generation system. Right now, and since the fifties, we've watched people being phased out of the forest industry by energy. Fifteen thousand jobs have been lost in this province because those jobs were replaced by electricity. What I'm asking is that we now get labour involved again in the wood industry to produce energy — to do it the other way around, in a very modern system.

In Port Alberni we've got something like 1,200 people laid off in the forest industry, Mr. Speaker. We've got people laid off with decades of seniority working in that industry and, in many cases, with absolutely no hope for future employment in that industry because mills are shutting down, mills are being phased out.

[ Page 6820 ]

What I'm asking the government to do is to develop a wood-thermal energy system for Vancouver Island. We have people experienced in cutting trees. We have people experienced in yarding and in hauling. We have people experienced in transporting and chipping, and we have people experienced in thermal-electric generation, using wood as a fuel, because that technology was developed in the forest industry of British Columbia. We are leaders in that technology. Mr. Speaker, the government has not done anything about it. One of the reasons we should be carrying on this session is that we should be demanding that the government get involved in wood-thermal energy development on Vancouver Island, and particularly in those communities which are affected by layoffs due to market conditions and due to the substitution of energy for labour.

Those are only a few of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I propose to raise in a very positive way — positive suggestions which I propose to make to the government during this session of the Legislature. Therefore I'm absolutely opposed to taking a break now, when the people in my community are so economically distressed; when people are moving out of town to find work; when people cannot find work; when businesses are shutting down. What we need is some activity — some action on the part of the government — and we don't have it. We shouldn't be closing the Legislature at this time when that work is undone.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, earlier yesterday morning I mentioned a few things with reference to the telegram that you had kindly sent me a couple of weeks before. The telegram stated that it was necessary to bring the House together for the public interest of this province. We came here to work. We came here to try to resolve some of the problems of this province. But we've run up against a lazy government a government that wants to go home. They believe in seven days' work and three months' rest.

We believe that the Minister of Small Business Development should have more time in this House. He was anxious tonight; he was going at it tonight. He had a lot to say, but he didn't have time to say that when the government tried to cut him off today, and if they had succeeded we wouldn't have heard that fine speech tonight.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: There are lots of ways of looking at it.

I want to talk about the IWA layoff. Layoffs in a major industry. These layoffs are affecting every community in this province; they're even affecting some of the Peace River areas. Workers in the forestry industry are being laid off right across the board — some 17 to 20 percent, and in some cases 25 percent are laid off in the different sections of the forest industry. That is the key industry, one which affects everyone in this province. We should be here so we could discuss this matter. The government should have proposals presented to us, telling us how they're going to get these people back to work. When we go back to our ridings, we can tell them that this government is not a lazy government after all, that that was only a rumour; that this government has proposals; that they're working full-time and that they have proposals to put everybody back to work.

There are lots of problems in this province. There is lots of opportunity for a government to take steps in trying to create employment for the people of this province who are unemployed. What about shipbuilding? There could be a large shipbuilding industry here that there used to be a few years back. During wartime one of the major industries of this area was the shipbuilding industry; there is an area you can start working at. You could be helping small business; you could be trying to cut down the number of bankruptcies that are taking place in this province every year. It's getting worse and worse — there are more and more bankruptcies. There are a number of things that could be done.

I went through my wastepaper basket this evening and found a few clippings I had thrown out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's what you call digging down to the bottom of the barrel.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, I dug there so that you would understand what I was speaking about.

This little bit here says: "Housing Accords Fall Short" and that's dealing with our Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). It says right here on the front page that the housing accords fall short. Now we want to meet here so the Minister of Housing can explain what the problem is, why the housing accords have fallen short. We're interested in that. One of the major problems in this province today is the shortage of housing. It says right here: "Housing Accords Fall Short." We want you to give us some proposals on how you're going to cure this problem of the shortfall in housing.

What have we got here? This says: "Three Simple Steps Key to Affordable Rents." Who said that? Well, it says that Mr. Hyndman said this. "The federal government must restore capital cost allowances to landlords, the province must phase out rent controls, and tenants must learn to love their landlords, " Hyndman told the delegates at the two-day B.C. Housing Conference at the Bayshore Inn. You see, he spoke at the Bayshore Inn but he didn't speak here, because you tried to cut him off too soon. If this debate had gone on for another week we would have heard the minister's proposals in the House, and we could have listened to him. Maybe he's got some good ideas here. He says that tenants should love their landlords. That might be a start. But we didn't have the opportunity to discuss these matters because he didn't speak here because there wasn't enough time for him to do so.

Here we have something else.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where did you find that one?

MR. LORIMER: Same place.

"Government Changes its Stand on Equal Value Pay Issue." This is a matter with reference to the rights of women. We should be discussing that here. We should be meeting to discuss these important matters which affect half the population of this province. To say that you have to lock up the shop and go home is a very serious mistake.

The reason we don't proceed with a reasonable session in the fall is that the only purpose we're here is so that the Premier and the other ministers can go around saying: "In British Columbia we have two sessions of the Legislature, one in the spring and one in the fall." It's only a propaganda tool, in order to tell the people in the other provinces: "Yes, we're a big province too. We have two sittings, you know. We have one in the spring and then we do a lot of work in the fall" — the seven-day fall — "and then we have three months of rest because we've worked so hard."

[ Page 6821 ]

Here's another one: "It's a Bleak Year, Experts Say." It's a bleak year; we accept that. The experts are saying that it's a bleak year. We should have the opportunity to hear what this government is proposing. for the people of this province so we can debate the matters that are affecting everyone in this province, but no, you try to cut us off so that we can't discuss these matters that are of such importance to the people of the province.

This was a real funny one. It's got a picture here. It says, "Housing Demand to Rage On, " and it's got a picture of the Minister of — oh, he's gone — Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). It's admitting the fact that there's really no solution in sight from any government action on the housing problems that face the people of this province.

Those matters should be debated here. There should be proposals brought in by the minister. There was a proposal, if you remember, in the throne speech. I think most people have forgotten the throne speech. There was nothing there, you see. If the Speaker hadn't been careful and kept a copy of it, no one would have remembered anything about it. One thing about our Speaker, he was right on his toes. Right away, as soon as the speech was read, he knew what was going to happen. He knew that people would forget what was in that speech. So he said: "No, I'm going to get a copy right now, so we'll have it."

(Hon. Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

We have some other clippings. It says here: "Chabot Makes Housing Deal." He thought he'd made a deal, but it backfired. So the next issue talks about that. At this particular time, on November 27, he had made a deal, he said here, with Paul Cosgrove. Paul Cosgrove, that minister from Ottawa, isn't that great a Housing minister. He came here to straighten out your minister.... He came here to straighten you people out. Your minister thought he had a deal, but he didn't have a deal.

Here's another little clipping; I've got lots of these.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All from the same place?

MR. LORIMER: Yes. It didn't take long.

"Homeless Live in Cars," says this one. Now if that's not a housing problem.... We should be doing something about it. We shouldn't be locking up the shop and trying to go home. We shouldn't work seven days and take three months off. Seven days of work and three months of rest! We're here, ready to do some work; however, the government is not prepared to work, so there's not much we can do about it.

We can try to indicate to them by sitting tonight that things are serious in this province, probably the worst they've been since the deepest part of the Depression. Of course, this is a depression government, a depression party. Wastrels, spendthrifts, lazy government! All we can do is indicate to you, suggest to you, and beg, that you carry on with the session and bring some proposals and resolve some of these problems that are facing the people of this province. But no, you want to shut it down.

Here's another clipping, and it's a good one. This one says: "Public Undecided About how to Save Fraser." Now, I don't know; we have some proposals for that. We would like to pass them along to you. The fact that there is so much unemployment at this time.... This doesn't refer to the minister. I thought it did when I clipped it, but I intend to use it either way. I'll use it both ways.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Turn it over. The headline is on the other side!

MR. LORIMER: That's right. The other side is a used care sale. You can buy a used car for $999, and you can sleep in it to solve your housing problems.

But here it is: "Public Undecided About how to Save Fraser." The public has not actually decided whether he's worth saving. That's up to your government to decide.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They must call you the NDP bat, because you come alive at night! [Laughter.]

MR. LORIMER: That's not bad!

We have so much unemployment in this province at the present time. One of the projects could be to clean up the Fraser River. Put the people to work. Get the Fraser cleaned up. Clean up Fraser, I say.

Here's another one I found; I can't remember where I got this one. It says: "New Home Rule a Catastrophe for First timers." There are lots of first-timers. There's one first-timer; he's a one-timer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're an old-timer.

MR. LORIMER: That's right, and when I got here you were already here. [Laughter.]

This is dealing with housing and the new mortgage rates, which are a very serious problem. With the high mortgage rates now, for the majority of people — especially young people — there is no way they can possibly get into a home. It’s not funny; it's a very serious problem, and we should be dealing with those sorts of things here. " 'It is a catastrophe for the first-time buyers, ' said Maurice Butler, president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. 'It means a lot of them won't be able to buy.' " Well, that's an understatement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read all of it.

MR. LORIMER: I'm not going to read all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. LORIMER: You can have it if you want it; you can get up and make a speech. I'll give it to you. You can read it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would address the Chair.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, I certainly would. I didn't realize there was a change in the Chair. I wasn't going to address the other one because he was asleep, but I'm very pleased to address you, Mr. Speaker.

Now here is one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Another one?

MR. LORIMER: Yes, but I'm not going to deal with this one; I'm just going to commend it for your reading. It's "The Saving Graces of' Work," by Arthur Mayse. I think it would behoove you all to read this article. I'll leave it there. If you want it, you can come and I'll find it for you.

Here is another one — oh, I've got lots here yet: "Full Enumeration to Begin in Weeks."

[ Page 6822 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Arthur Weeks! [Laughter.]

MR. LORIMER: Yes, that's what I was wondering. Who is "Weeks"?

Mr. Speaker, I want to address you about this problem. As you are well aware, the increase in unemployment in this province means that there are a number of people who aren't at work — that's the general idea. You can put them to work on enumeration; you can put them on the enumeration to begin in weeks, as it says. Well, it can begin right now. That's why we should be meeting here, so we could discuss the important matter of getting enumeration started and getting people back to work — that's the important thing.

Now I've got another one here. I don't want to deal with them in any great detail; I'm just giving you the headlines: "Curtis Orders Cut, Cut, Cut." We certainly need to meet to discuss the financial disaster that has occurred in this past year, with a government of big-time spenders, wasters, who don't want to come to work. They come to work, work for seven days and want three months of rest. Things have changed in the last number of years, but here it's a question of the Minister of Finance refusing to accept our amendments last year to reduce costs and waste, and here it is: they're now having to pay for their failure to listen to the opposition in the spring of this year.

Here is some more: "Lack of Planning Laid to Socreds." I'm not going to read it all; I'll just tell you who the author is.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: No, actually it's Graham Lea, from Prince Rupert; he's an authority, as I understand. I won't deal further with this, but it's here for you if you want to read it.

"City Housing Starts Decrease by 40 Percent" — that's in Victoria.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That was in 1973.

MR. LORIMER: No, it's this year, 1981. To date the mortgage starts have decreased by 40 percent. "Victoria's housing starts are down 40 percent, another victim of high interest rates, the local president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada said today. 'Not many people want to build homes when rates are this high,' Gary McInnis said."

We should be meeting here in order to discuss these matters of high interest rates, the effect they have on housing and the fact that people are sleeping in cars. This government is sitting here piously pretending there is nothing wrong in the economy of this province. It's a shame.

Here's another one: "Is This the Next Depression?" The answer is very simple. Unless this government decides to roll up their sleeves and get to work and do something, it will be the next depression in this province. That's why we're here tonight: to try to impress on you the importance of keeping the session together and doing something about the problems of this province.

This one says: "The Recession is a Bad One, GNP Figures Confirm."

It didn't take too much time to collect these items. There were lots more that I could have taken, but I didn't bother. We were stuck with 40 minutes, so there wasn't much point. That's why I have to go through them so quickly. The problems are the same all over the province.

Here's some hope. This one says: "Housing Scheme Lumber Booster." It says the new housing scheme is going to sell more lumber and so on. Oh, yes, this is from Fredericton. This isn't from B.C. at all. This doesn't apply here. That's New Brunswick.

Here's one. It says: "Grace Entrenches." Oh, no, that's a different one. We won't bother with that one either.

Here's another one: "Figures Now Confirm Economy Really Ailing." And it is, eh? We're not here to debate and bring up propositions and proposals for the solution of the economic problems that are rife in this province, due to the fact that we've got a lazy government, a government that wants to work for seven days and then rest for three months. The government of the third-largest province in this country is prepared to work for seven days and rest for three months — shocking performance when we consider the sorrowful Christmas that a number of our residents are going to have. There's no hope in the budget and no hope anywhere for most of the taxpayers and residents of our province.

Here's another one: "We'll Pay More Tax For Less." Do you know who said that?

MR. BARRETT: Curtis.

MR. LORIMER: That's right. I was going to give a multiple choice.

Do we think that is a satisfactory method of operating our province: pay more tax for less?

This one says that the economic fall is "the worst in 30 years." That's an understatement. It's probably the worst in 40 or 50 years. What was our government doing here tonight and this past week?

MS. BROWN: Dancing at the ball.

MR. LORIMER: That's right. They came here for seven days. They've had a nice little party at Government House. They want to go home now; they're tired. They've had their ball and their seven days of work; now they want their three months' rest.

The next one is: "Curtis Warns of Tax Hike." There's nothing very warm here — a tax hike. You wouldn't have needed the tax hike if you had taken our recommendations last year.

What have we got here? "Wardair Plans Cutbacks as Nine-month Earnings Fall."

MR. BARRETT: That's not because of the cabinet ministers.

MR. LORIMER: No. It says down here somewhere that that's the only thing that's keeping them afloat. It's keeping them in the air.

Even the stock exchange is suffering. Even your friends on Howe Street are not too happy. "Trading Falls in November." They're not very happy with you. "Canadian Dollar Declines." It's been going down, up, down. It used to be a dollar for a dollar. This is December 1; it's an old paper. You probably haven't yet read the one for December 1. I'll leave it here for you, and you can come and read it.

I'm sorry to say I've run out of clippings, but I can start over. We can use the other side, because the story on the other side is basically the same as the story on the front.

[ Page 6823 ]

Seriously speaking, there are many things that can be done by this government. Initiatives could be brought about by this government which would have received the wholehearted support of the opposition if it would have meant assisting in the problems which are facing so many of our people in this bad year of economic downturn. If you want to roll up your sleeves and get to work, lots can be done.

I'm convinced, and I'm sure you agree.... I know the Speaker agrees because he called us here in the public interest, and nothing has happened. I'm quite sure that we all agree that this government's activities in the past year have been a complete disaster. You've got to do a lot better. You've got to be prepared to work. Operating a government isn't that easy; it shouldn't be that easy. You should be ready to work, or you shouldn't be in it. It's not good enough to have seven days' work and three months' holiday. You've got to do much better.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I can't help but wonder about the whole purpose of this debate. We have just had a very silent presentation in the last two minutes, saying let's roll up our sleeves and let's work, from the refugee from Sleepy Hollow — a man who has taken nearly 40 minutes of this Legislature's time in a hilarious interlude of press-clipping readings, which probably cost the people of this province, between now and the time we started this sitting at 8 o'clock, more than any ball or any other cost we've experienced.

All the members on the floor are in a different position than our staff who are being paid overtime and double time. I just wonder what the cost of this sitting is.

When the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) got up at 8 o'clock, she said: "Call the House back, and the NDP will present programs. We're waiting. We're ready to go." We've been sitting here for eight hours, and we have yet to hear one positive suggestion or program from the NDP. That member who just sat down talked about seven days' work and three months' holiday. I don't know what that side of the House does when the House isn't sitting, but I know what this side of the House does: they serve their constituents. Their record will show that they serve their constituents. I'll speak for myself. I work for my constituents. I will refer to the record in a moment.

What does the NDP do? They don't work, and then they run around and whine and cry, just as they are doing tonight. What am I accused of? Working too hard and getting too many things for my constituents — too much lottery money. Anything to excuse themselves from ever doing any work. If they want to sit here with the example of debate that we've been witnessing tonight, then it's quite obvious that they want to sit here simply because they haven't the fortitude or drive or ideas to go out and work for their own constituents.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I'll address that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Speaking of that, I think the record should show once again at this late hour that you simply had to move an amendment of an adjournment debate in order to make a belated appearance on the floor of this House to try to get something — not much — on the record. That something certainly had nothing positive, but was just a few little picayune things from various parts of the province and a lot of ill burnout.

This record should show that that member is following his classic line — an inability to have any policies, to win the confidence of his party or to win the confidence of the people. He's never got over the classic error he made when he was elected Premier of this province, nor have the people of British Columbia. He's running away from the issues now. That's why he didn't appear in the throne speech debate. That's why he didn't speak or support his own party's amendment to the throne speech. He's running away now just as he ran away when other debates have taken place in this House. Let us not forget. as a classic example, the debate on the aid to independent schools. when he didn't even have the courage to sit in this House and take a position — didn't even have the courage to tell the people how he felt about things. And here we are this evening. wasting the taxpayers' money, listening to some of the most frivolous, if entertaining, speeches that I think I've ever heard in my life.

The member for Port Alberni got up and said that Social Credit had no social conscience and no economic policies. I suggest these are very bold words from a member whose own constituency, by their own admission, has certainly told many of us that they seldom see him. They say he has done nothing but complain about the Social Credit and has done nothing for his constituents. I'd ask him when he's talking about his constituency: what has he done for the people of Ucluelet and Tofino? Why is he trying to prolong the adjournment of this debate to plead their cause here when they seldom see him? What has he ever done towards the water and sewer system that we're trying to develop for the people in that area? What has he ever done to try to develop a bus system for that area?

If you talk to his own constituents, they tell you: "Nothing." What has he ever done towards trying to help develop the golf course that the people in Tofino are working towards? The people on this side of the House and in this government are trying to assist those people, and since I've been the Minister of Tourism, never have I had one visit from the member for Alberni about any of his constituents' problems. What do they have to say about him in his own constituency? I think the record should show in this debate what they have to say about him.

First of all, they mention the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and when we've we listened for eight hours on a non-policy suggestion from them to assist in the unemployment situation in relation to the forest industry, it's interesting to note that the aspiring leader of the NDP opposition, when questioned in Port Alberni about what his position and his party's position would be on how to keep the mills going in Port Alberni if they were the government — and I quote from the newspaper: "A Philosophical Socialism NDP's Heir Apparent" — he said the answer was not "no"; it was more a qualified "I don't think so." "We can't take over every mill that faces closure," Leggatt told his audience. Isn't that interesting? It's like the NDP candidate that ran in our area when he was questioned about his party's policy on land and whether he believed in the private ownership of land. That candidate happened to be a real estate operator, and he stood on one foot and then the other and said: "Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no." The trouble with the NDP is that they don't know whether they're pregnant or not, and they certainly don't know whether or not they have a policy.

Going on to that famous evening when the member for Alberni was presenting himself to his constituency for the

[ Page 6824 ]

first time in many months, they asked him about what he would be doing and he went on to say — and the paper goes on to say — "Skelly pumped his brainstorm, a wood-fired thermal generating plant for the valley." But notice this about a member who's accused the members of this side of the House of being incourteous. "He also ridiculed local politicians vying for civic seats and went out of his way to insult the valley's chamber of commerce." That's how the member for Alberni treats his constituents; he insults his chamber of commerce and goes out of his way to insult his citizens. And he went on to say the chamber of commerce is talking about the Cumberland Road again. "Skelly said: 'Therefore, it must be another municipal election. It's not a good year to develop develop a new way to let people leave Port Alberni.' " Not once did either of those members of the NDP party in Alberni ever offer any alternatives to the Alberni people as to how to broaden the base of the economy of their area, how to create new jobs such as this government has. Never did he suggest that some of those fledgling industries apply for assistance from the Ministry of Industrial Development to assist them in their manufacturing development.

Never is there any suggestion that they talked about tourism. Not at all. Yet in Alberni, this year — and the citizens and the council will admit it themselves — if it hadn't been for the development of tourism in this province over the last few years, their year would have been a disaster. It was tourism, Mr. Speaker, that kept Alberni afloat this last summer. It's very interesting to note that they sum it up and say: "For all that, the attentive, quiet audience endured the hour and a half Skelly and Leggatt held them less than spellbound." So much, not from us, but so much for them as it's written in their own papers and as their own people say it.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the reasons why this motion of theirs be rejected, I'd like to suggest in the area of housing — what did the NDP do for housing? Mr. Speaker, it is Social Credit that has led in the province of British Columbia and many parts of Canada in assisting people to own their own homes. It wasn't the NDP that brought in the home-owner grant; it was Social Credit. It wasn't the NDP that brought in the first home-buyer's mortgage; it was Social Credit. It wasn't the NDP that brought in the second-mortgage plan; it was Social Credit. It wasn't the NDP that released Crown lands for private housing so people could buy land to build their own houses, as has been done in the last three years; it was Social Credit. All the NDP tried to do was take some land and lease it out to the people, denying them the right to own their own land.

Mr. Speaker, what about the grants in aid to senior citizen renters? Was that brought in by the NDP? No, that was brought in by the Social Credit government. And it is this government that has offered more opportunities in the past and will in the future for people to have an option of the type of home living they want. For seniors — if they want to live in a community of senior citizens' housing, they're there. If they want to stay in their own homes, then there's the home-owner grant and other assistance for them. As young people buy their home, then there is that assistance. If seniors want to stay in their own homes and rent — or apartments — then there is the grant to aid them if their rent exceeds 25 percent of their income. Mr. Speaker, were any of these programs developed by the NDP, or can they match any of these programs? Absolutely not.

The Leader of the Opposition is waving around a little brief, one that's very important to our area, one I am very familiar with. He talks about community health care in Winfield. Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the NDP did for Winfield when they were in government. Did they bring in the water system for the people in Oyama, Okanagan Centre and Winfield? No, the Social Credit government did. Did they do any road work in those areas when they were government? No, the Social Credit government does. Mr. Speaker, did they build schools in that area when they were government? No, but Social Credit does, is, and has. Mr. Speaker, did they build a recreation centre for the people of Winfield? No, they did not; it's been paid for by the Social Credit government. Did they build tennis courts and parks for the people in the area? No, it was the Social Credit. Mr. Speaker, did they build a senior citizens' recreation centre? No, it was Social Credit that did. Did they give them funds for additions to the community hall? No, it was Social Credit that did.

Mr. Speaker, let's get onto the health unit. Indeed, the people in the area and I have a strong feeling that there is a need for a health unit in the Winfield area, because Social Credit introduced baby-care clinics; they've introduced home-care programs; they have introduced other services to that community — not introduced by NDP, but introduced by Social Credit in cooperation with the people. Therefore there is a need with the growing population for a health unit.

My office, myself and our staff have helped the people put together an excellent brief, and that brief is now before the Ministry of Health and is being studied as to the feasibility of developing a health unit there.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any need, a major need and an opportunity, then it will be the Social Credit government that will build that health unit in Winfield, as they have done 90 percent of the things for Winfield. It's only proper and right that a proposal such as this should be examined. It was Social Credit that brought extra policing to the area and is now examining the need for more policing.

What did the NDP do for Winfield — and that last refugee from Sleepy Hollow when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs? They forced a compulsory boundary extension on the people of Winfield that absolutely cut the community in half and gave it to the city of Kelowna. They took the total tax base out of the community of Winfield — the industrial site and the major areas of revenue for that small community — and forced them into the position of being almost in a no-man's-land.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the Social Credit record and my record in the Winfield-Okanagan Centre area any day. The NDP did nothing for the people in that area. The greatest thing they have ever done is have their leader visit there with a busload of people, and he picked up one brief and waved it around the hall. It's a good thing he has that brief, because that's about the only thing he's been factual about, in terms of having some authentic document, in this whole session.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the NDP record, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the Okanagan North constituency. What did they do when they were in government for the community of Lumby? Did they build senior citizens' housing? No, the Social Credit government did. Did they build any schools? No, the Social Credit government did. Did they do the dyking that saves that community from being totally flooded about every fourth year? No, the Social Credit government did. Did they build a health unit in Lumby? They could never get it off the ground. Social Credit, when we got back into office, built it. Road work was non-existent. What did you do on the Monashee Highway?

[ Page 6825 ]

Absolutely nothing, and this government today has a major rebuilding program up there. Millions of dollars are being spent so that the people in Fauquier and Burton and Edgewood — people whom you represented, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and did nothing for in ten years — will now have easier and safer transportation from their community to their health and shopping centres.

Was it the NDP that gave the grants for the ballpark, for the swimming pool, for the recreation development in Lumby? Absolutely not, it was Social Credit. There are many programs on tap that we'll be developing over the next two years, including, we hope, an industrial site, a new entrance to the city, new bridges, a new road alignment and many other things in keeping with the people's needs. Mr. Speaker, let the NDP show one single thing that they did in Lumby.

Seeing that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is jumping around and so excited, I should tell him what's going on in the area that he represented most charmingly, but very unably, for so long: Fauquier, Burton and Edgewood. Even his own NDP members admitted to me at a Christmas dinner this year that I had done more for them in the short two years I represented them than the member for Shuswap had done in ten years. They never saw him; they never heard from him; he used to write a couple of articles in the newspaper. In that area, Mr. Speaker, let the NDP say whether they got a school for the area and got the children out of busing and into a local elementary school. Are they the ones who got the library that will open in Edgewood in the next two months? No, it was Social Credit. Are they the ones who assisted in the redevelopment of the community hall with lottery grants? No, it was Social Credit.

And then, Mr. Speaker, let's go to the great community of Vernon.

MR. KING: Why don't you?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Member, I go to my constituency regularly. Why don't you? I have to spend part of my time going to your constituency because you're never there. Those people in the Shuswap area are lost and lonely; you should go back and see them once in a while. And it wouldn't hurt to roll up your sleeves and do a little bit of work for them once in a while.

But let's look in the north Okanagan, in Vernon. The Leader of the Opposition is very keen to talk about health units. Was it the NDP that built the new regional health unit in Vernon? No, it was Social Credit. Was it the NDP that built the regional college campus in Vernon? No, they couldn't get it off the ground. It was Social Credit, and it's under construction now. Was it the NDP that gave money to assist the local people with the ice arena and the ballparks, that assisted in the other recreational developments in the area? No, it was Social Credit. If you listen to the NDP, they'll tell you they'll do something; they'll tell you over and over again. When I look at the north Okanagan and I look at the highway construction that's gone on, I ask: was there anything done by the NDP? No. Mr. Speaker, we have rebuilt Highway 6 between Vernon and Lumby. We've rebuilt Westside Road on the other side of Okanagan Lake, and we've just completed the rebuilding of the north end of Highway 97, north of Vernon, with a major beautification program which is going to mean dollars and jobs to the people of Vernon. Now, at last, they'll be able to work towards becoming a destination area. It wasn't the NDP that brought grants to assist the local Vernon golf club to expand. It wasn't the NDP that assisted the neurological society to have its own building. It was Social Credit and their ability to handle money and to keep the economy of this province rolling, so that these things could be done — and they'll be done again in the future.

I'd like to talk for just a moment about tourism. That's something that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is very familiar with and quite an authority on. What did the NDP do about tourism when they were in office? Were there any major new constructions, any major new hotels built, any major new restaurants built? Were there any major new jobs created? What did they do? None of these were done under the NDP. They took tourism, a thriving industry in British Columbia, and absolutely slaughtered it. They stood up and told visitors to British Columbia to go home. The statement "Go home, tourists," haunts us today. In my trade-mission trips which are out to market British Columbia, to encourage people to visit our province and to create jobs in our province, to help create investment in our province for our local people, I still run into the comment: "Oh, you're the province that told people to go home."

Mr. Speaker, the NDP depressed and almost broke the thriving industry of tourism in British Columbia. They didn't build any roads. They didn't do anything to develop the industry, to even give it any confidence in itself. It was this government that took this industry and gave it some life and gave it some confidence in itself to get on with its own business. It's under this government today that we have over 10,000 small businesses in the tourism industry of British Columbia, 98 percent of which are small, family-owned operations. There are over 65,000 people working in this industry today. It will soon be 70,000 under this government. Would that have happened under the NDP? It will soon be a $2 billion industry in British Columbia — over $600 income per person in this province, adult and child, generated through a private enterprise industry. Under the Social Credit government this industry today enjoys major historical restorations, regional managers, grants to regions for promotion, cost-sharing in joint-promotions, and a multiplicity of new private investment.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

There are more people and there is more opportunity today in this industry than almost any other industry in the world — for people who have an idea, who can give good service and who want to work hard and invest their money to start their own business. Tourism offers the greatest opportunity over the next few years to create more jobs with more variety of skills than any other industry. In this industry we can take a person — whether he or she is 15 in high school, or whatever age — who is willing to work, who has a liking for people and who can learn, and we can train them and employ them. This is not just for the job at the time; we can train them and we can provide opportunities for them to go on for more training, so that they not only have a job now, but can have a sense of professionalism and a sense of direction, and can know that there is a future in tourism for them.

You want to talk about opportunities for women? It's amazing to sit here and listen to the soapbox pronouncements coming from that side of the House, when they destroyed tourism in this province. Yet tourism offers women of all sorts of ambition and all capabilities more opportunity to own their own businesses or to seek a professional career, whether

[ Page 6826 ]

it's waitressing or hotel management.... Mr. Speaker, this has been done under Social Credit.

Did the NDP develop Whistler? No, that was Social Credit. It's an international tourist generator, which will generate millions of dollars of private investment, not just in the Whistler area but all around this province. It will generate hundreds of jobs, and create more opportunity for smaller private investment. That was done through Social Credit in cooperation with the federal government.

What about Panorama? Did the NDP look around this province? Did they develop a strategy for encouraging the visitor to the province, in areas where we needed that type of generation of dollars and jobs to develop an economic climate in the tourist industry so that people could build their own businesses and have those jobs? No, what this government did.... Panorama is another excellent example in the Columbia Valley. What about Mount Washington, a ski resort for Vancouver Island? What about the development of programs that go with us that are shared between the private sector and this government? Special packages for scuba diving: British Columbia will one day be the winter scuba diving centre of the world. That creates jobs and investment. What about the Kootenays, the area where our friend comes from — in Elkford and Sparwood? Did the NDP do anything over there to encourage coal development there? Did they do anything to encourage the redevelopment of Sparwood? Did they do anything to encourage tourism or new industry in Elkford? Did they do anything to assist Kimberley? Yes, they put them all on relief by killing the mining industry. The Social Credit government has restabilized and developed the mining industry so that the Kimberley area has a good mining industry. Kimberley is also becoming a recreational and tourist centre of North America. That was all done on the basis of the fiscal management and policies of the Social Credit government. The Okanagan Valley, where our home is — did the NDP do anything for Silver Star or Big White or Apec? Did they do anything to see the development of hotels and motels and restaurants in that area, all of which serve our own citizens and provide more recreational opportunity at a price that our local citizens can afford? We couldn't afford to support those facilities on our own without the visitor industry.

Did the NDP understand the tourism industry? Did they understand how complex and competitive it is? The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who just woke up, came in. Good evening. He said: "Send them a letter." This is what the lawyers do: they sit in their offices and send them a letter with a bill in it. Did the NDP understand that you have to go out and market? Speaking of tourist attractions, we might just capture that little fellow and put him on display. People wouldn't believe it. We could charge. Did the NDP understand that you have to go out today and market? The Ministry of Tourism, in cooperation with the private sector, are sales people. Did they understand that you have to develop a sophisticated analysis of the market so you know where to market and how to market, so we can bring visitors to British Columbia who are interested in us as citizens, who are compatible with our lifestyle, who will respect our natural resources and our culture and not try to change us, and who will be here in such a way that they will help create jobs and the need for capital investment that our citizens can enjoy the benefits from? The NDP didn't do any of that, but under Social Credit we are doing it. We are leading Canada, in terms of our approach to tourism.

Did the NDP declare tourism a basic resource, so that we could develop and nurture it every bit as cautiously as we should our water and forestry resources, so that our tourism industry develops in a manner that's compatible with our lifestyle and our citizens, so that there is always a place for our citizens in our own province? It was Social Credit that did that, not the NDP; they just told the visitors to go home.

What about educational and training programs? Under Social Credit we have developed educational and training programs. We have also put on educational seminars and hospitality programs, all of which are geared to assist those who want to work in the tourist industry to have the training they need for their own success and to make our industry competitive and viable in the future.

I would mention again the fact that many communities in this province this past year — Port Alberni, Gold River and many northern and interior communities — would not have had as successful a year, be they shoe stores, grocery stories, motels or restaurants, trucking firms or lumber companies, if it hadn't been for the tourism industry in British Columbia. Tourism means investment and jobs. In British Columbia it means that it's done in a style that respects our own citizens and our own expectations for ourselves.

I won't go any further into the northeast coal development and the port developments, all of which are job-creating and economy-creating in our province. When you look at the record it's very simple to see that the NDP can do little more, and did little more when they were government, than what they've done in this last eight hours, and that is joke, jump around, make funny statements, make false statements, attack people personally, attack their families and generally behave in a manner that is hardly a credit to this Legislature and the people of British Columbia — or for that matter a credit to the faith of those few who did vote for you. It certainly won't be enough to gain the credibility and the support of the people in the future.

It's interesting to sit and listen to them, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure they're very entertaining. But you can't run a province, provide jobs, create investments, solve the forest industry problems and solve the high cost of money problems that were created in large part by the federal government who you're in bed with, by joking and sitting through the night passing homely remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to vote against their motion, and I feel that we should get on with the business of serving our constituents. We should get on with the business of trying to solve the problems that all economies are facing, and perhaps a little less here in British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: In typical fashion, the Minister of Tourism doesn't know how she's going to vote on this. She's on the wrong side of the issue as usual. In her opening remarks she alluded to the cost to the taxpayer of this session this evening. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of Social Credit government for the past three decades has been devastating to the people of this province.

We heard a lot of hot air from the minister of industry and muy poco about our position on power projects. Talking about growth and power, I would like to tell you some of the remarks made recently by Mr. Ralph Loffmark. Mr. Loffmark did an assessment of the Social Credit performance in managing the Columbia River. Here's a person who was a minister of that government and is now a professor in the commerce department at the University of British Columbia.

[ Page 6827 ]

He is able to now analyse objectively the performance of that period and the decisions that were made, some of which was by actors presently in the House, Mr. Jack Davis, for one.

Let me just tell you about some of the power projects that are currently on the books and slated by Hydro to be brought on line and what the costs of those are. For example, Site C is slated to be roughly $2.7 billion to produce 900 thousand kilowatts; Murphy Creek on the Columbia will cost $1.2 billion; and Hat Creek thermal will cost $5 billion. for a total of $9 billion. If the Stikine and Laird were to be brought on line as well in the ensuing decade, we'd be looking at a debt of approximately $30 billion. Mr. Loffmark maintains that that would totally dislocate the economy of British Columbia. The $9 billion set aside is the additional cost for Laird and Stikine, etc. But what Mr. Loffmark does, which I find very, very interesting, is he points out the extent to which we got hosed and ensuing generations of British Columbians were hosed by the decisions made by the Socreds in the late fifties for the agreement signed in 1963. We're not against development. But we are certainly against being hosed by the Americans or the Japanese or anybody else.

Let me just point out some of the facts of that case. What did the province of British Columbia get for that agreement? They got $69 million for flood control. As a result of that flood control, they were able to reclaim about a million acres of arable land on the American side for agriculture. What we got was a buried reservoir of a quarter of a million acres. In addition, we got a lump-sum payment of $425 million for half of the downstream benefits for 30 years of power.

Mr. Loffmark makes a proposal to try to overcome what he regarded as — I quote — "a terrible error in the negotiations at that time," because we got stuck with a doubling of overruns and construction — over $600 million. That's $425 million for 30 years of power. Now we're going to have to go to the north of our province — these are the proposals before us — and flood the only arable land in the Peace River area for Site C, and then flood pristine areas of the Laird and the Stikine at a cost of $9 billion, rather than doing the following: There is a condition in the agreement with the Americans that we could reopen those agreements if we do it negotiating up to 1983. There's a ten-year closing off period for recapturing downstream benefits for that next 30 years. In other words, for a loss of $425 million of cash payment for those 30 years going from 1983 on into the next century, we could have for ourselves, as Mr. Loffmark estimates, 4.8 million kilowatts of power that we could recapture back in downstream benefits from the Americans rather than flooding our own valleys and inundating our own arable land and potential for the future in the north.

That is a constructive proposal that I am putting to this government, and this is the kind of thing we want to do here in this House right now. I'm putting forward to the government the proposal to open negotiations and serve notice to the Americans right away so that by 1983 we'll have a ten-year closing out period to recapture that $425 million of 4.8 million kilowatts of power on downstream benefits. rather than flooding and inundating our northern rivers, burning low-grade thermal coal in the Hat Creek area, and spewing high degrees of sulphur and radioactive ash, etc. Into the atmosphere. If that isn't a constructive proposal, I don't know what is.

I'd just like to read you a couple of lines of Mr. Loffmark's speech. He said:

"If we paid the U.S. back its $425 million, added all of the interest charges on the intervening years and let them keep eight years of free power from our share of the benefits for the sake of goodwill, it would still cost B.C. barely more than a billion dollars today, and we would get the use of 4.8 million kilowatts a year forever. The Americans wouldn't do it, of course, because it would cost them more than $10 billion to replace that power loss. However, the 1963 Columbia River Treaty is firm for 30 years and renewable for another 30. It is possible, with a determined government, to recapture the downstream benefits belonging to British Columbia as power, rather than reselling them for the additional 30-year period. But to do so, ten years' notice must be given under the treaty so that the U.S. has time to build projects to make up the loss to them. The deadline for completing negotiations on a ten-year termination notice comes up in 1983. Two years is a short time in which to negotiate such an important recapture and must be begun immediately if we're not to have a psychological gun at our heads demanding that we take mere money again instead of the power."

That was an incredible thing that encumbered subsequent generations of British Columbians. The reason we are so hesitant and lack so much confidence in this government's performance on megaprojects they presently have on the drawing board is because we know how we got hosed on the previous megaprojects this government managed on behalf of the people of this province. That is it in a nutshell. We don't have confidence, because we know what poor negotiators you are; you don't get a good deal for the people of this province. The record is clear. The library is full of the documentation, and I challenge any member on that side of the House to refute the figures that are here. I would be happy to hear the argument of one of the members sitting on that side, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis), who recommended from the federal point of view that that would be a good deal. and to hear him refute Mr. Loffmark's assessment of that agreement and the relative merits of the recapture of those downstream benefits rather than taking the money for another 30-year period. If he would like to take that challenge, I'd be happy to hear from him. That's the kind of government we've had. You know, the people on this side of the House have confidence in this province. We know the vast wealth and potential of this province, but we do need a province free of a Social Credit government which encumbers us with giveaways for short-term gain, with lack of planning and coordination and no long-term return to the people of this province. We cannot live with those kinds of Columbia River Treaty agreements any longer; we cannot have that kind of thing happen with northeast coal or with power on other dams and so on. Here on Vancouver Island, where we're very economically distressed at the moment because of the lack of diversity and innovation shown by this government over 30 years, we are simply outraged at the amount of money being poured into these political symbols scattered throughout the province for your own political purposes.

How did they come about? Mr. Speaker, I would just turn your mind back about 18 months ago, when the Socred government was up to its hips in dirty tricks and scandal, to what they did at Harbour Towers. as they started dreaming up what they felt were visionary projects to try to distract the

[ Page 6828 ]

public of British Columbia from its focus on the real behaviour and political immorality of this government. They started writing projects on the backs of napkins for things such as Pier B-C, B.C. Place, northeast coal, etc. These were poorly planned.

We now know, for example, that there was no transit study done in Vancouver and there were no impact plans for the community of greater Vancouver. You know, they might as well fold up the planning departments at the universities until we are free of the Social Credit government, because they simply do not respond to or respect or see any merit or value in having town planning, urban planning — rational planning that assesses the impact on communities when they pour masses of concrete into an urban environment. That is very distressing to the people of Vancouver, and that is why I suspect and hope that the people of Vancouver will certainly throw this government out at the earliest opportunity.

We've heard comments over the last few days from that side of the House that this side should tell the people of the province what we stand for. We tell people very clearly what we stand for: we stand for equity and we stand for making the resources of the province serve the people of the province. The people of this province have never ever had the opportunity to realize the potential of this great province; we have never had the opportunity to have the resources of this province really working to the full benefit of British Columbians. We did have a brief three-year sojourn or session or interlude, when we tried to make up for some of the disasters that had taken place.

Even Mr. Loffmark gives the CCF and the NDP government credit for fighting for a fair deal on the Columbia River Treaty. Then he makes a comment about the NDP period of government. He says: "To be fair, it should be remembered that while the fledgling New Democratic Party government was criticized for overruns on Mincome and other social programs" — Mr. Speaker, note this carefully — "it was labouring under the handicap of coming to office when $600 million had just been sucked out of the treasury by the Columbia Treaty overruns." That is by a former cabinet minister of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's now an NDP member.

MR. HANSON: And it's certainly to his credit, Mr. Member, that he is now an NDP supporter. He is not a member, but he certainly supports us on objective criteria of sound management and the sound proposals that we are putting forward to the people of this province. On the other hand, I think the people of this province should really know what the Socred government stands for, because they don't have all their cards on the table, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the NDP stand for?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. The speaker who has the floor is addressing the Chair. Interruptions, particularly persistent interruptions, will not be tolerated.

MR. HANSON: I think it's important to the people of the province to know what the Social Credit Party's objectives are. Many of the people on that side of the House aren't clever enough to keep their mouth shut. They're not really fair and square with the people of the province as to what their objectives really are. However, there are people in their apparatus who don't have that political wisdom. The senior elected officer of the Social Credit Party, Mr. "Whistling" Bernie Smith, gave a speech in Prince George only two and a half weeks ago. I think it's very important to the people of southern British Columbia to know what the president of the Social Credit Party says when he ventures into the north. The president of the B.C. Social Credit Party said that the party is "finding ways of phasing out both ICBC and the agricultural land reserve."

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's high time.

MR. HANSON: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says it's high time. The vast majority of the people of British Columbia have a high regard for the agricultural land reserve in this province. They will be on the lawns of this Legislature if this government attempts to dismantle it any more than they are attempting to do now.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what separates the sides of this House. The Socred government took the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which was set up to serve the people of this province and to stop investment of compulsory insurance going into the United States or abroad when it could be recycled and invested for the benefit of British Columbia.... They have done their utmost to try to make that corporation unpalatable in its programs, policies and rate structures, and to make palatable the dismantling of the Insurance Corporation either by having it sold to private insurance interests or by having it competed against by the private insurance companies by jacking up rates disproportionate to the actual needs of the corporation. There has been political interference with the corporation, whose fundamental premise was to set up an agency to serve the people of this province in the insurance field.

The Agricultural Land Commission. I defy any member of this House to take his place in this debate and say that they will do away with the Agricultural Land Commission. They do not have the courage to put their cards on the table in this House. Their president is giving speeches to the party faithful around the province, saying that this government is going to find ways of phasing out the agricultural land reserve. "ICBC," he says, "is an albatross around our neck. It's socialist policy being run by private-industry government." Smith emphasized that "the party is finding ways to phase out both ICBC and the ALR, replacing them with private sector initiative. In the case of ICBC, it could mean re-entry of private insurance. In the ALR, some land could fall into private real estate hands." Those are very significant policies for the people of this province.

MR. KEMPF: What do you know about land? What do you know about the north?

MR. HANSON: I know enough about land to know that you and your government mismanage it every day.

MR. KEMPF: You talk about land! You're not even dry behind the ears.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we are ready to continue to pay attention to the address of the hon. member without interruption, I ask the member to continue.

[ Page 6829 ]

MR. HANSON: In response to the comment by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I know enough about land to know that the Socreds have totally mismanaged the Crown land, which is the heritage of our province.

Interjection.

MR. KING: That man has never done an honest day's work in his life!

MR. KEMPF: Why don't you get a job?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) to be seated when another member has the floor. I will ask the member for Omineca to remain silent, particularly when the Chair is addressing this House on a matter of order. If there's persistent disobedience of the Chair, other things will have to be done. I will ask the member to continue.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the point raised by the member for Omineca is an important one, because the record is clear. The Council of Forest Industries know that this government is incompetent in managing land. They turn out prime forest land for marginal agriculture. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture knows they're incompetent because they want to sell Crown grazing leases for hobby farms. They know they are incompetent in the management of land. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists and every credentialed organization that has knowledge about the management of land knows that that government is absolutely incompetent in the management of land. They dismantled integrated planning agencies established by the New Democratic government to make sure that there was integrated planning for the beneficial use of all citizens, because they want to deliver unencumbered land to real estate interests, hobby farms, their own friends, the George Spetifores, the Jones' right-wingers, the Gloucester Properties, et cetera, of this province. That is their management of land and the record is clear.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just in the management of land that this government is incompetent. Their incompetence has been demonstrated very clearly in the development of the coastal transportation policies that they have devised. They have been a disaster from start to finish. The Princess Marguerite was one.

I would like to talk about something which is very current, of very great interest in my own riding and of great concern to all of the members represented on our side from Vancouver Island. That is the way that this government has treated and has fashioned the policies of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Under the New Democratic Party government, the coastal transportation was regarded as a matter within general revenue to be debated in this House. The policies were debated within a ministry of this government. What the Social Credit government did, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was establish a Crown corporation, which they have been trying to push on a user-pay system. They have adopted the user-pay system, and they will not be happy until the economy of Vancouver Island is virtually crippled as a result of their rate structures.

Let me illustrate. On November 1 of this year the B.C. Ferry Corporation was granted a welfare payment by the Social Credit government. They called that payment the annual highway equivalent subsidy payment. They did that according to a formula — judging a certain piece of highway in the interior of the province as the equivalent of the coastal nautical mileage to Vancouver Island. That particular formula did not recognize the importance of that life artery of the B.C. Ferry system linking Vancouver Island and the mainland. That is not a strip of highway; that is the lifeline of the Vancouver Island economy. There is virtually no recognition in that subsidy formula or the rates that have been established by the Social Credit government of the impact that increased rates have on the ability of small businesses and industry on Vancouver Island to compete in a viable manner for the benefit of one quarter of the population of British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: They've done better.

MR. HANSON: They've never done worse, Mr. Member for North Peace. On November 1 this government very foolishly increased the commercial rates from $1.60 to $2 a foot for commercial transit carrying essential goods and services back and forth between the mainland and the Island.

As of ten days ago an order-in-council was passed. Rather than making the $56 million payment to the B.C. ferry system on a quarterly basis at $14 million a quarter, which was past practice, that formula subsidy will not be paid quarterly; it will be paid at the discretion of this government. In other words, they will hang onto that $56 million, accrue the interest through their own investment, and let the B.C. Ferry Corporation go into the money market and borrow money which would normally be invested, as a result of the receipt of those quarterly payments, to help assist the generation of interest revenue to subsidize the system.

The net result of this change is that if, for example, that $56 million is given to the Ferry Corporation at the end of the fiscal year, the Ferry Corporation will be denied the interest revenue on that money for a full year. What does that mean? It means a loss of revenue of approximately $10 million. Where will that money be made up? The money will be made up from the fare box, from commercial rate increases, pushing more small businesses towards bankruptcy and making it more difficult to compete on Vancouver Island. There will be more Labatts, more Mortifee Munshaws, more Oakland Industries, more Windsors and so on.

The job losses on Vancouver Island are staggering. We have lost a massive amount of employment. Why have we lost it? On an island with so much wealth in its soft wood-fibre, minerals and marine resources, and with recreational attributes second to none, why are we losing those jobs? First, it's because we have a Socred government. The second reason is because we've had that Socred government for 30 years. They have failed to diversify. They have failed to take advantage of opportunities elsewhere.

We hear that minister of industry and muy poco say: "We are now trying to expand our lumber markets into Europe or Japan." Why hasn't that been done over the past 30 years? You can ask anyone who is knowledgeable in the forest industry, on either side of the equation: we only turn to Europe when times are tough in the States. We don't develop and secure our markets with good, solid commitments in supply to our European customers until times are tough in the States, and then we seek them out. That ain't good enough. We do the same thing in Asia. Anyone from COFI will admit that. I'm trying to outline the error of 30 years of Socred mismanagement of our economy.

[ Page 6830 ]

I said earlier that we on this side of the House have great optimism about the future of British Columbia, if we can get through this difficult time, this obstacle before us — this coalition, which is on its last legs. If we can get over that obstacle and begin rational planning, there is a wealth for the people of this province beyond their wildest dreams. Why do these people keep it so close to their chest? Because it's only for a few. There are only the resources to be distributed among those in the private club, those around them who benefit directly. We want to share. We want to build a society in British Columbia based on sharing, respect for the diversity of our cultural heritage and respect for the aboriginal people of this province, who have certainly been neglected and betrayed by the Social Credit government in the most graphic form in the constitutional behaviour of the Premier of this province, which was an absolute disgrace.

In 1975 and 1976 we had the former Minister of Labour going to the Indian people of the province and telling them that he would be dealing with cutoff lands, with land claim settlements and so on. But that's another issue for another day,

What I'm raising here is the economic distress in my own community, in my colleagues' communities and on Vancouver Island. We are vulnerable. We have been left vulnerable by Socred mismanagement. The kinds of things that my colleague for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has talked about — rational uses of energy, utilizing wood waste, questions of food production, mariculture.... We should be virtually self-sufficient in food on Vancouver Island, not on land-based protein — grazing cattle — but on marine protein.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Under the stewardship of the Social Credit government, in only a few years they allowed Japanese industries to take control of our fishing industry at the processing end. That was a tragedy. The Japanese industries were really only interested in a secure supply for their own needs. They didn't necessarily want to own it; they just wanted the supply. There are so many good reasons why British Columbians should be involved in the secondary processing of marine food resources for our own purposes and for export, for value added to our food-producing industries. Now the absolute shame and sorrow is the only processing plant in my own riding going under because of a lack of coordination in marketing and management of the resource, of coordinated effort with the federal government in terms of the fishing industry and development of technology related to the fishing industry.

My comments really are of little interest to the Minister of Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). If we had a minister who cared, if we had a government that cared, that wasn't lazy, that wished to work, wished to stay here and deal with these important questions, we could actually make some gains for the people of this province. But we don't. We have a gang of lazy millionaires, who love to go to Manila, Germany and Japan. They probably have their tickets already booked. They might have even gone on planes this evening if we hadn't kept them here.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Ah, there are many things to talk about. The management and stewardship of the wealth of this province, when you look at that wealth and assess the amount of lumber, coal, copper and molybdenum that leaves the province, and the lack of secondary processing, when you look at that great wealth and then look at the streets of'our cities and see poverty — which is something that I never could understand as I was growing up in this province....

Why, in a province with this great wealth, did we also have such great need? In my own riding, where people are waiting 18 months to get into hospital for elective surgery and are waiting five and six months for relatively serious operations, it doesn't make sense. We have a bunch of stooges over there.

MR. STRACHAN: That's unparliamentary.

MR. HANSON: Is it in the book?

MR. STRACHAN: No, but it should be.

MR. HANSON: They are stooges because, when they're asked to respond to really constructive proposals, they abandon their responsibility. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) was a perfect example in the Labbatt's brewery situation in Victoria. He could have done many things. He could have said to Labbatt: "As the minister that controls the distribution of alcohol in this province, I am going to ask you to be a good, solid corporate citizen and maintain production in your brewery over this difficult time. Meanwhile we'll have tripartite negotiations to discuss your plans that you may or may not want to take action on at a later date." But he said nothing. No action. Zero. He's the spokesman for the industry. It's like talking to a stump.

We're prepared to stay here to try to fight for the jobs and the benefits that really are owing the people of this province and that they deserve, because that wealth of the province belongs to them — not to you.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to get up, but after listening to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) I can't resist saying that we're really fortunate that we haven't had his party and particularly people of his mentality, his outlook, in power in this province, because what's always part of their speech and certainly part of their thinking is the inferiority complex they have, particularly relative to the United States and our other trading partners abroad.

He chose to talk about the Columbia River Treaty and other arrangements we have with other parts of the world, but the Columbia River Treaty particularly. I know it's part of the NDP religion that the Columbia River Treaty was a bad deal for Canada and a bad deal, particularly, for British Columbia. The Columbia River Treaty, in my view, was a good deal, and certainly this is what most United States critics had to say at the time. They said Canada got the best of the deal.

Of course, up here those in opposition, those who weren't part of the action, said it was a bad deal for Canada; but I think most of the people up here who are still critical of the Columbia River Treaty arrangements basically don't understand what happened, and certainly don't want to understand if this would result in a conclusion that it was either a reasonably good deal or a very good deal.

What the Columbia River Treaty did was to set up a regime whereby the floodwaters from Canada would be controlled in Canada and Canada would get half of the additional power generated in the United States. It said nothing about production from any dam in Canada. The dams in Canada are

[ Page 6831 ]

partly paid for as a result of this arrangement. They would otherwise have been built without any contribution whatsoever from the U.S. side. So the Columbia River Treaty essentially gave us two things: a fairly large amount of money for dams built in Canada, the power production of which is always ours and will always be ours; and, in addition, half of the additional power made in the United States. That is a unique arrangement.

All the weeping and wailing right now — and certainly Ralph Loffmark's weeping and wailing — has to do with the price at which the power in the United States, which had we waited would never have been ours, was made available for 30 years to the Americans, We're talking about hydro power. That hydro power will be available not just for 30 years but forever. At the end of the 30-year period, roughly 1993, we can charge any price we can get in the United States for it. Presumably, we will do this. We'll sell it on a spot basis for not 5 or 6 mills, the price Premier W.A.C. Bennett decided upon, but a price of the order of 30 or 40 or 50 mills. That's what we could get for it today.

So after year 30, and forever, we're going to be able to get an arm's length price for that additional power. If we hadn't had a treaty with the United States, if we hadn't built our storage dams early, we wouldn't have got any of their power for us as a matter of right. We can bring that power back; we can leave it down there and sell it. So that treaty did something unique. What we did was control the floodwaters, which were of no use to us.

MR. HANSON: Do you support the recapture?

MR. DAVIS: I invented the recapture. I wrote the original documents which after some years British Columbia adopted as the approach for financing the dams in B.C. That approach was, instead of bringing the power back immediately, to leave it there for a term so that we would have money to build the dams. I know also a lot of people, and certainly the NDP, believe that the price for that power had to be enough to build the dams. But had that been the deal the Americans could have claimed that they owned the dams. There is no direct linkage between that price of power and the dams. We got some money from the Americans for their power, and that helped us build the dams. They're therefore cheaper to us than if we'd built them on our own and to hell with the Americans. So the Columbia River Treaty was an accommodation of the U.S. which suited us.

What really happened was this. There was a wild river in the United States, the Columbia, one-fifth of which rose in Canada. That wild river was progressively tamed as they built dams. They built most of their dams before we did anything to our wild river. Had it been the other way around. we wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the fact that they had all their dams, or most of them, in place. What we were doing for them was very valuable to them. We struck a deal with them. They paid us money both for flood control and for the additional power they can make because the floodwaters were held back and let down in a more orderly way. They could produce more reliable power. Half of that additional production is ours forever. We sold it for 30 years to help finance the dams. That isn't a bad deal, because had we gone it on our own we would not have had the power that Ralph Loffmark's talking about at all. We wouldn't have had it at any price. We'd have got zero, not the hundreds of millions of dollars we got for a 30-year sale.

The favourite NDP position was the so-called McNaughton plan. And I was through all that. I was with General McNaughton through all his early period. General McNaughton wanted to throw up two dams at the border, one on the Kootenay and the other on the Columbia. Basically, he was going to take all the floodwaters and put them through the Fraser system.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is sensitive on ecological matters. This would have flooded the whole of the mountain trench from the border up the Kootenay, through Lake Windermere, through Golden and around to the Mica Dam. It would have flooded all of that recreational park country. Most of the ridings of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would have been under water. I like to think of one story which I heard at the time and I know is true. There was a provincial by-election in the Revelstoke-Golden area. The then CCF — no, I guess they'd just switched to the NDP — had a candidate running. Tommy Douglas went out from Ottawa imbued with the McNaughton approach, He went to the meeting at Golden. He started to expound on the glories of the McNaughton plan, and he was booed out of the hall. They told him you'd be under 200 feet of water if the McNaughton plan was invoked.

The NDP should forget the McNaughton plan, because environmentally it would have been an ultimate disaster. Why flood all of the mountain trench? Why divert the floodwaters of the upper Columbia into the Shuswaps, into the Thompson, down the Fraser? The fishing industry at the coast was all against it. It was a disaster environmentally. It was perhaps an engineer's dream if you wanted to spend billions of dollars and drill tunnels through the Cascades to divert the Columbia into the Fraser. But it flooded so much of British Columbia and certainly so much of the most attractive part of British Columbia that it would have been, as I said, a disaster for the province. Certainly environmentally it would have been. Certainly from a tourist point of view it would have been. So let's not weep about the McNaughton plan. It didn't happen, for good and sufficient reasons, and most of the reasons were environmental.

The remaining reasons were economic. Naturally, if you were going to take the floodwaters and divert them in Canada they weren't going to do any good in the United States. So the United States wasn't going to pay for that. We had the power to do it. 'Ale still have the power to divert our rivers in Canada. We didn't give that up. We can divert the floodwaters either into the Fraser. or across the Rockies into the prairies if we want. But it isn't economic, so we're not doing it. But we Could do it some day if it paid us to do it. So we didn't give up the freedom to divert. We avoided the massive environmental damage that the McNaughton plan would have done to that corner of the province. and we got a payment for power made in the United States. not power made in Canada.

Ralph Loffmark is all-wise. He was a member of the provincial cabinet in those days. British Columbia decided on the price. I remember the negotiations well, because I was there. Ray Williston and Bob Bonner were there. Paul Martin used to go out pacing the Americans. Paul Martin was the negotiator for Canada. The Americans offered a price that Canada, negotiating for B.C., countered, and we kept working them up. In those days 4 mills was a big price. The Bonneville Power Administration was selling all its power for 2 mills, so they thought 4 was a big figure. It got up to 5 and finally 6 mills. It got up there with Paul Martin going to the

[ Page 6832 ]

phone every half-hour or whenever they changed another notch — phoning Premier W.A.C. Bennett and asking if it was the right price. Premier Bennett finally said: "Six mills. That's it." That's how the price was struck.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Well, right. It's like looking back 30 years at a house mortgage and saying: "Oh, that was a terrible deal" — I'm the lender, of course — "lending for 25 years at 7 percent." Today we're all wise. Now, because of the inflation in the interim, those prices look like terrible prices; but they were the reasonable prices in those days. The Americans made us a lump-sum payment for the power and a lump-sum payment for flood control, because we were controlling the floodwaters.

Another thing that most politicians — certainly on the other side of the House — and a surprising number of economists don't take into account is that, if you're going to compare the cost of the dams with those payments the Americans made, you should, for heaven's sake, put that money in the bank and see what the interest has done to it in the meantime. Allow 20 percent in the last couple of years and you'll find that, if you put interest on those payments of those days, you've got a value of the U.S. payments which is comparable to the cost of the dams in Canada — by chance. We did not ask the Americans to pay for the dams; we simply sold half the downstream benefits which they generate. The dams are up to us. They're ours. We can do with them what we want, and we can keep, produce and use all the power we generate at our dams. The Americans have no control, no say whatsoever about the power generated in Canada. So when we talk about bringing downstream benefits back, we're not talking about bringing back Canadian-produced power. We're talking about bringing back half the additional power they make as a result of our controlling the water.

So we got a lump-sum settlement which is valuable because we've been able to use it over many years. It helped pay for dams in Canada. We've got dams in Canada which can generate a lot of power and which are cheaper than they otherwise would have been. We've got all the latitude we want including our ability, if we wanted to, to do a McNaughton plan — God forbid — and to divert all of that water in Canada if we wish. I can't think that's a very bad deal. Hindsight is always easy, but I don't think it was that bad, and in fact if we hadn't moved in those days, I don't think we would ever have got a substantial lump-sum settlement to help us finance dams, which otherwise were expensive. We didn't have a market for all that power here in the lower mainland instantaneously or overnight, whereas the Americans had a market for it. That's the other reason for selling it for a period.

After 30 years, 1993, we've got it back and can bring it back, or we can sell it. It's our property. So a future government will make that decision and they'll probably have all sorts of opportunities year by year to decide whether to bring it back or leave it down there and sell it. So it wasn't a bad deal, and let's not have an inferiority complex over the Columbia Treaty.

Americans don't always think that Canadians gave them soft deals. I remember General McNaughton setting the stage for the Americans when they first came up. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came up — Bonneville people. They all came up to his office. Here they were, coming up to little Canada, to start negotiations on the Columbia. He brought in Ontario Hydro and a few others to sit on the other side of the table. He introduced Ontario Hydro, saying: "Here, gentlemen, is a utility that's three times bigger than your biggest utility in the United States." We had people on our side of the fence who were not only capable, but big. Ontario Hydro was then the biggest socialist enterprise in North America. We had a lot of good, competent people.

Anyway, I don't think the Columbia Treaty was really a bad deal. We have flexibility. We can rescue anything that was wrong, and thank God we didn't flood all of the mountain trench. I don't think it was bad, and therefore I don't think one should assume that Canadians always make a bad deal when they're entering into negotiations with the United States, or that most of our export deals are bad.

About the same time, Westcoast Transmission built their pipeline south from the Peace River into the Pacific Northwest. They sold the gas to the Pacific Northwest for 22 cents. Today it's selling for over $5 a thousand cubic feet. That was the only price we could get. We had to have the U.S. market — Seattle, Portland — to make the pipeline viable, to get the volume and 22 cents was the price. It was rock-bottom, and it meant a very low field price in Canada, but time has resolved that problem. The price has gone up and up. The field price has risen. We found more gas as a result of higher field prices, and latterly the provincial taxpayer — certainly the Minister of Finance — has taken more out of that deal than the industry has been able to. The yield today from Westcoast's export of gas is more to the provincial treasury than it is to the entire exploration development pipeline-operating end of things. That's been one thing that happened. It happened when the NDP were in power. The fixed-price contract, which had been written for 25 years, was broken. I think it was right to break it under those circumstances, because the world price of oil had shot up and energy prices were rising. The 22-cent price disappeared when the NDP were in power. In effect they broke the contract — which had its precedents, but which was unprecedented in Canada-U.S. gas relations. It was bound to happen. The 22-cent price could never stand with energy prices rising the way did.

What was lost in breaking the contract was the requirement that the U.S. purchasers take a certain amount of gas. They said: "If you are going to break the contract on price, we're going to break the contract on the quantities we must take." Consequently, ever since that contract was broken in 1974 or thereabouts, the Americans have taken only the gas they wanted. They are not required to take a certain stipulated amount, which was the condition of the original contract.

In retrospect, was that export arrangement a good deal or a bad deal? We wouldn't have had a gas pipeline down across B.C. for another decade or so if we hadn't entered into that deal. In the end, it's worked out well: we got a pipeline early and we've now got the world oil price equivalent for the gas we're exporting.

So in time it worked out. I think that arrangement too, while it had its critics — and I was one of them, certainly from a price point of view — worked out all right. So let's not have an inferiority complex about these things. You do what you have to do at the time, and you improve it; you are far-sighted enough you have arrangements written into the long-term contract which allow you not only to recover your costs but also to get full value for your resources. On the hydro side — remember, that's a renewable resource — that whole operation goes on forever, so there will be many more oppor-

[ Page 6833 ]

tunities to improve the deal, rejigger the water-control arrangements and so on.

I don't think we should necessarily be talking too much about making bad deals. If we're a wealthy country and if we have a real welfare-state philosophy, surely we shouldn't be too upset about losing a little bit for a little while to our trading partner.

Anyway, in the case of the Columbia River Treaty, and now, in the fullness of time, in the gas export arrangements, I think we've made good deals. I think that this kind of initiative, this willingness to do things for the first time, to do them on a large scale, to do them in cooperation and certainly in a business partnership with our trading partners, is the way we're going to make this province a better place for more people to live in. The NDP just doesn't have that kind of philosophy. It's always worrying about doing something, especially where the big foreign companies are concerned: we're going to be stupid; they're going to outsmart us. It just doesn't work out that way. Certainly the Columbia River Treaty is one case whereby, I believe, we came out well and couldn't have done better in the long run. That's one of the reasons I'm going to vote for the motion, and why I'm glad that we are where we are on this side of the House and the NDP is still over there.

MR. MITCHELL: I sat here and listened to that apologist, and all I can say is that the whole reason for this debate this morning is that we on this side of the House feel that this government has not taken a positive program on creating jobs. The last speaker stood up for 30 minutes and rattled off figures about flooding here and flooding there. What was the main, important mistake that was made on the Columbia River Treaty? Not only did they underestimate the cost of building those dams by $600 million, but I was shocked that the speaker actually said that we would have no use for that power. The Americans had no use, but they have built three aluminum plants and they created employment.

[Hon. Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

This is why we are here this morning — because we feel that this government has not taken any action to create jobs.

The apologist from that side stood up and said: "We had no use for the power on the Columbia River and we created three aluminum plants in the States." I feel that this is what we should review and why we are here debating a very traditional — if you want to call it — motion to adjourn, so we can go home after taking our $40,000 a year and go on holidays. A lot of the ministers can travel to foreign countries.... They can go to Hawaii and Australia and Arizona at taxpayers' expense, so they can play golf and tennis and eat and drink. This is what we say is a far more important job for us. We have an obligation as the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to bring to the attention of this government and the citizens of British Columbia that after seven days we have a Legislature.... That vast majority that sits over on the government side keeps putting everything down and expects the private member to roll over and do nothing. I say that this is what our job is. Our job is to bring to the attention of the government and the people that this government is prepared, after a four-month holiday where they had been travelling all over the world.... They work seven days and then they want to go off for another four months. To me, Mr. Speaker, it's a disgrace.

It was a disgrace when I sat there and listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and he ran by us that flim-flam speech he has. No one debates, brings any proposals or talks constructively. I've heard that speech ever since I came back in 1979. When I listen to him giving that flim-flam speech, it reminds me of when he built that plywood edifice that he calls a satellite receiving station. He told everybody, and it was perceived by the public, that you could have a satellite receiving station for $200.

I thought that here a minister of the Crown is telling the public that for $200 we can have a satellite receiving station. So I, as communications critic, went over to his office and talked to the staff and asked if I could have the specification sheet for this $200 satellite receiving station that was making headlines. It was on TV that everyone could have a satellite station, as it says here. It demonstrates how simple and easy it would be to have a satellite television transmission in every home. So I thought: "Well, for $200 I will go out and build one." The young lady in the minister's office said: "Well, you better read all the way through it before you get started." I read all the way through it to the back page. On the back page, on the fifth from the last line in this three-page release, it says: "Together, this pair of units cost about $5,500." There was no $200 satellite station. The minimum cost of that construction was $200 for the plywood plus $5,500 for the electronic components.

This is what this whole government is made up of. I won't say "half-truths," because you will say that's not parliamentary. If I say it's deceptive, you'll say that maybe that's not quite the proper term. But it is misleading. This whole government, their whole policy, their program, their budget and their actions are misleading, because the people of this province believe that we have elected a government to govern. But what do they want to do? They want a four-month holiday, seven days of work and another four months of holiday.

When I told some of the people who were up in the galleries earlier on this evening that we were opposing the closing down of this Legislature, they were shocked. They said: "With all the unemployment?"

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if I could interrupt the member for a moment. There is considerable chit-chat on the floor. Out of respect for the remarks being made could we all observe that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor and should be accorded by all members on both sides the courtesy of this House. Please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In talking to the general public, when they realized that with the large raises that we got last spring we were only going to come here and have a throne speech — one of the longest throne speeches that has been given to this House....

Let's just take one part of that throne speech. Let's take the part that deals with the industry that produces 50 cents out of every dollar that is generated in British Columbia, the forest industry. What do we have in this throne speech — one of the longest throne speeches we've had? We have exactly 11 lines dealing with the most important industry of this province. To be exact, there are 131 words, and it said

[ Page 6834 ]

nothing that was going to help this industry. What is the effect of this lack of action that has been slowly building up since the summer? Instead of calling the Legislature back when the problem was first arising and coming in here with some positive action to create some employment and keep our forest industry going....

Here we have a vast shortage of affordable housing. There is no rental accommodation that is affordable to the average person today. The Deputy Speaker, in his other role, knows it better than any one of us. He knows the problems of people who are trying to exist when they're paying 50 and 60 percent of their income for rent today. I have an apartment in my own riding where, because of the so-called financial remortgaging, proposed rents have gone from $335 to $500. I have senior citizens living in those homes who, if the rent increases go through, will have $67 left over from their pensions to feed and entertain themselves after they've paid $500 rent.

I say nothing in that throne speech took into consideration the need to keep our forest industry going, to start planning to build houses and affordable apartment rental accommodation. There's nothing in there, not a thing. There are 11 lines and 131 words of platitudes — nothing constructive. If we as private members just kind of rolled over and said, "Yes, we'll go home and have our four months off and enjoy Christmas," we would be derelict in our duties as elected members.

To get down to actual, hard facts, what does it do to my riding? One of the industries in my riding is the Windsor Machine shop. For those who are not aware of what Windsor Machine Co. manufactures, they manufacture chainsaws. They manufacture chains for the power saws that are used in the forest industry. What happened? Sixty employees got their notice. Sixty employees on December 23 will be out of work — two days before Christmas — because there are only 11 lines of nothing in this throne speech dealing with the most important industry of my riding.

Were there any suggestions from any of the speakers that got up and ranted and raved, saying that we are wasting taxpayers' money because we are trying to make this Legislature work for the people of this province? Do we get any assistance from the backbenchers? No, they want to run off and go home and ape their cabinet ministers and go on their trips. We feel that this government must be prepared to govern; this government must bring in the legislation that is needed; this government must stand or fall on doing nothing.

Another part of my riding is the Port Renfrew area. My riding is known as the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency. Out in Port Renfrew there were over 300 loggers laid off. B.C. Forest Products shut down their camp, shut down the operation, and 300 families were out of work. What has this government offered? Mr. Speaker, I'm ashamed to say that it has offered nothing, absolutely nothing, and we have the Premier shouting and talking about work and wages. Does he make any plans for work and wages? It's a lazy government; it's a do-nothing government; it's not accepting the responsibility that the people of this province elected them for. There are so many things that 300 men and women can do — 300 trained forest workers.

My colleague proposed that the industry go on a program of silviculture, replanting, thinning. There are so many things that can be done. I am just going to make one little proposal: instead of having 300 men and women sitting doing nothing, collecting UIC or whatever you do when you are out in a community which is 40 miles from the main cities.... We have a river out there, Mr. Speaker, the San Juan River. That river has flowed down the valley for years, but because of 30 years of Social Credit's unplanned forest policy, because of the widespread poor logging practices that have gone on in the past, because of 30 years of Social Credit, where they have made no attempt to clean up that river, the river is jammed with logs. It either flows too fast or it doesn't flow at all. At one time that river had over 100,000 salmon coming back to spawn, but because of the forest practices that were allowed to take place under the Social Credit government that river has been destroyed. Right now there are less than 8,000 salmon going up that river. The community, as volunteers, on their own time have taken up a program of salmonid enhancement. They have designed and built hatcheries that are capable of rearing a million eggs. Because this river has been ruined, they cannot get enough salmon to produce the million eggs. They are now fighting with the Indians over the few salmon that are going up. The Indians have had a historical right to fish on the river.

If this government had brought in some kind of program, instead, of allowing 300 people to do nothing but collect unemployment insurance for the winter, they could have brought in a program that could rehabilitate that whole river, and we would have 100,000 salmon coming back. But no, this government decided the forestry policy would be 11 lines, 131 words of doing nothing to help loggers who are unemployed.

Not only can the forest industry be blamed for the poor return of salmon to that river; we have another problem, and this is a problem that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) should both be involved in. Because of new technology in the purse-seiner fleets this year and because there was a large sockeye salmon run heading for the Fraser River and a large pink salmon run also heading for the Fraser River, the federal government allowed the large purse-seiners to fish for the salmon as they entered Juan de Fuca Strait, and they said they were there to harvest the large sockeye and pink runs. But what are they doing to the rivers — San Juan River, Sooke River, De Mamiel Creek and some of the other rivers you get further around toward the Cowichan? In their greed to take all the pink and the sockeye, they're taking thousands and thousands of what they call incidental fish — spring salmon and the Coho salmon. The spring salmon and the Coho salmon, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are the lifeblood of the sports industry and the tourist industry. Our Minister of Environment and Minister of Tourism should be meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries to take that fleet of purse-seiners, which is killing the Coho and the spring salmon, back to the mouth of the Fraser River to harvest the fish where they should be harvested — at the Fraser River, instead of destroying the rivers between Cape Flattery and the Fraser River. It's something that this government should be doing instead of talking platitudes and closing this House down.

There are so many programs that must be instituted. This government must be driven to take action instead of sending everybody home to go on their holidays, so that they can fly around the country and be tourists. When I listened to my Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), when he is talking and waving his arms around about all the great things they did, and when I listened to the Premier talking in his speech about all the industrial parks they had created in this province, I couldn't help but think....

[ Page 6835 ]

I know that maybe to you, Mr. Speaker, or to some of the government members, 15 jobs doesn't mean too much. Right now in my riding there is a steel plant — it's actually a steel warehouse owned by Drummond McCall Inc. — which is situated beside the Burrard Yarrows shipyard, and part of their job is to supply steel to the shipyard. This company also supplies steel to all the small manufacturing and machine shops and plants throughout the area south of Duncan. What happened? Because Yarrows is expanding because of employment, they need the building where the steel plant is located right now. The company is trying to get relocated, they're trying to find some affordable industrial space to continue this business in the greater Victoria area, and they cannot find anything. I listened to the minister and the Premier talking about these great industrial parks. Where are they? We have a company here.... It's only 15 jobs that are going to be closed down in May of this year, but that's part of the economy — a steel plant that supplies the steel not only to the shipyard but also to a lot of smaller machine shops. And they do nothing.

This government has no affordable industrial land or parks developed in the greater Victoria area to keep the industries we have today. I watch my friends across the floor who laugh and giggle. Three hundred loggers mean nothing to them; nor do 80 brewery workers and about 200 people in the fishing industry. These are the types of programs that this government must take some positive action about and bring in legislation that we, as private members, can discuss and not be turned loose for another four months after we just came back from four months' holiday. We in the opposition have a traditional job: to examine the legislation produced by the government. It is our traditional job to make proposals, to check it, to go through it, to adopt it if we agree with it, and to defeat it if we can, if we disagree.

This government, in their wisdom or lack of it, took the advice of the deputy minister from the Premier's office who said "shut up." That's what you wanted us to do. Two of the first words that came from a Social Credit mouthpiece were "shut up." That's what you want us all to do. Our job is not to shut up; our job is to point out the failure of this government. If we can't keep this House going until we get some sense in this government, and if we are squashed by that overall majority that brought in closure and tried to stop the Leader of the Opposition from doing his traditional job of speaking in the throne speech, then our job will be to go out through the width and breadth of British Columbia and tell the people how inactive, how lazy, how uncaring this government is — how they would rather go on trips, go on holidays, and go home and watch their Christmas tree while people are unemployed. We must do the job that we've been elected to do, and we must do it continually until such time as there is some sense in this government.

This government has to do something. They've got to come to their senses and do the job that they've been elected to do. They have to create the jobs and develop the security that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was talking about. In a rich country like this there should be no fear of not having a house. There should be no fear of not having a job. There should be no fear that we cannot go to hospitals without an 18-month waiting list for elective surgery. or six and seven months for major surgery. These are the issues we should be facing, and these are the issues that the government must do something about and do it now.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard some interesting assertions during the last few hours. For instance. one of the earlier speakers, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) made a statement that the business of government should be conducted in the House. Probably that is true. They say that repeatedly. However, their leader gave very sparingly of his time in this House. He apparently had other activities to do.

MR. BARRETT: I haven't seen yours all night.

MR. BRUMMET: We'll get to that point later.

There seems to be this great interest in the work that is done in this House, and yet during the speech on the amendment and on the throne speech we found a lot of talk, a lot of negative criticism and a lot of non-attendance. So the interest seems to be more in word than in deed on the part of the opposition. The opposition yesterday were so disorganized that they couldn't get their speeches into the regular session, and many of them made no attempt to do so. So they used the technical rules of this House in order to give them an opportunity to speak again. Certainly lacking in organization and bereft of any policies, they rely on words in order to try to pretend that they are working.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I have a slight advantage; I have somewhat of a hearing loss and that means that I do not hear the inane comments from some of the other members.

MR. LEA: How do you know they're inane?

MR. BRUMMET: I can hear that they are being made, but I don't hear what they are saying. Mind you, if my hearing was perfect I would hardly be missing much.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) also said that we should stay in session. I think we've had adequate evidence this evening in the speeches from the members of the opposition that there is quite a question about whether there is any real value in staying in session, because they've contributed nothing but the same diatribes that we've heard over and over again.

We've heard a great deal about why we're having this all night session. We've heard that the real reason is that they're here to represent their people. I think perhaps we should discuss the real reason that ve've had this extended session.

The real reason was to provide an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to get an opportunity to speak in the debate.

Because of his continued absence from the House and be cause of bad manoeuvring he missed the opportunity to speak in the regular debate. In other words. he flubbed it.

I think it should be pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition flubbed his opportunity to speak, and so we have this extra session. Some of his colleagues were asked to fill in some time in order to give him a chance to speak, and once he spoke I take it that the orders were, "Now punish them as long as you can, " because I note that he has not been here for some time. He wanted to be in the House because the House in session was so very important, yet the real reason we’re here is because Chief Walking Eagle flubbed it. I could tell you why that member is named Chief Walking Eagle, but I won't.

[ Page 6836 ]

We have another continuous example here in the House that parallels their standard behaviour: words to cover their lack of policy, words to cover their lack of deeds and words to cover their lack of a lot of things. They insist on keeping the House in session. One of their members would like to see the doors locked as a tactic. They insist on keeping the House in session, and yet their attendance is pretty minimal.

We've heard many accusations this evening about this being a lazy government. Apparently the NDP definition of work seems to be to talk endlessly without saying anything. I note that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was getting into the business of ICBC and I think the phrase that he used was that we "were making it unpalatable." To make it palatable, I take it the definition is that if it's palatable then it should be taking in only about half the fees of what it cost to run the operation. I would suspect that that is standard NDP policy: for anything to be palatable, it's got to be losing money. That seems to be standard.

He made the same inference regarding the ferries and used the same term again: "The ferries could be made more palatable." And I take it that the way they could be made more palatable is that the more money they lose, the more palatable they become. That seems to be NDP policy with industry and any operation in this province: it's very palatable if it's losing money. If it's paying its own way, then it becomes unpalatable.

The other thing the second member for Victoria mentioned was.... He made this statement: "The Social Credit government has mismanaged Crown land." I think if we combine that with the number of their other assertions and statements....

MR. COCKE: That's what we're debating — staying or leaving. Should we stay or should we leave?

MR. BRUMMET: Oh, should I be the first one to stay on the topic? I think we've got many reasons to leave and I'm getting to that.

The member said that the Social Credit government has mismanaged Crown land. If we put that beside some of their other statements, it would appear to me that we mismanage Crown land when we make it available to the people of this province and that it should all remain under state control and that is good management. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is good management when that land is made available for people to own.

We've heard a lot about the trips that some of our cabinet members make in order to sell the products that bring revenue to this province. I can understand that the NDP would not want to or need to make trips, because if they had their way, they would shut down the industries and energy projects and there would be no need for them to travel looking for markets. There would be nothing to sell. They certainly don't want to develop the resources of this province.

Like any member in this House and like the members in the opposition, I want jobs and services for my people, including health, recreation, human resources, and education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cross the floor.

MR. BRUMMET: No, I want these services for the people. I want facilities for my people in my area and I want the people there to have and be able to afford houses. In order to be able to afford houses they need jobs, and in order to have jobs they have to have some place to work. It is certainly not.... I cannot accept the NDP version of jobs as something that just employs people. I think jobs have to be something productive. They have to produce something and pay their own way. That's what jobs mean. We had their way.

Just to go on, I want roads, parks and a lot of things for my people and that is why I support energy projects in this province, because energy is the key to industrial development. I support industrial development and the development of our resources, because without that we do not have all the services and the revenue to provide all of the things that I want for my people.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the members of government want to work and we have a lot of work to do. Sitting here listening to all this talk is not getting much work done. As a matter of fact, it takes people away from work. Members on the government side — the cabinet members — do a lot of work when the House is not is session; they do not have that as a holiday. I can see why the NDP would say that when the House is not in session it's considered a holiday, because I guess it is to them, particularly when so many of them live here in Victoria.

I support the motion to adjourn. The extension of this session is really a ludicrous waste of time. The basic purpose of it was to save face for Chief Walking Eagle.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry that I had to be here for the last 15 minutes to listen to that speech. I'm disappointed that it was necessary that we had to sit through the evening and into the morning, rather than attempting to carry on the tradition of the last nine years when we've had a more civilized Legislature, unlike the one during the 1960s. Perhaps it's appropriate, however, that we have had to go through a whole evening sitting, because it makes it somewhat more of an historic occasion for us in this Legislature, for those who record it and for those who hear later about what happened.

I think that in a symbolic way this morning we have witnessed some concluding chapters in a very important decline in democracy in this province, on at least two counts that I want to talk about. The first relates to the kinds of comments made by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), in which he said that it is not work for members to stand up in this Legislature and talk about the problems of this province. Democracy is founded upon the principle that people select their representatives to come to parliament to speak on their behalf, to talk about what the problems are and to propose solutions. Democracy is not electing a parliament and then having a minority in that parliament hide themselves away in an executive council chamber — unavailable to the public, unavailable to the press, unavailable to the elected representatives, making all the decisions. That's not democracy. This is democracy in this chamber.

We believe that even though talk sometimes seems to go on for a long period of time, it is the essence of democracy: in fact the word "parliament" means talk. Those who are opposed — as the member for North Peace River appears to be — to talk are therefore, by definition, opposed to parliament. What kind of democrat is he? What kinds of democrats are they? They don't like talk and they don't like parliament; the words are synonymous.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 6837 ]

Over the last six years in this province we have witnessed a decline in the importance of this institution in various ways. We don't meet often enough. Often we go four, five, six and seven months in succession without meeting, without giving the executive council an opportunity to hear what the people are talking about in various ridings, through their elected representatives. That's a serious decline in democracy. We have witnessed a serious decline in democracy when we look at the statutes that have been introduced and passed in the last six years in this province. One by one they have been eliminating powers from this Legislature which it has had for decades and transferring those powers to the executive council, transferring those powers to change by order-in-council.

One of the reasons that I'm opposed to the motion on the floor at the present time is that I think we should be here for the next two or three weeks. I've cleared my calendar. When I got your telegram, Mr. Speaker, I cleared my calendar right through until the middle of December, because I was sure we would be here for that period of time.

We should be here talking about those problems that the cabinet and their colleagues in the Socred back benches would prefer not to see the light of day. They have demonstrated that by their legislative action, and they have demonstrated it by various comments made in the House, most recently by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who does not believe in talk. As I said before, talk is the essence of democracy. Talk is the essence of parliament. They don't believe it. As the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says, they would go back to the days when the sword determined power.

I don't know that members of this Legislature on the government side have quite understood what point we have been trying to make in this debate. For me, it is an essential point regarding the institution of parliament, the very nature and basic tenets of our democracy. They have not understood that. We've had some impassioned speeches this evening. We've had some light speeches. We've had some frivolity. We've had all kinds of different tones in the debate, and that's good. I'm all in favour of that, and I think it's useful in this Legislature. In the course of many of those speeches, we have heard some things that are on people's minds across this province. If the government is to govern effectively, it has to hear those comments. It hasn't heard those comments since July 6 of this year.

Since July 6, this province has undergone a major transformation. I want to talk about some of the transformation that's happened in this province with respect to my own constituency.

During the last seven days we have debated a throne speech that was empty. We went through a very short debate — only six or seven days. I was fully expecting that we would then go from there to discuss legislation. I thought that during that throne speech we would get speeches from cabinet members outlining what they have done for the last six months, and what they propose to do for the next six months, and what they propose to do in their respective departments to get us out of this recession that we're in. Not that they can do it all; there's nobody in this Legislature who believes that a provincial government can deal with the world-wide economic situation that we have. But we did expect that during this throne speech debate we would hear from the ministers responsible some outline of what they plan to do. We heard nothing. We thought maybe once the throne speech debate was over we would get on to those kinds of programs. We still hear nothing. They want us to go home.

What kind of cost has it been to the taxpayers for us to have had this throne speech at this point? A million dollars? Probably close to that. Why did we come down here to debate an empty document, to have ministers not stand up to tell us what they plan to do so that we can then comment: yes, that's good; no, that's bad; this is what the people think in respect of that proposal. We've had none of that. What's the purpose of this institution? Have we forgotten why we're here? Have we forgotten who we represent?

I was beginning to talk about some of the problems that I think we should be dealing with in this province. I want to talk about some of the problems in my constituency. During the throne speech debate, when I made what I thought was a relatively constructive speech in proposing a variety of programs for the government, I said that there were whole communities in my constituency that are shut down. That's a fact. As of last Friday, the town of Sayward is 90 percent unemployed. Two-thirds of the communities in my constituency will be between 80 and 100 percent unemployed within the next two weeks. For most of those people and those communities, that unemployment is going to last in some cases, they are told, hopefully for only six or eight weeks, in some other cases, hopefully only ten weeks. But there's always the nagging fear that it might be three, four or five months before they go back to work.

It's a serious problem when you live in Tahsis and you have one employer, two sawmills and a logging division, the logging division shutting down, one sawmill already shut down and the other not far away. What do those 800 workers in that community do for Christmas? What have they heard from this government lately about their prospects this winter? Having already not had a full year's employment, having already had a winter shutdown in the early part of the year and then two or three months of shutdown in the summer, what is there in government activity for them? Nothing at all.

People on that side wonder why we keep this Legislature sitting beyond the 5:45 p.m. adjournment this evening. Is there any wonder, when we see what is happening in the constituencies? Mr. Speaker, in Campbell River alone there were six business that closed their doors last week, and that's before Christmas, before the time when those people can be expected to generate a bit of cash flow. Hopefully, given good Christmas sales they may be able to get themselves through the winter, pay their rent, and pay their costs. They couldn't last till Christmas. One of the biggest retail stores in town closed its doors about a month ago. In the last week six more small businesses have gone under, and there has been nothing from this so-called pro-business, pro–free enterprise, pro–the little guy; nothing in the throne speech; nothing from ministers' statements during the throne speech debate; nothing even in press conferences in the hallways; nothing anywhere that will make those small business people feel any better this Christmas. The only turkeys in their life are on the government side, and they know it.

Mr. Speaker, some governments in this country, most notably the federal government, when we are in severe economic times and when economic conditions change drastically in the course of a year, introduce interim budgets. I think the economic situation in this province today warrants the introduction by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) of an interim budget before Christmas. Why isn't he presenting a budget that will promote some kind of winter work? There are a variety of things that need to be done.

[ Page 6838 ]

My colleagues, earlier in this debate and earlier in the throne speech, have touched on a variety of things that can be done. We're not just talking about salmonid enhancement; we're not just talking about municipal works. There are a million things that need to be done in this province in terms of park development, reforestation, silviculture; the list goes on and on. It has been dealt with and I don't intend to repeat it. An interim budget would reallocate some of the money that we allocated earlier this year and would say no, we are not going to spend the kind of money that we're now spending on the big megaprojects; we're going divert some of that money into job-intensive, labour-intensive projects this province, where people are suffering unemployment, where people are not sure where their rent cheque or their next meal are coming from. An interim budget could have done that.

Why else would we have been called into session this fall?

What reason could there possibly be to call us into session for a six-or-seven day debate on a throne speech? We all know that there is a great deal of ceremony about a throne speech, but the motion that flows from the throne speech debate doesn't employ a single soul outside this building. Why call us back unless there was some program, unless there was some proposal? Did somebody get cold feet in this past ten days? Why not an interim budget; why not a reallocation of capital; why not a reallocation away from the big, nonproductive capital expenditures on projects that I happen to think are good, Mr. Speaker? I have said this in meetings in every town in my constituency this fall. I like the idea of having a stadium in Vancouver. I am a jock too. I like to go to soccer games and football games, and I think working-class people that attend those kinds of functions should have that stadium, which is basically a working-class thing. I equate it with the symphony orchestra, the Orpheum theatre and other things like that in our society. But we can't afford that stadium this year. Maybe we could next year or the year after, but we can't afford it this year. Why do it this year? Patch up Empire Stadium. We've gotten along since 1954; we can make it for a couple more years. That's the kind of thing that I expected we would get from the government.

Northeast coal. I think it makes sense that we develop the northeast portion of our province. We began to do that in a planned way when we were in government. Once the election is over we'll do it again; we'll carry on with it, but we won't do it in the way it's being done now, in an effort to build monuments and edifices so that, hopefully, in the Sterling Lyon mode, the government will get re-elected because of the great megaprojects. It won't work; it didn't work in Manitoba and it won't work here.

We can go through all of the others: the convention centre, B.C. Place.... I think they're good ideas. I don't have any basic objection to them, but I sure have some objection to them this year when almost half the people — not literally half, but a good portion of the people, 25 to 30 percent of the people in my constituency — are unemployed this Christmas and this New Year's and this January and probably all of February. How can a government with any conscience continue to pour the kind of money it is pouring into those projects when our economy is in that shape? Don't they even care about their own supporters, Mr. Speaker — the people who used to be their supporters, the small business community, the people that they talk about being their supporters? They're losing them. I guess I should be thankful for that, because that, on top of working-class discontent, will absolutely guarantee our election.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on. I called for the introduction of an interim budget. I'm surprised we don't have one, but I move on to some other things that I thought we would be doing here in Victoria in this month of December. I actually thought — and here is another illustration of my naivete, I suppose — that we would begin debate today or tomorrow on the Election Act. I thought the revisions or the amendments or the new act or whatever would be introduced this session, that we'd have a go at it, we'd pass the legislation, it would be proclaimed, the enumeration would flow from it, and it would continue to go on as it, hopefully, has been started.

MR. BARBER: It is supposed to start in a week.

MR. GABELMANN: If the government was determined, if what we were being told by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is accurate, then why not bring in the legislation? They know what it says; they told us in detail about half a dozen specific sections of the legislation. If they know what it says, why don't they bring it in so we can debate it, pass it and have it proclaimed, so that those people out there — a majority in most of the communities in my riding — who are not on the voters' list would know with some certainty that they will be franchised in the next election? Why aren't we debating that piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the session we established some committees. I don't believe — and I could be corrected if I'm wrong — that a single one of those committees has met. We are now into the ninth day since that motion passed on Monday last, and not a single committee has met, at a time when we face the kind of economic crisis that we face. It's December 2 today, and we've got at least three weeks before Christmas. Why don't we spend these three weeks having those committees going around this province? If the government doesn't want to listen to MLAs in this Legislature representing the people, if they don't believe us, if they don't perceive that we have any credibility, why then don't we establish these committees, put them into operation and send them around the province?

MR. COCKE: The selections committee hasn't even met.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder why that is, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: So that there are no committees.

MR. GABELMANN: Doesn't that go back, Mr. Speaker, to my earlier comments about the way the government values democratic institutions? What kind of parliament is it that doesn't want to meet and doesn't want committees to meet? What kind of democracy is that?

Mr. Speaker, I thought during this session we might get some indications from members opposite, from members of the government, about an industrial strategy, an economic development strategy for this province. I've heard nothing. I've heard nothing at all about how we're going to create more jobs from the wood we harvest and from the minerals that we mine and in most cases export in their raw form. I thought we might hear how we can develop more jobs with the marine resources in this province, particularly on this coast. Nothing, nothing at all. Why? Is it because they haven't done anything? Or is it because they have done something but are ashamed to tell us? I can't think of what else it might be. I suspect they haven't done anything.

[ Page 6839 ]

I suspect they basically don't care. I suspect they made a decision some time ago that the road to re-election was megaprojects — the same decision that Sterling Lyon made. Given last Tuesday's results, I think they now are in panic, Mr. Speaker, and have decided that they had better pull back from all of the programs they were going to introduce following the throne speech debate and reassess their political situation. What other answers are there?

I want to talk about a few things that need doing, that could provide jobs. I'm not going to talk any more about value added to our resources. That's something that requires a major statement from government. and it is required soon. But there are little things that need doing. The member for North Okanagan, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), was talking earlier this evening. She even named a community in my riding, Gold River, in which the tourism industry was just booming. Thank God for the tourism industry, she said, because without it the poor town would have really suffered because of the forest situation. But the few tourists who did get to Gold River this year found out there were no campsites. Why are there no campsites? Because the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) doesn't believe in campsites. He's made it very clear on a number of occasions. He's told me and the people of North Island that there will be no more government campsites in North Island. That would be fine if we had some, but we don't have any to start with. That could create jobs — not many, but a few here and a few there, building campsites. Nothing, nothing at all

Then we go to a situation that I find absolutely disgraceful in an area where we could be putting people back to work. That's the whole area of salmonid enhancement. This coast is dotted by rivers that no longer produce the way they once did. They no longer produce because of the methods we have used in our forest industry. We have filled the rivers with gravel, silt and debris, and we have emptied those rivers of fish. And when we try to get a few measly dollars out of the Ministry of the Environment to clean up some of those rivers, we're told there's no money left. There is no money to make sure that the Oyster River can once again be a major producer of salmon. There is no money to do a study of Buttle Lake to determine the effects of the poisons that are being spewed into that lake and possibly destroying salmon areas downstream. Why not? It would create a lot of jobs now in the kind of work that could and should be done. It's labour-intensive work. But no, the edifice downtown is more important, Mr. Speaker.

The other day in the Legislature, during the throne speech debate, I talked about poverty. A couple of days later the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) had some comments to make about my comments. He and I discussed that privately, and I'm not going to repeat that conversation. One of the things that the member said was that he was ashamed of me; ashamed to be in the Legislature because I would talk about people, senior citizens and kids, and how they faced poverty. He said that I shouldn't use individuals. Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm in politics — the single reason why I'm in politics — is that I want to eradicate the poverty that grinds those people into the ground. I don't want to do it by using the kids the way the government would have them used, the way they are used in the kind of Tiny Tim campaigns that we see in this province and across this continent. If ever there is an abuse of kids, that is an abuse of kids. But for me to stand up in this Legislature and not to name the particular people involved, but to talk in more general terms about their situation, is apparently an abuse. But to take a crippled kid or some other symbol and put them on television and ask people to contribute their five dollars has got to be the greatest abuse of children I have ever seen. Raising $2.1 million — we wasted half of that this last week. Why should we be asking people in this society to pay their guilt money so that they don't have to think about those problems for the rest of the year because they put their ten bucks in?

I'm in politics. as I said. because I care about the poverty in this country. I care about the fact that 40 percent of this country is living below a reasonable line of income, below the poverty line — and that number is growing.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to say to the member for Central Fraser Valley that I intend to continue talking about poor kids and I expect the government to do the same — by taking some constructive action.

We face in this province today what is probably the greatest housing crisis that we have ever faced. What do we have from the government legislation?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, some programs announced by the minister — not in this Legislature, but in the theatre. If the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) believed in democracy, he would understand that he would come here first to make those kinds of announcements, and not down the hall. Because the problem is so great, I'm prepared to forgive that and deal with the issues as they're presented.

What do we have from the minister? Absolutely nothing, until Paul Cosgrove — that weak excuse for a Housing minister in Ottawa — comes out here and says to the minister: "I'll help you provide some rental accommodation as long as you make sure one-third is available for subsidized housing and 5 percent is available for the handicapped." The minister didn't announce that on Monday afternoon in his press conference. That came out later in the week, having been shamed or forced into it by the minister from Ottawa. We have no programs from B.C., no activity. Why?

I'm not going to go through again what is becoming almost a litany — and that's unfortunate — of the kinds of situation that poor people, old people. people with fixed incomes and people on welfare face in terms of their rental accommodation. In most apartment buildings in Campbell River most people pay between 40 and 60 percent of their income on rent. That would be like the Minister of Housing paying $40,000 a year for rent, if he were to pay 50 percent of his income come January 1.

What kind of equity is there in this society? Why aren't there programs? Why isn't Crown land being released for co-op housing in this province? Why is it that there are two housing co-op societies on the endowment lands at UBC that can't get the minister to release Crown land, already identified, already agreed to for that purpose, from the Crown land reserve. Where does the government think that the people who work at the university hospital and the people who clean the university in the evenings live? They have to live a long way out in the Fraser Valley, because they can't live in Vancouver and they certainly can’t live on the endowment lands. What does that do to their lives when they're spending an hour or an hour and a half commuting each way? What

[ Page 6840 ]

does that do to our economy when we have to build more roads and more bridges and burn more oil to get those people back and forth to work? The minister and the government can't find it possible to release some Crown land for co-op housing at UBC. Why? Because they're thinking about creating a village at the university, and they can't make any decisions until they decide whether it's going to be a village. What absolute nonsense and rubbish that is. Then we look at the senior citizens' housing situation. Two years ago in this Legislature, during debate on the Minister of Housing's estimates, I was fairly complimentary to him and the government about their seniors' housing. I pointed out that a deal had been made with the federal government at the time that they would look after co-op and public housing and the provincial would look after seniors and handicapped. At the time, it appeared that there was a fair amount of seniors' housing being built. We now have senior citizen groups and other community groups who want to build seniors' housing on Vancouver Island being told that there is no money in this year's budget. They will have to wait until 1983 before they will get approval to build seniors' housing on Vancouver Island. Where are the priorities? Sure, we want the football stadium, but we don't need it when seniors can't build housing. We don't need it when co-op groups can't get land for their co-op.

I'm going to conclude my remarks this evening by going back to my initial comments. I am appalled, disturbed and concerned about the future of our democracy, when we are told in this Legislature that talk is not what we should be doing. As I said before, the word "parliament" means talk. If the government is not prepared to accept that we 57 individuals represent all of the people of this province, and have a responsibility to talk among each other here and to the government about what it is those people out there want, then they have a serious and fundamental failure in their understanding about what democracy is all about.

I think this debate is of such importance that I believe it should be carried on for some time yet, until we find a way to convince the government that what we need are some programs, some statements from ministers about their activities, and an interim budget from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It's an unusual procedure for a Minister of Finance to bring in an interim budget, but as I said before, it's something that this province needs now because, when we considered the budget in March, April and May, the economic conditions were not as they are today.

MR. SKELLY: They're the worst in thirty years.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. We need a budget to re-allocate spending. I believe we should take some time to consider these comments, and other comments that have been made during the course of this evening. Because of that, I would move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if you would refer to standing order 34, which is on page 9, then turn the page and read the last part of the standing order which appears at the top of page 10. It says: "...no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have been had." So I cannot accept the motion, hon. members.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm standing in my place opposing this motion on a number of issues. First, I'd like to discuss the headline in the Vancouver Province for yesterday, December 1: "Bigger B.C. Tax Bite on the Way." To quote the first paragraph: "The B.C. government intends to raise taxes and cut social services next year in order to balance its budget, Finance Minister Hugh Curtis said Monday." Further on in this article, it says: "Curtis says capital spending on megaprojects such as B.C. Place and the northeast coal project will not be reduced."

Finally, at the very end of the article, it states: "The province's megaprojects will keep construction at a high level, he predicted." Involved in this too is a quote from the Finance minister about user-pay and the fact that some social services will have to be cut back. What advantages are these to the northwest section of this province? Are taxes to go to build football stadiums in Vancouver? Are taxes to go to build convention centres in Vancouver? Are our taxes from the northwest to subsidize Japanese businessmen and the northeast coal project? At the same time, the government has the audacity to say — I'm quoting from the article headlined — "Users of Government Services Must Be Reassessed." Reassessed how? To reassess our senior citizens? To reassess the school children? Are these two particular socio-economic groups supposed to feel ashamed because the government wants user-pay to be increased? They have to have service cuts because the government wants to continue with its megaprojects, such as football stadiums.

Another issue I'd like to discuss was on the front page of yesterday's Province: "BCRIC Tender Fails to Amuse." We see that the Socreds grandiose schemes to ensure their victory in the 1979 election by giving away five free shares.... At that time they were $6 apiece; now they're $3.15 or $3.20, if I'm not mistaken — almost half the price. Now we find that on this particular issue the Premier did not want to accept the BCRIC shares in lieu....

We're opposing this motion because there are many important issues to be faced. To let this session wind up after seven days is almost an atrocity.

Back onto the BCRIC shares. How many people in this province listened to the Premier when he said "borrow the money"? Many people went out and borrowed money at high interest rates, only to find that their BCRIC shares are down to $3.15.

Another issue I'd like to discuss to show why this session should continue is B.C. Hydro. It appears that the philosophy of this government is to build big, think big and spend big. Today we see....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, I certainly hope you do talk about the constitutional problems you had.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll tell Governor Hammond.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, tell him about it. I certainly hope you do, Mr. Premier, about your beliefs on Indian affairs and the constitution.

We find that B.C. Hydro think big and spend big, while their debt is around $7 billion. Bond issues are floated around the world. Then the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has the audacity to state that we should build the northern dam schemes, regardless of the price of $28 billion.

[ Page 6841 ]

It's going to destroy two major salmon rivers which the native people in this province depend on for their livelihood. "Go ahead and build them," is what the government says. There are no laws or bills brought in to debate B.C. Hydro and its rapid spending of taxpayers' dollars.

As a passing thought, I wonder if the Minister of Universities has ever read the Hayward report, published by B.C. Hydro. The Hayward report, on page 28, specifically stated who not to contact. The first group not to contact was native people; the second, fishermen; the third, outfitters and guides. But the Hayward report still stays on stream as one of B.C. Hydro's initial documents to go ahead with the northern dam scheme of $28 billion, which the taxpayers of this province are going to have to absorb. The Hayward report states not to contact native people.

Another report, dated April 24, 1979, was by Hydro executives. We talk about northern dams providing power for this province. Out of the $28 billion which we're going to allow B.C. Hydro to run away with — it quotes from this leaked document — "No northern community, townsite or sawmill will receive power, because it's difficult to tap small amounts of power from an ultra-high transmission line." What benefit are these dams going to be for the members of this House, specifically in the north? Are these $28 billion northern dams going to encourage development or provide power for residential use when B.C. Hydro is allowed to make statements of this nature?

To develop the north, what this government should be looking at, instead of $28 billion massive northern dam schemes, are small local-consumption dams on rivers that will not effect salmon runs or the environment. But no, this government does not bring in any type of legislation talking about building small, local-consumption dams for the development of the north. That's what they should be doing. But no, they think big, spend big and build big.

Another issue that we should be sitting around this Legislature discussing is women in the workforce. I notice that the Premier was very confused on this issue lately as it relates to the constitution. One issue I'd like to discuss is women in mining, particularly in northern communities. I have a letter from one of my constituents, a Miss Davis, who raised some very pertinent information and topics regarding the need of having women in the workforce in northern development, particularly in mines. I'll just quote briefly from the letter: "To date, women's concerns and needs have been ignored by economic development planners from both government and the private sector. Studies have been done, but there is no commitment to implementation." Another issue that was raised in this letter from Miss Davis is the northern British Columbia women's task force report on single-industry resource communities. They stated in their report: "We are convinced that if there is to be any positive change for women in the present existing single-industry communities, and if there is to be any positive development for women in the future of such communities, we must voice our own perceptions of what life is for us and demand full participation in the planning, governing and evaluation process of any economic development."

We have a major scheme in front of us, the northeast coal, but this government has been very silent with regard to what involvement women will have in the development of northeast coal. I think that was an issue that should have been brought up in this Speech from the Throne. It's very silent concerning women and northern development projects. This government seemed, once again, to have ignored the issue and to be confused, as the Premier was confused, concerning women's rights.

Another issue I'd like to discuss is health. There is very little in this Speech from the Throne regarding health. One pet peeve that I've had since I was in this House for the last two years is Dease Lake. I'm sorry that the Minister of Health is not here. Dease Lake, a community of 300 or 400 people, has been asking for a first-aid station. They'd like $15,000 for a trailer so people who are injured in Dease Lake can go and get a Band-aid. This government has nothing whatsoever in their Speech from the Throne concerning the rural health corps that they devised two years ago. This time, the Speech from the Throne was very silent about it. There was no mention of the rural health corps. It seems to have been passed up. It doesn't seem to be much of an issue for the government at this stage, if they started talking about the rural health corps in 1980 and simply ignored it in 1981.

Another letter I'd like to mention on the issue of northern health is from Mr. Fulton, the MP for Skeena, to the Hon. Monique Bégin, Minister of Health and Welfare. I'll just quote a few statements from Mr. Fulton's letter to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare: "I am writing to you regarding health care in the northwestern part of British Columbia. Recent moves by the provincial government have led to a freeze on the necessary health-care staff that are needed to provide many important services. There are presently 11 staff positions going unfilled." He goes on to talk about the need to implement these 11 staff vacancies in northern health care. This also seems to have fallen on deaf ears — in the Speech from the Throne by this government.

One of the last issues I'd like to discuss, Mr. Speaker — at 7:15 a.m., after an all-night session — is the position of this government regarding aboriginal rights and title. Once again this government has ignored the plea of native people. There was no mention of this issue in the Speech from the Throne — not to mention the ensuing confusion that the Premier added. There is definitely a need for support of a consent clause by this government. An interesting aspect of the position that this government has taken is its discussion with native people in this province in the last month. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there have been very many discussions with native leaders in this province regarding the Premier's position.

MR. BARNES: None.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right, Mr. Member, none. I think native people in this province are quite aware of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') statement on July 23, 1979, in which he outlined the Social Credit position on aboriginal rights and land claims. But the Speech from the Throne did not deal with this very important issue that's facing thousands and thousands of natives who are residents in this province. The government has still not retracted its statements made by the Attorney-General in July of 1979. What I and, I think, many native people would like to see is the Premier of this province sit down with native leaders in this province and start having some discussions concerning his policy and what native people in this province think.

It seems to me that the Premier of this province is — and I think this word is proper to use — a poltroon when it comes to meeting native people and facing the problems that native people are having. I would certainly hope that the Premier could look up the word "poltroon" to understand himself and

[ Page 6842 ]

what native people are thinking — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. He is a poltroon in his position on Indian affairs, aboriginal rights....

MR. BARNES: What is a poltroon? Is that a coward, or what?

MR. PASSARELL: That's right.

MR. BARNES: Is it a weasel too?

MR. PASSARELL: No, I think that would be not proper to use in this House. But he's a poltroon when it comes to facing the concerns of native people in this province.

We've also seen many problems in what this government has neglected to bring forth in the Speech from the Throne concerning economic development for native people in this province. We've seen many northern businesses and industries that have been affected by the problems that this government has brought about in an economic sense, but no clearcut distinction, definition or statement regarding economic development for native people and northern residents.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of issues that I raised, and I would certainly hope that the government would take those suggestions.... I particularly hope the Premier will stop being a poltroon and face the native people of this province and start coming up with some concrete statements regarding aboriginal rights.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I too am going to take my place in this debate to oppose the motion that was put forward by the government. I just cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the government would call us to Victoria at taxpayers' expense — and the cost of having this session's debate, if you want to call it debate — for a very thin throne speech, which is an indicator of the government's intentions and their legislative program for the year. They have nothing in that throne speech to give any hope at all to the people of this province in terms of the economy — no job-creation programs, nothing.

As I said a few days ago in this House, there is not one single major logging operation, for example, operating in my riding at the present time. Furthermore, there is no indication that they're about to open at the normal time of the year, as they usually do, early in the spring. In fact, I think Calvert Knudsen or senior people from MacMillan-Bloedel, for example, have already told their workers: "Don't expect to be called back until late in the year, very late in the spring, or early summer; only if the markets improve." How are these people supposed to live? On hope? On the contents of that throne speech? Not too likely.

This is just a reflection of what is happening all over the province under this government at the present time. The taxes go up, ICBC rates increase, health and medical care increases — horrendous increases in taxation of every sort — yet the government has had the gall to call us back into session here and is not about to debate or put forward positive programs to benefit the people of this province. We have had speaker after speaker on this side of the House get up and offer positive suggestions and proposals, which I'm about to do myself, to aid the economy. The government refuses to act.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's absolutely true. The colleague just preceding me, in terms of aboriginal rights.... My colleague just preceding him, our critic on housing, put forward to your government, Mr. Premier, a number of positive proposals of the Leader of the Opposition this evening in terms of housing, job creation and a lot of other matters. Mr. Premier, with all due respect, you weren't even in the House for most of that speech. You weren't even listening, were you? You don't care. You're asking for positive suggestions, Mr. Premier, but you're not listening. You don't really want to hear those.

There's an aspect of housing that I want to talk about. My colleagues have brought to the attention of this House, and it's on the record, the many statements that were made by the government, and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) specifically, about what the government said they're going to do. In fact, in last year's throne speech, as I recall, the government announced its intentions — and this is in 1980, remember — that they were going to do something about the housing crunch, as the minister calls it, for British Columbians. They did nothing. This year again, in the throne speech, they say they're going to do something about housing. Well, I don't believe it, and I don't think the people of the province believe it either.

We have in this province, as the government is so fond of claiming, thousands and thousands.... Five percent of the province is theoretically Crown land. That land is tied up in one form or another, under some type of tenure, TFLs for example, and that kind of thing. But the fact is that this government is not going to make Crown land available to the people of this province, to the people who need it. They are not about to make Crown land available. They'll make it available to their friends through developers. But they will not make Crown land available to the people of this province. Just mark my words. Just remember a year from now, when we stand in this House, who will have received that land. I'll tell you what they do. They release blocks of Crown land and hand it over to a developer. That developer develops the land, sells it at a very fancy price — a price the ordinary person can't afford — and sometimes to their friends. Those are the types of people who get the land out there. The people who really need it don't get it.

This government could do a lot if they'd come out with a clear-cut policy of releasing Crown land around this province, and make it available to the people who need it, not to the people who have already got it, not to their fancy rich friends.

[Mrs. Dailly in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, you've changed. You look a great deal better than the last Speaker, I can tell you that. You should be there all the time.

Cutbacks in human resources. Welfare. This government has not taken one major initiative, except to sell out our coal at a giveaway price to some foreign customers and to subsidize the Teck and Denison corporations to the tune of about $1.1 billion. That's how much the people of this province are subsidizing the Teck and Denison corporations and our offshore customers for the sale of that coal at — how much a tonne? How much do you think you're getting? After we build the railroad, the roads, the townsites and all of the infrastructure, what do you think is going to be left over? That $1.1 billion could easily be going into job-creation programs

[ Page 6843 ]

in this province or to help the senior citizens and the handicapped.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is so proud of her programs with the handicapped of this province. All we see is scrolls, medals and buttons, but what are she and that government really doing for the handicapped of this province? Not a great deal. But they're certainly doing something for their rich multinational corporate friends. That's who they're representing in this House, and I think the people of this province know it. I think they've finally tumbled to these guys.

I know for sure that they're particularly angry out there about this government and this Premier peddling and promoting BCRIC shares. People have lost literally thousands and thousands of dollars. I know one gentleman. a constituent of mine, who drew a mortgage on his home for $20,000 from the bank at 13 percent interest at that time. Subsequently, the interest rate went up, in his particular case to 18.5 percent. He had bought $20,000 worth of BCRIC shares on the word of the Premier. He trusted the Premier. You should hear what that constituent of mine has to say about that government and that Premier today. He had to sell his BCRIC shares at $4.20 each, at a loss — plus the interest he'd paid to those over-rich, overstuffed banks which are sucking the blood out of the people of this province and this nation today with their huge, unconscionable profits.

I'm glad to see the Premier's in the House. He must have had a good sleep, because the Premier wasn't in the House.... He's leaving! Mr. Premier, I was just going to discuss Ocean Falls with you. I really wanted you to listen to this story about Ocean Falls, because it happens to be perfectly true.

I mentioned this in the House the other day, Madam Speaker, about the government and the way they closed Ocean Falls arbitrarily and broke their promise to the people of this province, particularly to the people of that community. I haven't concluded my remarks on that particular situation, because what I failed to mention was that even though the government claims to have been losing money in that operation over the last four years, the benefits to the province were great. First of all, 500 people were employed in that community, people who should be working today.

The residents' council of Ocean Falls compiled this list for me quite recently about what Ocean Falls is really providing in economic benefit for this province. In a six-year period the Ocean Falls Corporation achieved export sales in excess of $150 million. That's 150 million offshore dollars that the province received and is not now receiving because they've closed Ocean Falls down. During the same period more than $55 million were paid in wages, which in turn generated more than $13 million in income tax revenues. Another $55 million were added to the economy through purchases of logs, pulp and fuel. Interest paid on loans from the provincial government totalled $2.7 million, Capital taxes, stumpage and water rentals returned approximately $1 million to the province. An estimated $2.6 million were paid in provincial sales tax during the same period. Also during this period, the corporation spent approximately $15 million on equipment, upgrading and improvements.

What I'd like to know is this: is the government aware of these facts? It's not very likely. They're not too interested. Did the government, the corporation or anybody do a cost benefit analysis? No, they didn't; it's not very likely. I think they closed that mill down for political reasons, and that was the only reason. Worse than that, the people living in that community were double-crossed once again by this government. The government broke their promises to the people in that community and to this province. When they closed that operation down, they told us very clearly that we would have a new operation, a different type of operation, in that community, and they've done absolutely nothing. In the meantime the corporation has done a mid-coast timber supply study and put a freeze on vast timbered areas of that part of the coast. Consequently, 15 small logging operators in that part of the coast are now unable to get timber to continue their very small logging operations. I wonder who they're going to vote for next time.

The residents of Ocean Falls have made a lot of suggestions on what could be done with that community. I don't think I'll read them all; there are something like 18 pages of suggestions. By the way, this is not a letter to me; it's a copy of a letter that has gone to the government and to Mr. Williston of the B.C. Cellulose Company. They are suggesting, among other things, that the community should become an independent community. "The Ocean Falls Corporation at the present time is not living up to its moral obligation to properly look after the people of that community in terms of services."

No use looking at your watch, Mr. House Leader. We'll be here this time tomorrow morning — you're aware of that — unless this government decides to tackle the basic problems of the economy of this province, which they are afraid to do and which they are incompetent to do. That's why they want to get out of here. They know they're incompetent to handle the basic economic problems of this province. They're afraid to face the people. They won't go to an election. They won't face the opposition. They just want to get out of here, run and hide — lazy government. Half the cabinet ministers are still up in the cabinet room sleeping, while we're down here working for the people of this province.

Madam Speaker, I was going to go through this long list of suggestions from the residents of Ocean Falls. What should be done now in that community? I'm terribly afraid that since the corporation has cut off the fuel supply for home heating in that community, they're now attempting to freeze the remaining 84 residents out of that community. They've shut down the school, the hospital, the library and the rec centre. They've literally torn down three churches. That's an honest-to-gosh fact. Not only is that fact in this document; I witnessed it with my own eyes just six days ago when I was in that community. You wouldn't believe what's happening there.

In any event, I know it's no use talking. I discussed this with Mr. Williston on several occasions over the last several weeks and with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). who is responsible to this Legislature for the Ocean Falls Corporation. Do you know what he said to me, just prior to my going into that community? I told him that there would be a public meeting in that community last Thursday night and asked him if there was anything I could say to the residents for him to give them any hope at all. He said, "Give them my regards," sarcastically. Big deal.

I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sitting in the House. He's not in his seat but he's sitting back there — that's okay, he can hear me. I'm asking him now, once again, to release at least some of the small, better patches of timber

[ Page 6844 ]

to those 15 hand-loggers and small logging operators of the central coast of this province that he's given by some sort of land-freeze process to the B.C. Cellulose Company. You'll be getting correspondence and copies of correspondence from me.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Come down and talk to me. The minister says why don't I come up and talk to him sometime. Well, I don't want to be insulting, Mr. Minister. In any event, it's much safer....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Madam Speaker — through you to the minister who's interjecting across the floor.... Okay. You don't have to call us to order, because I'm going to be quite sensible about this.

Any transactions I ever have with the Social Credit government, I put in writing — on every single occasion. You know why? Because if I don't have it in writing, the next thing I know he denies he gave me one answer on the telephone or one answer at a meeting, and the next thing he'll do is turn around and deny that the thing ever happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. minister would resume his own seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to point out to the minister why I have to put every single item that I deal with in terms of this government in writing. It's the only thing I can do.

While I was up in that area I met with the people at Bella Bella and I went to the Native Brotherhood's annual convention. While I mentioned this in the House the other day I had interjections from across the floor from various ministers saying: "What would you do? What's your native Indian policy? What would you do for these people?" Well, I'll tell you if you'll listen.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If the member would get back to his own seat, for starters, I would appreciate it. Then, if he wants to interject, I will listen to him.

The fact is, I was asked by members across the floor: what would we do? And I am going to tell you at least some of the items that were passed at the NDP convention — in consultation with our native Indian people, not arbitrarily, not the way you operate. I want you to listen carefully, because you may be able to pick up some of these ideas to your political benefit, and certainly to the benefit of some of the native Indian people of this province.

At the brotherhood's convention I said to about 200 to 250 native Indian delegates, plus guests who were at that convention, that the NDP has taken the position that the same quality and standard of provincial government services should be available to all of our citizens, including treaty Indians. We have no wish, however, to impose a particular mode of delivery of services on Indian people, without their consent. It would be our intention to enter wide-ranging discussions with Indian bands to determine the most effective vehicle for providing services in the field of health care, social services, economic development, education and vocational training. In general, the NDP supports decentralization of these services, so that decisions are made at the closest possible point to delivery.

It is also important to note that we have no wish to erode the traditional relationship between the Indian people and the federal government. In other words, we would impose provincial government services in a way which would not compromise the treaty rights of Indian people vis-à-vis the federal government. And last, but not least — not last, not by a long shot — we would, for any Indian band that wished self-government — and I think there are some 42 or 43 bands who feel that they would be eligible for self-government at this point in time — work with those bands and give those bands the same treatment as any other local government that we have in this province. This is an item that we would negotiate with our native Indian people.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You asked me the other day, and these are some of the things that our party, in consultation with native Indian people of this province, has come up with. I want to tell you we would negotiate in a tripartite situation with the native Indian people, the provincial government and the federal government. That is the position of our party. Many of the native Indian people have agreed to this, and have taken part at our conventions in the debate on this question. That is exactly what we would do, and we would do it in consultation. We wouldn't do it arbitrarily. We wouldn't bring down planning acts, as some people do, that take away all the rights of municipalities and regional districts and all the planning functions.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Madam Speaker, I am pointing out to those members over there, and to this House, why right now we should be debating bills in this Legislature to rectify the economic situation of this province, and these people all want to go home, that's all — get their bucks and go home.

Another item I'd like to discuss for a moment is the horrendous flooding situation that we're facing in places like Squamish and Bella Coola. As I said before, the engineers in the water rights branch are very much aware of what is needed to rectify that situation to protect the lives and families and homes of people living in these areas. This government knows that. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) knows what has to be done. The fact is that this government doesn't want to do anything. They've spent a paltry $2 million or less on dike work in the Squamish Valley, for example, and about $7 million — part of that is federal, I understand — in compensation for damage that was brought about by the various floods.

They must know that we're going to have a flooding situation in Squamish and Bella Coola again — certainly in Squamish — yet they're not doing anything. In fact, they have just pulled off.... Because the government refused to forward any more money for a diking problem in the Cheakamus River in the Squamish area, in this particular case, the contractor has pulled out with the job half-finished. There is no question at all that because the job is only half finished, any minor flood will cause severe damage to homes in that area.

[ Page 6845 ]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm not going to ask for a withdrawal, but I want this on the record. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing interjects: "Tell the truth." I really think that's quite unparliamentary and unbecoming a member of his years and standing, and the stature of a minister of the Crown, to use that kind of language in this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Madam Speaker, I don't make the statement lightly. I'm asking the member to stick to the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. member satisfied?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Am I satisfied? With him? Never. Absolutely not. I just wanted to point out that that member over there is known for his erroneous interjections, making statements, and he is the same Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who last year promised us a housing program. No program at all. He's promised us a housing program for 1981. It's a housing program for the rich, not for the poor — if it's ever implemented, which is not very damned likely.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Half right, half the time. That's what the member says. To get back to this potential flooding and very dangerous situation.... After all, there were nine lives lost in this most recent episode of heavy rains and flooding and washed-out bridges in that area. I'm not blaming the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or anybody in particular. These things will happen. The bridge at M Creek was old and due for replacement. The standards for construction of these bridges are much better now. How many other bridges in the province are in a similar condition? In last winter's flooding in Bella Coola, for example, three bridges were washed out, and they were never replaced. They have had single span, Bailey bridges with one-way traffic for a whole year. Nothing has been done. When I phone the Ministry of Highways or write them, they say: "Yes, we're aware of the problem, but we don't have the money right now. They've got money to subsidize northeast coal and they seem to find money for B.C. Place. I think they are finding the money, of course, by taking from the needy and giving to the greedy. That's the philosophy of that government. They cut back on welfare, raised medical and health-care costs and reduced homemaker service for our citizens. That's where they're finding the money.

Madam Speaker, there are one or two other items I would like to discuss. I think I would be remiss if I didn't discuss coastal transportation, at least just a little bit. It was pointed out by a very well-known columnist in this morning's paper that the government has changed the way they're paying and supplying the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What this means, Madam Speaker, is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation now, in order to operate and maintain their vessels and docks and things, have to go to the banks or whatever other operation lends money. They have to borrow money, and if they have to borrow that money, they have to pay interest for that money. It's money that they used to be able to count on in every quarter, but now they can't. They don't know when the government is going to come across with a subsidy — once a year or whenever. So what this ultimately means in the long run — and I make this prediction right now — is that rather than the one fare increase.... The minister has always said we're going to have this one 10 percent fare increase every year to keep up with inflation, etc., etc. I predict that what is going to happen now is that in this particular year there will be two fare increases. We'll have a fare increase this spring to pay these interest rates on the borrowings of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and then the regular fare increase again next fall. So there you are — two fare increases. Mark my word, Madam, it's on the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister of housing and lands and do nothing says: "Rubbish." He's pretty good with words like that — interjecting across the House — but when it comes to formulating a policy, he's totally useless. He's had that portfolio for well in excess of two years and hasn't done a thing for the people of this province — nothing. He doesn't even know his portfolio. He's too busy travelling around the world at taxpayers' expense, as the rest of those lazy ministers over there who want to go home.

For some years now the village of Bella Bella on Campbell Island has been asking for a ferry terminal.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Madam Speaker, it may well be. I know that you made that trip to Bella Bella. I don't recall which particular route you went, but you saw the condition of the wharf there. The federal government wharf is going to be condemned, probably within a year. It's absolutely essential, if we're to maintain water transportation services to this central coast area. that a ferry — a roll-on, roll-off service terminal — be built in that area. But it's not likely to happen with this government, and once again people will be left out in the cold with no ferry and no docks.

The most incredible thing that happened this year, Madam Speaker, is that this government, would you believe during a constitutional conference held in British Columbia, rerouted, took off the route, a major vessel serving the central and north coast of this province, to entertain guests from other parts of the country. That is fine; I believe that we should be good hosts to guests in British Columbia, but you should not leave people stranded in the central and north coast of this province without food, without milk and without transportation. What if there had been some kind of major disaster? That government took that vessel off that route to entertain their friends from across the country, and it was totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that Premier Lougheed, Premier Davis and the rest of them would have been very content and happy to ride with the rest of us on the regular ferry service, which leaves every hour or hour and a half from Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. I'm sure they're quite used to travelling with us ordinary people. They'll certainly mingle with us during the voting season. At election time those politicians come around and are quite pleased to mingle with us ordinary voters. I think they would have been quite happy, and I think that was totally unnecessary.

I have quite a lot of other items to discuss here. I do feel like getting into it, but the government has cooled down a bit. There is one last item I'll touch on. I've mentioned it several times during the course of this debate. It's the northeast coal subsidy. Somebody — I'm not sure who — has developed British Columbia's northeast coal subsidy shares. I'm going

[ Page 6846 ]

to send these shares over to the House Leader. I hope he will share these. One's for the Premier's desk and one's for the House Leader on the government side. I'll tell you what it says on the shares:

"British Columbia's Really Incompetent Corporation Bearer Share Certificate.

"This certifies that the bearer of this certificate is the holder of five very expensive non-transferable shares of the northeast coal subsidy. The bearer of this certificate, as qualified under the British Columbia Income Tax Act and such other statutes as allow the government to pick our pockets and short all of us, is required to pay the government of the province of British Columbia the sum of $400 in the form of increased taxes as a subsidy to the steel industries of Japan, thereby persuading them to buy northeast coal at a price far below what anyone else in the world would charge for their coal."

With that I'll conclude my remarks and get on to the next speaker. I do want to ask, appeal and demand once again that this government quit this hanky-panky — this fooling around — and get on with the serious economic problems of this province. Let's get-on with the job.

MR. BARNES: Madam Speaker, the government has been accusing the opposition of being against just about everything that they claim they've been proposing in their policies and programs. I would just like to remind theHouse....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: We'll get around to that too, Mr. Member., I know your convention already dealt with the civil rights protection act, but I've allowed you the latitude of thinking over your position before addressing that question.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

However, the government seems to fail to recognize the reason we have opposed a number of the initiatives they have undertaken, and the reason is quite simple. I think it's been stated several times by the members on this side of the House, and it was probably put best by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who was talking about the processes in arriving at a democratic decision: that is, to engage in dialogue and consultation with a view to finding a level of cooperation before taking major initiatives that would affect the lives of people, the community and the economy — just about every aspect of the economy — when you make decisions that are of such magnitude and have such long-range implications as the northeast coal development project and other projects for which capital funding in fact is not even in place, such as the trade and convention centre and the stadium. Of course B.C. Place was never really solidified, even though an announcement was made in the wee hours of the morning, somewhat similar to these, I suppose, by the Premier. In one of his dreams he saw this vision and out of nowhere descended upon the residents of Vancouver with his proposal, and then said: "Okay, now we're going to make it work." We're not opposed to the concepts, as such, but we do have a problem with the process which this government uses in arriving at decisions. I think that's one of the distinguishing characteristics between that side of the House and this side.

There is no question that the Social Credit government, and particularly the party, has tried to project its own image upon the opposition. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that over the years the government has often referred to those of us on this side of the House, particularly when we were in government, as the party that was the heavy hand of socialism. I don't think the evidence will support that charge against this side of the House anywhere near the way it would if we were to add up the examples of the heavy hand of state Social Creditism.

It's a matter of approach. It's not really a question of us being opposed to something, as such, because just about everything can be made palatable and feasible. There are levels of cooperation which we can arrive at. The problem is that that side of the House has more confidence in dictatorial decision-making and rule than it does in due process. Certainly it does not trust the electorate in self-determination and making decisions for itself.

I want to draw a similar parallel to the government's attitude with respect to providing housing for the people of British Columbia — the attitude, policies and philosophy with regard to that — and, on the other hand, its attitude with respect to arts, culture and sports in the province. I will just quote the Premier. When he was in the opposition he once said that home-ownership is the right of every British Columbian. A few years later, after he became Premier, he proceeded to destroy the only means whereby such a dream could be fulfilled, eliminating a Crown corporation that was in the business of building affordable social housing that had been started by the New Democratic Party between 1972 and 1975.

They disposed of the assets of that corporation, which included land-banking. There was an administrative infrastructure in place. The community was aware of the initiatives, and we were beginning to effectively compete in the field of constructing affordable housing, as opposed to the level that was being created by the private sector. In this respect we were able to keep some level of respectability in the production of housing, to make it honest and to offer some kind of a challenge to give the potential home-buyer a fair chance.

There are several examples — I would like to read a couple — of what happened with respect to the comments of the Premier and the minister now responsible for housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I have a little trouble seeing at this hour of the morning, but let me just give you an example. These were some of the remarks that the present Minister of Housing was making in 1975 when the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was the Minister of Housing and responsible for the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, previously Dunhill. He stated that "many of these projects are very costly and are beyond the means of the working people of this province." He went on to give an example, 21 units that our Minister of Housing had purchased. He said:

"There are 21 units; seven of them are going to cost a total of $325,000" — imagine that; today that would hardly buy a lot; this is in 1975, six years ago — "which makes these units worth approximately $50,000 apiece. I don't really believe that a working man can possibly afford to move into one of these townhouses. Yet they are supposed to be reasonably priced housing for people. At $50,000 I just can't visualize how anyone who earns a working wage in this province can afford this type of housing. If you

[ Page 6847 ]

figure it out at the current interest rate of less than 10 percent, just interest alone on that amount is $5,000 a year When one compares the Meadowbrook lease structure, which is the lease involved in this particular project, one has to conclude that the minimum annual lease on the land which the townhouse sits on will cost about $1,200 in total."

So here we could have had 21 units at less than $50,000 apiece in 1975. I'm sure those same units, if we were to go and research them now, probably cost $300,000 apiece today. I'm sure the Premier will agree with that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How does that compare to a subdivision in Metchosin?

MR. BARNES: Well, we can get into that later, too. I think the point is, Mr. Speaker, that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Would you please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I said "Mr. Speaker." Didn't you hear me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARNES: Okay, I'll repeat it. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the government of the day was attempting to provide a much-needed commodity on behalf of the public. It was going to take its role, its rightful place, in providing the kind of healthy competition that the private sector lacks at the present time in the province. In other words, there was no need to give away subsidies and write-offs which ultimately just feed inflation. So that is one of the examples I wanted to point out.

The Minister of Housing stated as well, in criticizing our former Minister of Housing, that the housing situation in British Columbia was in chaos. He said: "It's being handled by a minister who does not understand his responsibilities in the housing field." It's curious that that minister would have had that to say in those days, and has not built one single unit, to my knowledge, since he has been Minister of Housing. There is a message here with respect to doctrinaire, rigid attitudes about what government should and shouldn't do. Clearly there are limits to which governments can successfully carry any projects. But had the Housing Corporation of British Columbia been maintained and allowed to function in the marketplace, we would have been able to continue our land-banking programs and to continue to build up the stock of Crown land, especially in the urban areas where people inevitably want to live. Instead. you suggest you have a strategy on housing that involves moving people to remote areas of the province.

There are other aspects which indicate the disinterest on the part of the government in making available housing to the people most in need. I would just like to read a statement from the Sun of September 24 of this year. This is a report respecting a decision of the court to deal with conversion of rental housing by a group of owners or prospective tenants who were going to buy a building for themselves, so they said. In any event, the brief summary of that situation is as follows:

"The provincial government will not introduce legislation to prevent groups from buying apartment buildings and taking over the suites from tenants, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Peter Hyndman said on Wednesday. The minister made the comment after County Court Judge Graham Darling ordered the rentalsman to review the eviction notices served 21 tenants at 1967 Barclay Street by a group of owners who want to live in the 40 suites. Six suites remain rented and the evictions have been stayed pending the review. The buyers are appealing the judge's decision.

"Even if it is overturned, Hyndman says he won't act. 'I am a fan of efforts by groups of renters who want to become homeowners.' "

He went on to state that such owners usually move from one facility into another, and therefore those tenants whom they were displacing had every opportunity to move into their suites as they moved out of them. It's sort of an interesting theory on housing policy. I'm not sure how it applies. If they are moving out of a $1,000 apartment into a $2,000 apartment, what has that to do with those people who are in need of accommodation that would relate to them spending about 25 or 30 percent of their income for such accommodation?

Another thing I find curious is one paragraph I am going to read that relates to the rentalsman's office, which is supposed to be non-partisan. Impartial and quasi-judicial in acting on behalf of tenants and landlords, as the case may be. Nonetheless, it is curious that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for that office, has given him these instructions, or he's acting on his own. This is a quote from the October 8 edition of the Vancouver Sun — letters section — in which the rentalsman says: "We try to balance the need to protect tenants with the need to encourage more investment in rental property, but such balancing is sometimes difficult when the interests of both parties are so high." That's a curious statement from a non-partisan, non-biased sort of intermediary body. It suggests that he has a political consideration to make in seeing that justice is done. I would say that is a grievous problem for people who go to that office with the hope of getting a fair hearing, objectively carried out with all the facts on the table and decisions following therefrom.

We talked about the credibility of the first minister of this province earlier, and I commented this afternoon about his "seatbelt" misjudgment. Others have said that there are many parallels to that story about the Premier, and I don't need to repeat them. I think the Premier's credibility problem is one that he has to live with. He had to deal with it just a few weeks ago at his own Social Credit convention, in which there was serious concern about his trustworthiness,

Another paragraph I want to quote was in the Vancouver Sun for November 21. It talks about his "gold-BCRIC caper." This certainly isn't new news, but it serves to indicate. Mr. Premier, that you yourself don 't even want to touch those BCRIC shares. Yet you have indelibly impressed your name upon the mind of every single soul in this province forever — every single man, woman and child, you name them, every category — because you said that everybody should have a share in the action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to you.

[ Page 6848 ]

Poor stock advice, misrepresentation, or whatever you want to call it — you've got your own convention mad at you. This is what they said: "An overwhelming number of delegates were not prepared to see Premier Bill Bennett take the blame for BCRIC's poor showing on the stock exchange, and they rejected the idea of an investigation, even though more than one delegate suggested that the state of BCRIC, 'an election gimmick,' is enough to get the NDP re-elected.

"The elected members of the party received their second clear message in two days that Bill 32...."

The thing is that you bring legislation in arbitrarily. I would like to talk to the Premier and I hope that he will listen this time. The Premier brought BCRIC in and made his own people and the whole province angry at him. Senior citizens and other people were going to the bank and borrowing money on which they had to pay interest; that compounds the loss from $6 to about $3.15 on the promise of it going up to $9 or $12, plus the loans, and they're still holding onto them. Just a few days ago the Premier himself said he didn't want to have anything to do with it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true.

MR. BARNES: I heard the Premier say it wasn't true, Mr. Speaker. I would like him to stand up right now and say that he will accept those as just settlement for the claim that was given to him through court. When I sit down you can stand up and say that you'll accept those shares at the value you said they were when you sold them to the province. All right?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I made those few remarks to say that the government wants to have nothing to do with housing. The Premier's credibility is not even a question any more. Everybody knows — even his own party knows — about him and what he will do. He'll say anything, do anything, promise anything. He is simply insensitive to what he's doing. I guess he can't help it. If that's the case, if they don't want to have anything to do with housing on the premise that the government should not involve itself in the construction of social housing.... I think he has stated on more than one occasion: "We have no place in the construction of housing; it's up to the private sector. Quite frankly we don't want to get involved at any level." And I think they've lived up to that, notwithstanding their promise to do otherwise when they were campaigning between 1972 and 1975, and notwithstanding their promises to protect tenants living in rented accommodation and all of these things.

We're used to that. But why is it that they're so interested in taking over the culture, arts and sports of the province as a cause? This is the thing that I don't understand, a government that believes in the privatization of most economic activities — they call it free enterprise sometimes and capitalism sometimes; there are all kinds of designations they use — but when it comes to the culture of this province, they want a share of the action. Why is that? Culture, from any balance sheets I've seen, is not a revenue-producing industry as such. It has a spill-off effect for the community. It creates a lot of activity and there is lots of capital as a result, but as far as government revenues are concerned, it's a cost factor.

Still the government is interested in taking over as much as it possibly can. The B.C. Summer and Winter Games are no accident. The government manipulates them as much as possible. He sets the stage and brings in his own politically appointed officials in the right places to see to it that the government gets its higher profile and gives out as many awards as it can. The gifts and grants are given for performance, and all of these things are done because the government now has an interest in the culture of the community something that should be private, in my view.

A few years ago we created the Western Lottery Fund, which at that time was intended to relieve the cost to the taxpayers from the consolidated revenue fund, as a way of paying for culture, sports and recreation. It was restricted and limited to just those activities, but the government amended that legislation, expanded it, and now they can do just about everything with a multimillion-dollar fund and without any debate in the Legislature. It's a perfect porkbarrel, Mr. Speaker, for the government to go around and ballyhoo and appear to be doing a good thing for the people, buying TV ads, talking about how if you buy lottery tickets you will be helping the youth of tomorrow and building champions for British Columbia and so on and so forth. But why should the government be so concerned about this? This is the kind of thing you would expect those so-called heavy-handed state socialists to be doing. It's the kind of thing that you would expect from the so-called irresponsible people on this side of the House who want to do things for people.

Why has the government entered the culture business so strongly? Why are you corralling all of the power in this province? Why are you taking over everything? You are giving the people the line that they are contributing to something that is at arm's length from the government, when the government is manipulating and taking over more and more every day. This is what I was telling you this afternoon about the big project that is going on — the fine arts program that you will be holding in Kamloops. That's an excellent idea. A lot of people appreciate it, but why is the government involved? Why can't it be done by the citizens? They're the ones who are buying the lottery tickets; the government is not buying them. Why can you arbitrarily take money out of the Lottery Fund and give it to your friends? All I'm asking is what their philosophy is? Do they believe in sticking to the strict matters of fiscal responsibility and running the economy and carrying on those kinds of programs they feel the government should be involved in, or are they trying to give the impression that that's what the government is doing, while, in fact, they're nationalizing, centralizing and controlling aspects of the community which they feel — and their own judgment is good for them for their political purpose....

Now for those of you in the Legislature who are perhaps not as familiar with the cultural scene in British Columbia as you might be, consider that the major board in this province is the B.C. Arts Board, which consists of people appointed by the government — in this case the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — to advise on cultural policy and the advisability of spending moneys from the Lottery Fund in various sectors of the province. Now that, one would think, would be a body that has nothing to do with the government; it would be working on behalf of the public and the various arts councils and cultural groups throughout the province. But that's not the case. Those are not people who are elected by those people whom they are serving; they're appointed by

[ Page 6849 ]

the Premier and his friends to do their bidding. This is why I say it's a takeover. It's a confiscation of the culture of the province, pure and simple; there is no other way to look at it. I wonder how they can justify doing that. Yet they say they have nothing to do with housing or the construction of housing, that that's not in the purview of the government. So when we were government, we were building housing. When they became government, they cancelled all the projects and said: "The government should not get involved in the private sector." Are they saying, then, that the government should control the culture of the province? That's what it sounds like. Mr. Speaker, here is a statement to support some of the remarks that I'm making. It's a submission from the B.C. Touring Council, and it's concerned about a program that was started a few years ago called the Artists in B.C. Schools program. I think what I'll do is read a series of resolutions that they passed at the Pacific Contact conference of artists and arts organizations from the west coast, which was held just a few weeks ago in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, if I can have the Chair's attention, I will attempt to read these resolutions:

"B.C. Touring Council and ABCS program — which is Artists in B.C. Schools — "Whereas the provincial government has indicated to the board of the B.C. Touring Council that it is unlikely to continue to fund the ABCS program as administered by the B.C. Touring Council, and whereas the B.C. Arts Board has recommended that the ABCS program, or a duplicate program, be administered by the cultural services branch" — which is under the Provincial Secretary's ministry — "with no indication of how such an action will increase and improve performance opportunities for school children or the general touring network of the province, be it resolved that the B.C. Touring Council express to the minister, Evan Wolfe, and all MLAs its commitment to the administration of the ABCS program by the Touring Council and its opposition to the creation of a duplicate program within the cultural services branch."

So if you're going to compete with them, weaken them. That's the essence of that resolution.

"Funding for ABCS program. Whereas the B.C. Touring Council's ABCS program has successfully stimulated performing arts exposure programs in B.C. schools, and has acted as an incentive to school boards in B.C. to increase local funding for cultural activities, it is necessary to allow the program an opportunity to continue and gain in the future. Be it resolved that the B.C. Touring Council urge the government of B.C., through the Ministries of Education and the Provincial Secretary, to recognize the importance of cultural opportunities for the children of B.C. and to ensure opportunities for all children in B.C. to experience professional performing arts productions through the provision of increased funds for BCTC's ABCS program.

"Provincial cultural policy. Whereas there is a growing concern among the arts community that there is no direction and has never been any direction for a cultural policy within the province, be it resolved that the B.C. Touring Council urge the British Columbia government to review the state of culture in the province, and that the government establish a comprehensive cultural policy in direct consultation with the Pacific Conference of the Arts."

That's not likely. They're not going to be consulting with the artists. They're going to dictate and direct.

"Arm's length funding for the arts. Whereas the provincial government seems to be centralizing control of the arts and thereby discouraging volunteer participation in the arts, and whereas volunteer organizations have proven to be cost-efficient and more sensitive and quickly responsive to local and regional concerns, be it resolved that the B.C. Touring Council strongly urge the provincial government to reconsider its moves to centralize control of the arts and to continue to support volunteer organizations via arm's length funding.

"Lottery funding. Whereas the B.C. Lottery Fund was established in 1974 with the intent that all proceeds go towards the areas of fitness and sport, recreation, culture and heritage, and whereas in 1976 the provincial government changed the legislation to broaden the scope to include areas such as health care, et cetera, and whereas there are no criteria as to what projects are eligible for receiving direct grants and no formula as to what percentage of direct grants go to recreation and sport, culture, heritage, health and so on, be it resolved that the provincial government, in direct consultation with the arts community, immediately establish guidelines and criteria for projects eligible for direct grants from the lotteries fund and that the provincial government set a formula for assigning lottery funds which reflects the original intent of the fund."

As I've stated, Mr. Speaker, there's no question that the government is manipulating that fund for its own political purposes. The cultural community knows it, and they are appealing to the government to indicate whether or not it intends to confiscate the whole cultural scene or allow the people in the community to run their own affairs. There is one other:

"Publication of ABCS subsidies. Be it resolved that each year the B.C. Touring Council publish the list of schools and school districts that receive ABCS grants together with the amount of that grant, and that this information be made available upon request."

Anyway, I think we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker. However. It's interesting that the government only has two people in the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Please proceed. You have the floor.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I just think that is rather interesting.

MR. RICHMOND: Make it a little more exciting.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of it being exciting, Mr. Member for Kamloops. It's a question with just dealing with the facts. It doesn't have to be dramatic or anything that is going to be earth-shattering. We're just dealing with the facts. We're all here to work. That's why I'm not supporting the amendment to adjourn. The work of the people of British Columbia is not an easy matter. It requires considerable energy and commitment on the part of members on all sides of the House — upstairs, downstairs and everywhere else.

[ Page 6850 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're playing games.

MR. BARNES: What games am I playing, Mr. Member for Dewdney? You know better than that. I want you to stand up and tell me whether or not....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre please address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: I've been trying, but I keep getting interrupted by the member for Dewdney and the brand-new member for Kamloops, although I don't think he's found his way to his feet yet. However, he did make one speech when he first came in and we all congratulated him and welcomed him, and I wish him well, as I do all hon. members in the Legislature.

I think the point that I'm trying to make is that the government has no time for the construction of affordable housing in this province. It has made it quite clear it does not intend to protect people who are being squeezed out of their homes into rental accommodation. It simply says: "That's just too bad. Sorry, there's nothing we can do. We're not going to address it because, in our opinion, we should have nothing to do with it." But on the other hand, it has everything to do with the takeover of culture in the province — at a cost.

It just happens that the B.C. Touring Council, with the Artists in B.C. Schools, was receiving grants from practically every funding institution in the country, including the Vancouver Foundation and a number of others, and, to a small degree, some funding from the provincial government. But the provincial government has threatened to take that program over. Do you know what's going to happen when it takes it over? Do you know what's going to happen to all those moneys that the B.C. Touring Council was receiving from the other funding bodies and to the use of all those volunteers, who number into the hundreds? That's all going to be cancelled, because you can be sure that the Vancouver Foundation, Koerner Foundation, Spencer Foundation or any of these other foundations are not going to be contributing that money to the provincial government, which in effect means that there's going to be a greater cost factor than there is in a situation that has to be subsidized in the first place.

So this has got to be a very curious initiative on the part of the cultural services branch through the B.C. Arts Board through the Provincial Secretary. It has to be very curious that they would want to use the heavy hand of Social Creditism on the culture of the people of British Columbia — the one last vestige of private independence from government control. Can you imagine what's going to happen in this province when we realize that everybody is going to have to do their dance by the number according to some dictate from the bureaucracy centrally controlled by Social Credit? That's exactly what you're doing. You shouldn't be dabbling in the arts, culture, sports and recreation of this province. Leave people alone. Give them the funds and let them do their own thing. If you can't build housing for people in this province because you say it's against your principles, how can you justify getting involved in something such as this, when it costs you money at a time when you haven't got any? You say you haven't got, any money, but you're taking this over. I think it's quite clear — high profile, great politics. You can go out, cut a few ribbons, give out a few medals, pat a few children on the head and play games.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time under standing orders has elapsed.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You appear to be relieved. Why are you smiling? My goodness, I thought we were a House undivided in doing the people's business. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think my points are made.

MS. SANFORD: Where is the government? Are there only two members over there?

MR. HALL: There are only two members and one's asleep.

MS. SANFORD: Good grief!

Mr. Speaker, it's about 22 hours since I took my place in the throne speech debate in the Legislature. At that time we were attempting to convince the government that it was high time they took some action with respect to the economic situation of the province — the problems of the unemployed and the problems of those people who have had services cut back. Speaker after speaker has pointed out that the throne speech contains nothing for the people of British Columbia at this time.

After we were called down from our constituencies for this special session, which has lasted seven days, we were presented with a threadbare throne speech and then presented with this motion that says that we will now adjourn until the public interest requires that we be called back. It requires that we be here now. It requires our presence in this Legislature right now. It requires our presence in order to discuss the unemployment situation, particularly as it relates to young people. It's not acceptable that the unemployment between the ages of 15 and 19 in this province is at 17.6 percent. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker? It's not acceptable to me. Those are the latest figures out of the Ministry of Labour of this government for October. There are 17.6 percent unemployed in that age group. Why did the government not bring in programs? Why are they not now adjourning this debate so that we can come back later today in order to discuss proposals about problems such as this?

That's what we should be doing here. We have held this floor all night to try to convince the government that it is high time they took some action with respect to these unemployed, with respect to those people who were demonstrating on the lawns and with respect to the cutbacks that people have suffered in this province. Why aren't we facing a revised budget? I'm quite prepared to move adjournment of this debate if the government is prepared to bring in a revised budget later today for us to debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MS. SANFORD: That's out of order? Oh, I don't think so. I'm debating the reason that we should not be adjourning this debate until some time next March.

Within my own constituency, the last time I made inquiries, a couple of weeks ago in the Courtenay area, I was told that the homemaker services still have to cut back by 700 hours the services they are now delivering to the handicapped and pensioners. They have been cutting back for months. I have been swamped by phone calls from people who are concerned about what these cutbacks are doing to them. They

[ Page 6851 ]

still have another 700 hours to cut out of the service currently being delivered. The last time I visited Hornby and Denman Islands it was the major issue. The people on those islands quite often don't live close to neighbours and have to rely on that homemaker to come in once a day to check on them, to ensure that there is food on the table and that the basic things are done for them; They are being cut back and cut back. We should be here trying to determine how we can avoid cutting back on the services delivered to old people, pensioners and the handicapped.

The government seems to have found money for all these beautiful, big projects that they are involved in, such as the stadium, B.C. Place and convention centres. Whatever they can think of is fine, but only if you cut back 700 hours in a small area like Courtenay on services delivered to those people who most need it. Why aren't we discussing ways and means in which we can avoid the kinds of cutbacks and hardships that we're causing those people? Why aren't we discussing the problems that are being faced by people like the woman who was quoted in the Vancouver Province yesterday? This woman used to give money at Christmastime for the empty-stocking fund. She used to give five or ten dollars. She was always pleased to be able to help. But because of the cutbacks she has faced she does not even have food for the table for her three children. You didn't read that story, Mr. Speaker? It's there. She was declared employable. The firm from which she rents her stove and her fridge and her other appliances is going out of business, so at Christmastime this year she's not even going to have a stove or a fridge. That's the kind of thing that this government is doing to the people of this province through their cutbacks in social services., through their cutbacks in homemaker services, and through their cutbacks in every kind of service to people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The megaprojects can go ahead. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the people within his ministry are busy shuffling those figures back and forth so that the budget in March will be palatable and acceptable to the people of the province. It's a disgrace. After seven days we're going to leave here with these kinds of problems that exist in this province.

Why aren't we discussing the fact that all of the students at the universities are going to be facing incredible hikes in their fees next year?

HON. MR. SMITH: That's a lie. It's not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has just said that the hikes that the students expect they will be facing next year are not going to take place. He said it was a lie. When I held up this article that indicates that the fees are going to be going up, the minister said: "That's a lie." I heard it, Mr. Speaker; I'm sure you heard it too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, I heard it as well. It was quite audible to the House. Perhaps the Minister of Education would withdraw the comment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to withdraw it and say that the outrageous statement was not correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A withdrawal is fine. Thank you, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has now withdrawn his comment that this article is a lie, so one must assume that the fees are going to take incredible hikes next year. That's the only thing we could assume from that. The students are correct to be demonstrating, to be worried and to be writing articles about the kind of increases they're going to face next year. The students at the University of British Columbia today in first year are sitting in classes that have 585 and 550 students in them. Students in first year at UBC this year are lucky if they're in a class that has fewer than 150 students. Why aren't we discussing ways and means to ensure that the universities can continue operating and that the students can go there without having to have rich parents to put them through? The Minister of Education has assured us today that they will be facing incredible hikes next year because of the inability of this government to deal with the economic problems.

We're also told through an article in the paper yesterday that the taxpayers are as usual going to bear the burden of education costs. The minister has been making various announcements about moving this around and juggling that back and forth. It all turns out that it again means that the homeowner is going to bear the greatest burden of the education costs in this province. I'm not surprised. I was never fooled by any announcements that the minister was making. Not for a minute was I convinced that the Minister of Education was going to remove the burden of taxes from the homeowners of this province. Year after year that burden has been increased by that government.

We should not be adjourning today. We should continue to find ways and means in which we can relieve homeowners of the burden they're now paying for education tax. Doesn't the minister have a copy of the McMath report? Doesn't he know that the recommendations in that report were that the homeowners of this province should not be paying the burden that they're now paying, the burden which is being increased year after year by that government?

University students can't afford to pay their fees, and they're going to take incredible hikes. He tried to convince us today that they were not going to take incredible hikes, that those university fees were not going to go up this year. But he had to withdraw that, because obviously they are. So announcements that he's been making in the past about changes to the taxation system to help the homeowners of this province, you can take with a grain of salt as well.

Why aren't we hearing from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) during any of this debate? He's been signing Christmas cards, and once he'd signed his Christmas cards he went to bed, and we haven't seen him since.

Why aren't we in this Legislature debating amendments to the Human Rights Code to ensure that the disabled in this province will have the same kind of opportunity and the same treatment as the rest of the people of the province? Why aren't we here discussing new industrial health and safety regulations, so that the people of this province who are in the workforce will not be faced with the kinds of injuries and deaths that are now taking place? Two hundred deaths a year in the workplace is not acceptable. We should have programs and proposals by the Minister of Labour, who has said absolutely nothing during these eight days. He doesn't care about human rights.

[ Page 6852 ]

He didn't even replace the Human Rights Commission for months on end. Look at the labour practices he indulged in. Look at the industrial relations that he indulged in. He didn't even let the chairman know that her services were no longer required — just faded away. She didn't know whether or not to come to work. What kind of example is that for the Minister of Labour to set? When we had a director appointed to the human rights branch, her instructions were: "Please make sure that I don't get any bad press on human rights. That's your job as the director of the human rights branch. Make sure I don't get any bad publicity." That's the extent of their interest in human rights. They've done nothing.

Why aren't we here discussing legislation which would prohibit the sale of our agricultural land to absentee foreigners? Why is there nothing in the throne speech on that? Why is there nothing on the order paper for our discussion? According to the agrologists of the area, 30 percent of the land up in the Peace River area is owned outside this country. That resource is too valuable to have decisions made about it outside our borders. They're not going to do anything about it. They don't even mention it in the throne speech. There's no legislation. There's no concern. They don't have any more concern on that issue than they do for the people of the province.

We should not be adjourning today. There are too many issues in this province that need attention. That government is too lazy. It will not get off its butt in order to propose changes to improve the situation for the people of the province. With a government like that, where is the hope for the people of the province? ICBC rates up. Student fees up. Homeowners having to pay more for education. Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is going to take over the entire planning for the province, so the province will develop according to the Minister of Municipal Affairs' plan. If you don't fit in with his plan, there are the camps.

I'm adamantly opposed to this motion which is going to give the government a holiday for three months.

MR. BARBER: It's our position that this government has no right to adjourn this House without presenting and passing a policy for economic recovery. They have no right to adjourn the House unless they've done that piece of work for the people of British Columbia. It's our position that they have no cause to adjourn this House, in light of their own failure to bring forward even one single bill for debate. On that basis, too, they have no right to adjourn this House. It's our conviction that they further have no right to adjourn this House in view of the callous contempt in which they hold the interests of working people in British Columbia, who are in the middle of a depression, the end and the bottom of which we haven't seen yet. They have no right to adjourn this House on that count either.

They do have, I suppose, in the technical sense, a right to adjourn the House, because the iron heel of the Social Credit majority will eventually force through the vote in their favour. But the people of British Columbia are perfectly well aware of why this extraordinary overnight session has been held. It has been held because of the failure of Social Credit policy, because of the absence of Social Credit policy, and because of the incompetence of Social Credit policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

MR. BARBER: Asleep or passed out in their offices on some basis or another. They're not here, where they should be. They're not here working, and they propose to adjourn the House so that no one can work. The apparent standard they have is that they don't propose to be here to do any work, and they don't want us to be here to do any work either. That standard is not good enough. That's another reason why this House should not adjourn. It is irresponsible of Social Credit to adjourn this House in the face of the economic crisis that faces British Columbia itself. It is irresponsible to adjourn this House without presenting one plan, one project, one strategy for economic recovery. They have no right to adjourn this House, in the light of their failure to deal with the economic crisis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three MLAs.

MR. BARBER: At the moment three Social Credit MLAs are in the House; that's it. That's a sign of the willingness to work or the lack of it on the part of the most incredibly lazy government caucus we have ever seen. This overnight debate is the precise result of the failure of Social Credit to do anything but bring in a meaningless, hollow and empty throne speech. It is the result of the failure of Social Credit to accept any responsibility whatever for the economic crisis faced by working people in this province. This overnight debate has been the result of the Social Credit admission — by their silence, by their incompetence and by their contempt — that they have no plans, no strategy and no interest in anything other than taking a four-month vacation at the expense of the taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. BARBER: They've passed out, they've conked out, they've given up, they've abandoned ship, because they have nothing to say and no policies to defend.

Let me briefly inquire into three failures of Social Credit policy. Let me describe for you three public policies and three public debates which are going on in every comer of British Columbia except one, and that is the government bench itself.

Everywhere in British Columbia but within the government caucus people are asking: what is the housing policy of this administration? We saw the abysmal, lame, inept, absurd performance of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on Monday. He introduced a housing policy which he could not explain, did not understand and failed to defend. The press were laughing at him to his face. The press were laughing in the press conference. The press themselves understand what he alone fails to understand: that ridiculous and reactionary homilies about the virtues of private home-ownership are meaningless and insulting in an area of 20 percent interest rates and no available land.

The ridiculous and reactionary homilies are apparently the only text of a Social Credit housing policy. There is nothing else. No interim budget came forward, no statute measures were introduced, no reference to any serious policy can be found in the throne speech, and no minister stood up to define or even defend a Social Credit housing policy.

It is unacceptable that this government adjourn the House without presenting a housing policy that makes sense. We propose not to allow them to adjourn readily without pointing out to the people that the public debate they should have been

[ Page 6853 ]

leading and the public policies they should have been establishing to recreate a housing industry in this province are debates that they have utterly failed to introduce and policies they've utterly failed to act on. This overnight debate is the precise. result of the failure of Social Credit to introduce a housing policy during this session.

There is a second major cause of this debate, and it is also the precise result of another Social Credit failure. This failure is that failure of will, courage and imagination to deal with interest rates in British Columbia. The old Socreds would never have been made suckers by the banks as the banks have made suckers of the new Socreds. The old Socreds at least had some vision about the ways, particularly in western Canada, whereby we could assume some authority over the banking system, and having assumed that authority, redirect it in the interests of home-ownership, small business and the development of our own economy. At least the old Socreds had some guts, some principles and some policy.

The second major reason we refuse and reject this lazy man's adjournment is the failure of imagination and courage on the part of Social Credit to deal with interest rates. In a few moments I'll be referring to some of the positive proposals that we've made in this debate in terms of dealing with interest rates. At the moment it is simply and provably a matter of public record that Social Credit has no plan, strategy or policy whatever to deal with the crippling interest rates that are ruining small business and the opportunities for home-ownership.

The third and final major failure of Social Credit is to bring forward in this all-too-short session a policy to create jobs in this province. They haven't done anything of the sort. We have been treated to the lamentable and astonishingly illogical speeches of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Those speeches may go over well, I suppose, in Socred meetings, where people believe that sort of guff as a matter of course, but they don't go over with the general public. They're not accepted in this Legislature. No competent academic would ever take them seriously, and no one in the housing industry does either, in terms of employment in that particular field. Even Dr. Pat laughs behind his clasped hands when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development speaks. His speech, however, was the only one that even peripherally addressed the question of creating jobs — of creating a full employment economy in British Columbia. The rest of the government went their usual way attacking another government that's been out of government office for six years. Apparently they believe that that's all they need to do to deserve re-election.

Mr. Speaker, they do not deserve re-election, and they do not even deserve the right to adjourn this debate. Since the House adjourned in July they have had a four-month holiday. They have spent the last seven, going on eight, days debating a phony throne speech that contained no proposals whatever to deal with housing, interest rates or unemployment. Now they propose yet another four-month holiday before they come back in March.

This is a government of lazy people. It is a government of people who lack anything like the compassion, vigour or imagination to be fit to govern in the province of British Columbia. They fail on those three counts as well.

Let me repeat: Social Credit has no right to adjourn this House without presenting a plan for economic recovery. The longer they delay the presentation and the execution of such a plan, the deeper will British Columbia slide into depression. The longer they delay, the more directly will Social Credit be held responsible for the recession that plagues British Columbia today. The longer Social Credit fails to deal with the problems of housing, interest rates and unemployment, the more clearly will they be held accountable by the electors in the next general election for those failures and for a downturn in an economy which is, in good times, something they take credit for and, in bad times, something they blame someone else for. The simple deceit of that policy is an offence to the people of British Columbia. The hypocrisy and deceit of such a posture offends people in British Columbia. But it is, after all, typical of the way Social Credit has always done its business.

For me, though, the worst thing about this short session is the demonstration it presents of the contemptible stupidity of Social Credit. It is a contemptible stupidity which seems to believe that they can convince the people of British Columbia that they are not required to present policies in order to justify a session. It is a contemptible stupidity which seems to hold that they are not required to debate bills in order to justify a session. It is a contemptible stupidity which seems to recognize what no one else recognizes: that all they need to do is bring in a phony-baloney throne speech which contains no practical measures and results in practical achievement, and everyone will think they've done something good.

This is the contemptible stupidity of a group of arrogant and lazy politicians who have no vision and offer no hope. A further proof of that fundamental misjudgment can be described simply by recounting and indicating briefly the incredible history of mistakes, errors, maladministration and bungles for which Social Credit is responsible. When you examine the history of bungles under this coalition, it becomes, I suppose, a little more understandable why they have bungled this session from beginning to end. This is the government that bungled the Princess Marguerite, the Prince Rupert and the Surrey issue; these are the bunglers who wasted $20 million on that fiasco; this is the group of inept, incompetent ne'er-do-wells who managed to throw away $20 million on this whole ridiculous escapade and has yet even to admit candidly, even for a moment, that they did something wrong. This is the group of bunglers that wasted money on a jetfoil from Victoria to Seattle that no one wanted to ride on but only Americans could crew, and which had to be abandoned six months later.

The same bunglers responsible for the Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey and the jetfoil fiasco are understandably, Mr. Speaker, just possibly the same bunglers who have introduced no policy on housing, interest rates and unemployment. Social Credit is the group of bunglers that doubled the ferry rates to Vancouver Island and wrecked the tourist economy, and it is no surprise, when you remember that catastrophe, that they should turn around and bungle away a session, failing to introduce a policy on housing, interest rates or unemployment. When you look at that bungle, the bungle of this session becomes a little more understandable.

This is the group of incompetents that accidentally wiped out an insurance company. Seaboard was thrown overboard through the provable errors of this group of administrative misfits opposite. The consequence of that bungle cost the taxpayers a hundred thousand bucks, required an overnight emergency sitting of this House again, and was once more proof that the same group that could bungle Seaboard could bungle away this session and introduce no policy on housing, interest rates and unemployment.

[ Page 6854 ]

This is the group of bunglers that invented — do you remember it, Mr. Speaker — a department of deregulation. I remember the Premier announcing in a throne speech that Social Credit was committed to a policy and a Ministry of Deregulation, and they were going to do something to wipe out red tape. Well, they wiped out Seaboard and that was the end of the Ministry of Deregulation. It now exists as a solitary clerk in the Ministry of Finance. A government that is capable of setting up and then destabilizing their own Ministry of Deregulation is capable of the same mistakes they have committed in this session, this nitwit group of bunglers that was responsible for the Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey, the jetfoil, doubling the ferry rates, shutting down Seaboard and shutting down their own Ministry of Deregulation. It should not surprise us, then, that they have failed to introduce policies on housing, interest rates and unemployment, and are therefore not entitled to adjourn this House. But there is more, Mr. Speaker.

This is the group that concocted a program called PREP in the Ministry of Human Resources, a program that we were told was permanent and a success. It turns out to have been neither, Mr. Speaker. It was a flop and it too was destabilized, deanimated and put out of business by Socreds who weren't even honest enough to admit that mistake.

This is the group of incompetents that put together a heroin treatment scheme which has failed in New York, failed in Illinois, failed in Tennessee, failed in New Jersey and failed in California. Sure enough it failed in British Columbia. If they had done their homework — but they are incompetents and we know they didn't — they could have spent roughly $14 and received from the journals of the day a précis of the failures in those several American states. Instead of spending $14 to read about it in the professional literature and to realize it didn't work, they wasted $14 million to prove that it didn't work here in British Columbia. The same group of bunglers that could fritter away $14 million on an unworkable heroin treatment scheme is that group of bunglers that wasted seven days in this session by failing to deal with housing, interest rates and unemployment.

Now they want another four months off, and they wonder why the opposition has kept them in a sustained debate overnight. This is the group of bunglers that invented Doug Heal, who then went on to destabilize him and everyone who worked within 100 yards of his office, including the Premier, until Mr. Heal was put out to pasture. The group of bunglers that could invent Doug Heal is more in its usual mould, it's more understandable, when you remember the last seven days' debate on the throne speech, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) himself described in a moment of alarming candour as ten days of nothing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Why, Mr. Speaker, does the government believe it is entitled to an early adjournment? They've had four months off since July; they want another four months off until March. When have they ever been on the job?

This is the government of bunglers that got caught. This is the group of political misfits that got caught in the dirty tricks scandal, that fired their caucus staff, that fired Dan Campbell, that fired George Lenko, and that did everything necessary to jettison all of their accomplices while retaining their own pretended innocence. The group of bunglers that would appoint a one-man commission, headed by a one-time Socred candidate, that would wipe out three New Democrat seats and create an aberration called Gracie's Finger is the same group of bunglers that believes it is entitled to another four-month vacation. And they wonder why the opposition has kept them working overnight.

This is the group of bunglers that wasted another $100,000 on a worthless study to decide whether or not to build a tunnel or a bridge or something like both between the continent and the Island. The only person who wanted the study was its principal author. The only person who read it was its principal author. The only person who paid for it, however, was not its author or its reader; it was all of us, Mr. Speaker. What a waste of money! What a stupid, contemptible waste of $100,000! If we had the power, we would send the bill to that minister's home address and let him figure out how to pay for it, because the taxpayers never should have. It was an illegitimate, wrongful and dumb expenditure of money typical of their incompetence, typical of their bungling, typical of their short-sightedness, and typical of their arrogance.

This is the group of bunglers that told us the Victoria convention centre would cost $4 million. Three years later they now tell us it will cost $14 million, but it is yet to be built. A year ago last month the Premier did a sod-turning in Victoria — pardon me, two years ago last month. I remember, it coincided with municipal elections; it was thought to have political overtones. Two years ago last month this far-sighted Premier turned the sod for the Victoria convention centre. That was the first and last shovel we've seen at the construction site. We have, however, seen the bills, which started at $4 million and have now gone to $14 million, and nothing has been built, thanks to the proven incompetence of Social Credit. Now they tell us they want another four months off. For what purpose? To waste more time and cause thereby greater expenditures for the Victoria convention centre? Maybe. Or maybe they've got their ideas on more expenditures in Vancouver.

In Vancouver Gracie's Slipper, which presumably would contain several of Gracie's fingers, was originally budgeted at $25 million. Today it's $135 million. This is a $110 million overrun under Social Credit, which said it would never have any overruns, and it has yet to be built.

The incompetence of Social Credit is further proven by their total inability to build convention centres on time, within budget, or at all. Why does this group of incompetents believe they have been entitled to an adjournment? They have yet to do anything to earn their pay. They are not entitled.

This group of incompetents opposite then decided they would muck around with the agricultural land reserve system in this province and would try to give some land to their friends the Wengers, the Spetifores and the Ainslie Lorettos of Gloucester. Even with that perverse agenda, they screwed it up. They couldn't even do that right. They got caught; they got found out; they got stopped; they got halted; they blew it. They can't any longer even do what the old Socreds could always do, which was deliver favours to their friends. These guys bungle that too. We certainly know what their intentions were, but bad intentions aren't enough. Under Social Credit we should at least expect bad results, but all we've seen are bad intentions and no results except more screwups, more mistakes, more bungles, more court cases — and more political points for the official opposition, glory be!

[ Page 6855 ]

Now I come to the final bungle in this list; this is number 15. This is the bungle that has probably done more than anything else to prove the utter incompetence of this group of misnamed businessmen opposite. This is the bungle that started when the Premier had a dream, a vision, an enlightenment, a headache, petit mal — petit tête. This is the vision called BCRIC. This is privatization gone nuts in British Columbia. This was the way the Premier thought.he could cleverly outfox the NDP and prove once and for all what a foolish policy public ownership is. If anything, he has proven the precise opposite. If anything, he has proven that this group opposite, which may know how to sell used cars, used fridges or used MLAs, doesn't know anything at all about the major corporate enterprises of British Columbia, the interrelating and interlocking natures of our economy or anything at all about how to put together an organization that knows how to do its job.

I act as the BCRIC critic for the official opposition. I enjoy doing that, although my secretary doesn't, because she has to type a lot of letters which I write to a lot of angry BCRIC shareholders. When I write to these people who complain to me about the low value of BCRIC shares, I tell them a few, simple and straightforward things. Every time they complain about actions of the board of directors, I tell them they should remember who appointed the board in the first place: the Premier of British Columbia. Every time they complain about the Kaiser deal, the Mac-Blo deal and the high prices BCRIC has paid for anything and the high indebtedness BCRIC suffers, I remind them of who appointed the board of directors of BCRIC in the first place: the Premier of British Columbia. Every time they complain about the low trading value of the shares, I remind them of who reduced the trading value in the first place: the Premier of British Columbia.

Let me briefly remind you, Mr. Speaker. The four stockbroking houses that gave evaluation of the net assets in the first prospectus established those assets at $11.16 a share; that was the net book value per share established by four stockbroking houses in British Columbia. If the Premier had any brains, he would have allowed the shares to be sold for what they were worth, to find their value on the market and to allow the market to make the decisions. But no, the Premier decided he would be political. For six months it almost worked. For six months the Premier almost got away with it. He said that even though the shares are valued in the prospectus at $11.16, and even though ordinarily they would be allowed to find their own value on the stock market — and might have hit $9 or $9.50 — he was going to interfere politically. He was going to use all the wisdom at his command and lower the value to $6. Every time people tell me that they are really unhappy about the low value of BCRIC shares, I remind them of who reduced the value arbitrarily from $11.16 to $6: the Premier of British Columbia.

Not only was he responsible for that ridiculous action — at least as hindsight now proves and as foresight might have suggested — but what's worse and even more contemptible is that he had no strategy whatever to bring the shares back up to their real value. He was very good at lowering the value. He's good at lowering the value of a lot of things he touches. He did that very well. He lowered it from $11.16 to S6 and stopped. What happened? After they briefly rose to $9.15, they began their plummet. This morning I understand they are trading at $3.20 in Toronto. This is a far cry from $11.16. This is clear proof of the incompetence of Social Credit. It is clear proof that they are not entitled to another four-month vacation, having just recovered from the previous four-month vacation that they gave themselves at the end of July. Those are 15 instances, Mr. Speaker, of proven incompetence on the part of Social Credit.

We then ask again, given their record, why we should believe they would use the next four months to do anything worthwhile for the people of British Columbia. We then ask again that this Legislature should be given the chance to do something worthwhile, because clearly it's beyond the government. If the government can't do it, the Legislature will. If the government isn't competent, the Legislature is. If the government can't do the job. the Legislature should. This is why the adjournment motion should not be accepted.

. The government responsible for the Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey, the jetfoil. doubling the ferry fares, Seaboard, the Ministry of Deregulation, PREP, the heroin treatment program, Doug Heal, dirty tricks, Eckardt, Gracie's Finger, the tunnel study, the Victoria convention centre overrun, the Vancouver convention centre overrun, the disposition of ALR lands and BCRIC is not a government that can be trusted to do anything right. It took them only six years to do this.

The government has attempted to purvey a political falsehood in this debate. They've said that the New Democratic Party has yet to propose a single positive, constructive suggestion in this or any other debate. This is clearly and provably false, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to refer to not one, or two, but 19 significant proposals which this opposition has made in this overnight debate. They're all in Hansard. They're all in the record, they're all worth considering, they're all positive. They all have a chance of developing a policy in this province for economic recovery. Again, Mr. Speaker, if we can't trust the government to do the job, then the Legislature will have to do it for them. We've led this overnight debate because we believe in positive programs; we believe in positive remedies; we believe in dealing with the triple crisis of housing, unemployment and high interest rates.

We have put forward in this overnight debate alone 19 concrete proposals for economic recovery. Let me review them. First of all. we have asked them to proclaim a law that they voted for themselves. It's called the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. We've asked them to do what on June 3, 1975, Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. McClelland. Mr. Richter, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Jordan, and Mr. Bennett, all voted for. It is here in the records of this House that every one of those Socreds voted in second reading in favour of the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act; but today they refuse to proclaim it.

The first positive suggestion we make is: take yourselves at your own word, believe that you voted right, act right now, release the report and proclaim the bill. This alone would significantly deal with two of the three crises: high interest rates and the unavailability of affordable housing. That is the first positive proposal we've made. It is rational. They voted for it themselves six years ago. They may wish we'd forgotten, they may wish this wasn't printed. but it is nonetheless provably a matter of public record.

The second positive proposal that we've made is to ask them to declare a one-year moratorium on interest rates as they apply to home mortgages. Saskatchewan has done this, Manitoba may be doing it in the very near future, and we

[ Page 6856 ]

propose it here in British Columbia. This is our second positive proposal to deal with the triple crisis of housing, unemployment and high interest rates.

Third, we again now, as we have on many previous occasions, call for the immediate recreation of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. We are, I believe, the only province in Canada that doesn't have such an instrument for the disposition of Crown land and the development of public housing. By public, I mean a mix of housing — private ownership, public ownership, co-ops and seniors'. We are the only province in Canada that does not have an equivalent of a provincial housing corporation. The Socreds stupidly shut it down in 1977. We ask them today to correct that mistake and to recreate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

Fourth, we ask them to initiate a crash program to bring on stream non-ALR Crown land for seniors' and co-op housing. This is affordable, this is vital, this is humane, this is necessary. It's the fourth proposal we make to deal with the triple crisis of housing, unemployment, and high interest rates.

Fifth, we have asked them to accelerate development of parks in British Columbia. That is a highly labour-intensive economic proposal. They benefit tourism, they benefit recreation, they employ a lot of people, they're easy and quick to do. They can be done now. They should be done now.

Sixth, we proposed in this debate the immediate creation of a program for winter works to be carried out by the municipalities of British Columbia. Local government is confident they are able, and we believe they are willing. This, too, is another positive proposal to deal with unemployment.

Seventh, we propose again now, as we've proposed before, the immediate inclusion of farmworkers and domestics under the minimum wage acts of this province. These people are entitled to be counted into the mainstream of economic life. The longer they are excluded, the longer will their sector of the economy remain depressed and unhealthy.

Eighth, we have asked them to take immediate action, and to include the possibility of public ownership in their plans for those shut-down sectors of the forest economy in the province. There is a role for public ownership, there is a role for public intervention, and there most certainly is a role for a Legislature as well as a government to declare its commitment to reopen, revitalize and remake the forest economy of this province.

The ninth is a proposal for an immediate program of intense silviculture in those areas of the province where climate and topography encourage it. There are many such areas and they will be available this winter and should be planned for now.

Tenth, we have proposed the establishment in a rational and judicious way of a mariculture industry in this province. I see the light is on, and I will proceed quickly.

Eleventh, we have proposed the upgrading of public bridges in British Columbia in the interest of public safety.

Twelfth, we propose the creation of small, affordable hydroelectric and thermal projects in communities that want them. This is the wave of the future: small electric and co-generating projects.

Thirteenth, we have asked for further funds to be committed to the salmonid enhancement program. Fourteenth, we have asked in relation to that program for a major effort on stream-clearing and restoration in salmon and other streams in this province that support the fishery.

Fifteenth, we have asked for an amendment to the Human Rights Code to protect employment possibilities for handicapped persons.

Sixteenth, we have proposed the creation of household energy-conservation projects; and seventeenth, industrial energy-conservation projects.

Eighteenth, we have asked that the government, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of the individuals who are clients and for the sake of the workers, immediately restore the previous full employment levels in the homemaker service of British Columbia.

Nineteenth, and finally for this debate, but not finally in the ultimate sense, I propose now, as we have proposed before, the development of a marine products marketing strategy to save the Oakland Fisheries of this province, to make mariculture a feasible thing, to make sense of salmonid enhancement and stream restoration.

These are 19 positive proposals we have made overnight, Mr. Speaker, to do in this Legislature what the government will not do in its own chambers. This is a government that offers no help; this is a government that shows no humanity; this is a government that provides no hope; this is a group opposite that is not fit to govern and not entitled to an adjournment.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I didn't notice any of the opposition members getting up, so I call the question.

MR. BARBER: There's no provision to call the question that way. Mr. Speaker calls the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure, closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is 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 in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 20

[ Page 6857 ]

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

MR. HALL: On a point of order, yesterday at about 20 minutes past six we passed a motion of adjournment, which was recorded in the Blues, that we adjourn until the next sitting of the House. When the bells were rung as a signal to come into this chamber at eight o'clock, the mace was already in, Your Honour was not here, the procession was not taken and we were told by the leader of the government what the business was, which did not, to my way of thinking, conform to the orders of the day which should have taken place. This is the first opportunity I've really had to raise a procedural point. I'm not one who wants to wrangle. [Laughter.] I blush a little.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to tell the House when we next meet by what legerdemain, by what magic powers, the mace arrived at eight o'clock, Your Honour didn't and we adjourned debate without apparently obeying our own orders and motions taken at twenty past six.

MR. SPEAKER: We will undertake to bring the decision that you've requested. However, I would like the House to know that the Speaker, with his advisers, agonized over the point during the brief adjournment period and had some difficulty with the fact that the House orders two separate and distinct sittings in every day and we could not possibly have a third sitting in that day. I think the House would understand the problems that the Chair was in. Yet, without the direction of the House to act further, we could only presume what the House wanted us to do. And we did what we thought you presumed, God bless you.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I just seek clarification. Would you advise me whether the Journals of the House that just recorded the last vote will record the fact that a number of NDP members changed their vote. When they voted verbally they voted for the motion, and when they voted to be recorded they voted against the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will show only those who physically stood for the vote.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:47 a.m.