[ Page 9031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's special report No. 6: "A 'Matter of Administration': B.C. Appeal Court Judgment."

Mr. Speaker –– 9031

Oral Questions

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 9031

Donation of Xerox copier to Vancouver Junior League. Mr. Howard –– 9031

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 9032

Red Hot Video Ltd. Ms. Brown –– 9032

B.C. Hydro subdivision of Site C agricultural land. Mrs. Wallace –– 9032

Manufactured homes. Mr. Leggatt –– 9033

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 9033

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Barrett

On the amendment to vote 4 –– 9042

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Howard

Division

Income Tax Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 74). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 9050

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 67). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Bennett)

Third reading –– 9050

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Report. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 9050

Land Use Act (Bill 72). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9050

Mr. Barber –– 9052

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, sixth report.

Mr. Strachan, chairman –– 9054

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, among the many visitors to the capital city who are in the precincts today are two special guests in the west gallery who are visiting from Regina: Caroline Bergbusch, who is 16, and Peter Bergbusch, who is 14. They are children of Dr. and Mrs. Martin Bergbusch of Regina. They are accompanied by someone known to a number of us, I believe, Miss Muriel Pottinger, who is their aunt. She retired 12 years ago after 37 years' service with the Ministry of Education. I wonder if the House would make them welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two guests of mine from Fort St. John: Mr. Henry Litzenberger and Mr. Ivor Miller. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today are a couple of friends of ours from the great Peace River country. They have been active in the progressive political movement all their lives. I'm sure the House will want to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Bill Close from Dawson Creek.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud indeed today to introduce my guest. He's our youngest son Scott, who is on a few days' leave. He's with Frontier Helicopters, working in the northern part of our province. Would the House please welcome young Scott Ritchie.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked today to introduce, in the gallery, Malcolm and Todd Venier from Abbotsford, here with their mother Judy and visiting their aunt Dulsie McCallum — all in Victoria, all welcome today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries and in the precincts today are representatives from each of the Gulf Islands within my constituency — Hornby, Denman and Lasqueti. They are here today expressing their concern outside on the legislative lawns with respect to legislation that is before us.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, also with us today are several members, including the Speaker, of the Legislature of New Brunswick. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 6, entitled "A 'Matter of Administration': B.C. Appeal Court Judgment."

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has had 24 hours to supply us with the names of the legislators of Arizona whom he said he met with. Will he provide the House with the names? Has he decided to do that now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I took that question as notice. I'll certainly be providing those particulars before the session adjourns, in the very near future.

MR. MACDONALD: A Mr. Walter Sterling, a K-Mart shopping centre developer and sometime dinner guest of the minister, says that he first met the minister in Scottsdale because the wives of both of them were active in the Junior League. Mr. Sterling said that the meeting led to a spur-of-the-moment invitation to attend a private informal meeting organized by some Junior League members to discuss a local education issue. Is this the meeting that the minister referred to yesterday? Can he tell us what business was discussed at that meeting?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I cannot comment on the accuracy of any quotations attributed in the press to Mr. Sterling. As I indicated yesterday, the meeting I attended featured three or four members of the Arizona state Legislature. They spoke on specific topics of their interest or specialty and fielded questions. There was an opportunity for discussions with them. Certainly we had some notice of that meeting and did not go to it on the "spur of the moment."

MR. MACDONALD: What Mr. Sterling said was that this was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and that he, Mr. Sterling, and the minister went to this meeting. The minister has charged over $1,500 to the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia — based on this meeting, eh? Did you just happen to go with Mr. Sterling to this meeting? Did he take you there?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I indicated, it was not a spur-of-the-moment attendance at the meeting. As I recall, we were made aware of it one or two days in advance of its taking place. We planned to go, we did go, and indeed the Sterlings were at that meeting as well.

DONATION OF XEROX COPIER
TO VANCOUVER JUNIOR LEAGUE

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the minister of careless affairs....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is correct, yes.

With respect to the surprise gift of a photocopying machine to the Junior League, when Mr. MacMunn, director of finance in the minister's department, informed the minister that he, the minister, couldn't bestow such tangible gifts, the minister replied by saying: "Surely this is a case of the tail wagging the dog." Now, pray, who was the tail and who was the dog? What did the minister mean by that comment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member could just read for me the full portion or paragraph of that memo, and I'd be happy to answer the question.

MR. HOWARD: In a supplemental way, could I ask the minister if he would recall that the full context of that paragraph involved a reference to one Mrs. Hyndman being president of the Junior League, and that perhaps that was the rationale for the gift?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that would not be correct, since she was not.

[ Page 9032 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: She was just running for it.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The notes say that she was a candidate for that office; that's correct, Mr. Speaker. The minister is quite correct, for once in his life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This sounds like debate; I do not hear a question. The member is out of order.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. On June 1 the Premier took as notice a question I asked him as to whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had discussed with him previously the matter of making a refund of certain of his expenses to the treasury. Is the Premier now prepared to answer that question and tell us whether or not that refund was made after a discussion with the Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be answering that question in due course, Mr. Speaker.

RED HOT VIDEO LTD.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. On June 24, and again on June 30, July 3 and July 8, a coalition of citizens and community groups in North Vancouver and Victoria sent telegrams to the minister concerning the distribution by Red Hot Video of films which contravene B.C. guidelines governing pornography. Can the minister confirm that he has failed to acknowledge receipt of any of these telegrams or letters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister tell us why no charges have been laid in the North Vancouver case, in view of the minister's statement on June 22, and I quote: "If we receive a complaint from the purchasers, charges will be laid."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The complaint which the member mentions is currently under consideration by senior officials in the criminal justice division of the ministry.

MS. BROWN: Is the minister aware that Crown counsel in North Vancouver has indicated he will not be laying charges, although the material carried by Red Hot Video is in violation of the guidelines? The reason he gave is that the first court hearing would not be until November.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member's information is a bit stale. The matter has been taken under consideration since the indication to which she makes reference.

B.C. HYDRO SUBDIVISION OF
SITE C AGRICULTURAL LAND

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, while he was not answering my question, the minister did say that the Agricultural Land Development Act stipulates that subdivision within the agricultural land reserve has to be approved by the Land Commission, something we all knew. In regard to Site C and B.C. Hydro, what action has the minister decided to take against B.C. Hydro for contravening this statute?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have done some research on the member's question and I've had legal counsel looking at the information that was provided to me. It appears that the legislation governing B.C. Hydro has a section in it which indicates that no other act shall take precedent, while at the same time the Land Commission says something similar. I've asked legislative counsel to advise me on the best way to handle it, and how I could make recommendations to my cabinet colleagues.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps the member is not aware of it, but B.C. Hydro indicated, when we questioned them on this, that they were using section 114 of the Land Title Act to deposit a statutory right-of-way relative to the subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve, without the consent of the Agricultural Land Commission. Inasmuch as what was done was a subdivision, rather than the establishment of a right-of-way, what action has the minister decided to take to prevent this class one and class two land from being subdivided into less viable units?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am aware that the subdivisions as such were filed under a statutory right-of-way. My information is that land registry has ceased to register any of those items without reference to the Land Commission. The member refers, if my information is correct, to actions that took place some time ago, not recently. They came to the fore during discussions at the Public Utilities hearing.

The statutory right-of-way which Hydro used did affect a subdivision. We're trying to get clarification as to the proper procedure for handling such items, considering that we have two pieces of legislation in the province, both of which appear to have sections that authorize the actions taken by Hydro.

MRS. WALLACE: A question to the Attorney-General. If he has been listening to this discussion, wherein Hydro has in effect circumvented the law by using section 114 right-of-way for a subdivision, has the Attorney-General decided to undertake a review of the circumstances surrounding these land registrations to ascertain whether or not they have been registered in contravention of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have not decided. If the member had listened to what the Minister of Agriculture said in his response, the matter is being examined by the lawyers.

[ Page 9033 ]

MANUFACTURED HOMES

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) some questions concerning the awarding of a $4.5 million contract for manufactured homes to Alma Homes of Alberta in respect to the Quintette coal development, and I have before me letters of protest from the industry. In view of the fact that most of the six major B.C. housing manufacturing companies were not invited to tender, has the minister now decided to change the tendering arrangements that the Quintette company is using in order that British Columbia workers, businesses and taxpayers are protected and given the contracts on northeast coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm always amazed at the socialists, who speak one thing and do another.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When the second member for Vancouver East was in the petroleum association he went to London....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question, as I recall it, came from the other end of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They went to London. They were going to build an oil refinery by British Columbia taxpayers out of London.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: However, let me answer the question. There were seven bids on the contract including five bids from British Columbia: Atco, Manco, Moduline Industries, General Homes and Glen River. The Alberta bidder was the low bidder, beating out General, but their bid was made even more attractive because it specified Gyproc ceilings — a strong plus not included in the General Homes bid. Moduline Industries from British Columbia came third.

The award of this contract is consistent with the procurement policy of Quintette Mines, and as the Minister of Labour ably said the other day, we're not going to build picket fences between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, because if we build one they'll build one higher. I also want to point out to the House that the province of Alberta, through its assistance in the construction of the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, is putting Alberta taxpayers' money in the province of British Columbia. By and large, there has been great cooperation between the two sister provinces. I also want to advise the House that in the past a large number of trailers, commercial and otherwise, have been built in British Columbia and found their home in Alberta.

Contrary to what the opposition has tried to say, and contrary to press reports that this is the first major contract to be let by Quintette for mobile homes, there have been numerous 250-man camps supplied by the industry in British Columbia plus the 1,000-man camp supplied by the industry in British Columbia.

This bid, which was awarded by Quintette to an Alberta firm just recently, represents only 7 percent of Quintette's housing requirements for Tumbler Ridge. Already another $1.2 million contract for double-wide fourplexes has gone to General Homes of British Columbia.

I want to impress upon the taxpayers of British Columbia and this Legislative Assembly that business flows freely between British Columbia and Alberta, and hopefully all provinces in Canada. It's not for us to establish picket fences between these two friendly provinces. However, I do want to say that this government and ministry is continually monitoring purchasing in the resource industry, something that has never gone on before in this province....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I sense that the House feels the answer is now too lengthy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to make sure that they understood the complete situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members, I'd like you to extend a very warm and cordial welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Peter Cromie, who are in the gallery this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 4: Premier's office, $709,124.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman and members of the assembly, including the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), wherever he may be today, it's a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak to my estimates in this Legislature.

Almost six months ago I attended, as Premier of British Columbia, a conference of first ministers on the economy. You will recall that for about a year, as chairman of the provincial premiers, I had attempted to convince the Prime Minister to convene such a conference. Unfortunately, Mr. Trudeau was preoccupied with the constitution at the time. Our economy continued to deteriorate, and it became necessary to resolve Mr. Trudeau's issue before the premiers could convince him to turn his attention to the economy.

Over the course of the three-day conference held in early February, I put forward a four-pronged attack to bring down inflation and interest rates, and get back on the path of sustained job-creating growth. I would like to refer to my closing statement, if I may, to refresh the memories of members of this House concerning the details of the plan.

[ Page 9034 ]

First, I urged all governments to control their spending, with the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating borrowing to finance operating expenditures. I did so in the belief that such borrowing spurs inflation, crowds out the private sector and raises the interest rates for, among others, small businessmen and homeowners in our province.

The recent federal budget, with its anticipated deficit of $20 billion, only serves to confirm the view that I put forward last February. By its own definition, the federal government is now in dire straits, with over 30 percent of its income being robbed from programs and going to pay dead-weight debt, with the total accumulated national debt having doubled in just the last four years. The philosophy of "spend more and borrow more," which for all but one of the past 30 years has been rejected firmly in British Columbia, has now been clearly discredited for all Canadians to see, for it has saddled our country with a permanent debt of staggering proportions and has left Ottawa and many provinces precious little room to manoeuvre in the quest for economic recovery.

Unfortunately the federal government has not yet seen fit to follow British Columbia's practice in this area, choosing to ask for restraint from everyone but themselves; but, to their credit, Ottawa has at least begun to see the error of its ways. In fact, one of the few big spenders still around is the leader of the federal NDP — and perhaps also some of his provincial counterparts and fellow caucus members — who in response to the recent federal budget, urged Ottawa to stimulate the economy by undertaking measures that would have added at least $5 billion more to the federal deficit. I noted, however, that nowhere in his comments did he applaud the federal deficit, which will inject $9 billion into the economy in the form of additional deficit, or almost twice as much stimulus as he has advocated.

Mr. Chairman, the unholy alliance of the Trudeau government and the New Democratic Party since 1972 bears a heavy responsibility, that will not be quickly forgotten, for having invisibly mortgaged the future of our young people, who will have to pay the bills for these spending excesses. I ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who is reputed, in some quarters at least, to be a reasonable man, whether he supports the $20 billion federal deficit and whether he shares the view of his former leader that we should add $5 billion more to it.

Mr. Chairman, at the February meeting I also recommended that we begin to earn our way in the tough but conquerable international marketplace. I continue to believe that we must increase our exports by enhancing our productivity and by removing bottlenecks such as those afflicting the western rail transportation system. As a nation we have the second-worst record of productivity increases of all of the industrialized countries, and since 1975 Canada has experienced no productivity increases at all. What we must realize is that in the absence of productivity increases, any wage gains, however small they may be, are inflationary. We must also face squarely the proposition that to distribute wealth, you first have to create it.

Thirdly, at the February meeting I urged the federal government to convey a more hospitable attitude toward foreign investment and to improve the climate for investment for Canadians in particular. I did so in the belief that much of the reason for our usurious interest rates was to prop up our dollar, which has been rendered flaccid by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the national energy program and other misguided policies at the national level. In recognition of the fact that it would not be easy in the short term to lower our interest rates to the levels we would all wish, I put forward to my colleagues the idea of federal-provincial development bonds as a tax-free savings and investment vehicle to cushion the impact of high interest rates on homeowners and others and to stimulate our economy. In its recent budget, Ottawa gave some evidence of having adopted this in principle. Unfortunately it is only studying the concept and has not made clear what role, if any, provinces are expected to play, so we, for our part, Mr. Chairman, will continue to work on our provincial bonds.

Fourthly, I urged my fellow first ministers to undertake immediately large-scale job-creating investments to strengthen those sectors that have the goods and services, such as liquefied natural gas and coal, which are in demand in international markets, and to stimulate employment for our people. Unfortunately, since February major resource projects in both Alberta and Manitoba have been cancelled, leaving British Columbia's northeast coal as the only ongoing large, job-creating project in Canada today. That project and the proposed LNG and petrochemical projects have been encouraged by this government. It's clear that the lesson to be drawn is that the world will not wait while we Canadians sort out our federal-provincial difficulties, or while a new government tries to renegotiate commercial arrangements. The window of opportunity is indeed a narrow one. It does not wait for those who are capable only of political posturing but rewards men of action, such as my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

When leaving Ottawa, I stated that in one sense I was disappointed with the results of the conference, because no firm actions were agreed upon to lower interest rates and inflation and get our people back to work. However, I indicated that in another sense it had been useful for first ministers to meet. We had the opportunity to share ideas, to begin to develop a consensus that would ease the practical difficulties facing our people. In fact, I was confident at the time that eventually most, if not all, governments would come around to British Columbia's view on economic recovery. I think we have seen at least partial evidence of this in recent weeks and months.

However, in the interim I realized — and so informed the other first ministers — that as Premier of the province of British Columbia it was my responsibility to take whatever measures we could within our own sphere of jurisdiction. Despite the fact that the current recession is worldwide in scope, and that the road to recovery lies largely beyond our provincial borders, on February 18 I announced a comprehensive restraint on government programs. I outlined some of the measures the government would pursue to strengthen the economy. The program put in place a 12 percent limit on government expenditures to apply to municipal and local governments, post-secondary educational institutions, school boards, hospitals, private societies performing public functions and, of course, provincial government operations themselves. Moreover, I announced the inauguration of a compensation stabilization program to establish upper limits of 8 to 14 percent for all persons working in the public sector.

Despite the fact that our program was only a gentle application of the brakes, there has been criticism. We expected criticism. In fact, we expected more of it than we got. Restraint is never popular, nor is it easy to achieve. In asking

[ Page 9035 ]

for restraint, we are breaking old habits. It's like the football fans in the first ten rows at a game. They inevitably stand up in the excitement of the play and block the view of those behind. "If only the other guy would restrain himself, then we could all see the game," they say. Does that not describe the current predicament that we Canadians are in today. If only the other guy would restrain himself, then perhaps we could all move ahead. Some of the criticism we received has been sincere and legitimate, expressing real concern about the prospect of layoffs and the loss of essential services. However, the initial prediction that 3,000 to 5,000 teachers would be laid off as a result of restraint has proved to be unfounded, as even spokesmen for the Teachers Federation now acknowledge.

Some of the criticism has been misguided. This is true of those who in the face of the cruellest form of restraint in the private sector — namely, growing bankruptcies, layoffs and unemployment — contend that we have somehow singled out the public-sector workers. I'm saddened to observe that a small number of critics have been cynical and hypocritical in the extreme, sensationalizing excesses in spending that amount to hundreds of dollars while, at the same time, opposing restraint on government spending that over time will save the people of this province hundreds of millions of dollars.

So although there has been some criticism, broadly I have been extremely pleased by the number of people who have written to me in support of our program and the leadership that we demonstrated in showing the rest of the country that it could be done. If I can be philosophical for a moment, much of the legitimate criticism is the inevitable fallout of having come first. Lessons have been learned, and it is incumbent upon a responsive and responsible government to make whatever adjustments are necessary.

Mr. Chairman, governments have a responsibility to lead rather than to engage in political posturing and attempting to foment fear campaigns to achieve political ends. By "leadership" I do not mean turning your back on the rest of the people, as those on the other side of the House have done, and then claiming that everyone is behind you. Governments have a duty, particularly in these difficult times, to work toward economic recovery, unlike those on the opposite side of this House, who by their irresponsibility have demonstrated throughout this session that they have no interest beyond their own political recovery.

Earlier this year the opposition criticized the government and urged us to call back the Legislature to deal with the economy. What have they spent their time on since we called the Legislature back? Mr. Chairman, the members opposite have no new economic ideas, no figures to propose on what they would consider to be the appropriate level of restraint — just worn-out, recycled dogma that they hoped they could somehow get by on. So they have spent their time during this session seeking headlines and acting totally irresponsibly, in the view of many observers of the political scene in British Columbia.

Members of the Legislature yesterday heard the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) announce strong measures that will control the kind of spending on which the opposition ostensibly, in the name of restraint, has spent all of its time, research and effort during this session. Would it not be fair to ask, in the name of sincerity, honesty and consistency, that the opposition now cease and desist from the declaration of war on the taxpayer and join with the government in supporting measures that will save our people hundreds of millions of dollars?

In announcing the specifics of the program on February 18, I indicated that the government had rejected advice that harsher measures be introduced. This was appropriate in view of economic conditions at the time and in view of the advice we had received from economists, both within and outside of government. But our original guidelines were appropriate for another reason: British Columbia at the time was the first and only government to embark on such a program, so I do not apologize for the limits announced on February 18. But I note that since February there have been two significant developments. Firstly, the national and international economies, and with them that of British Columbia, have continued to deteriorate. Our country and province remain in the grips of an acute worldwide recession. Nationally about 30 percent of our production capacity remains idle. The demand for goods and services has diminished, and there has been a dramatic drop in commercial investments and profits.

The hoped-for recovery in the United States has not materialized, largely because of the enormous deficit that is keeping real interest rates at abnormally high levels, and growth in the U.S. is now expected to be negative in 1982. At the national level there is a lack of comprehensive economic policies, with the recent federal budget making crystal clear how worrisome our current predicament is. National growth is now forecast to decline by 2.2 percent. The prospect is for continuing high interest rates as a result of the enormous federal deficit and debt. Our inflation remains high, and there is clear and present danger that unless we get our cost structure down we will continue to price ourselves out of international markets.

Our provincial economy has weakened, along with the national and international economies, and growth is now forecast at 0.4 percent. I might add that if it were not for the tremendous development of coal, transportation systems and ports taking place now in the northeast of British Columbia, we too would be in a negative growth position in this country today. That project is keeping British Columbia on the positive growth side of the ledger in a country where growth is not taking place.

Most troubling to me, however, is the growing number of unemployed people, which reached 157,000 in June, and the growing number of bankruptcies. There will be some members of the opposite side of the House interested in electoral and not economic growth, who would like British Columbians to believe that our economic problems are the result of the sins of this provincial government — ironically, the one government in Canada that is managed prudently and that has undertaken a multitude of job-creating investments. I would ask the hon. members opposite: would the market for our lumber be helped a great deal by provincial policies in the absence of a resurgence of the U.S. housing market and worldwide recovery? Would the members opposite suggest that international prices for our ferrous and non-ferrous metals could be improved by provincial policies" Do the members opposite realize that we cannot isolate our province as an island in a cruel international and national economic sea, and that the people of this province are too intelligent to be fooled by posturing? The people of Manitoba were fooled, and they will pay dearly for it. They will pay higher taxes this year and in the coming year to service a 30 percent increase in the

[ Page 9036 ]

provincial deficit and they will pay still higher taxes and have fewer jobs as a result of the three cancelled megaprojects that the NDP said it did not oppose but only wished to renegotiate. Well, we heard that before, but I think that British Columbians will prove that they will not be fooled by such hollow rhetoric.

The second major development since February is that the national government, in its recent budget, as well as some other provincial governments, has taken at least one leaf from British Columbia's book and embarked upon restraint programs of their own. As members of this House know, the Prime Minister has asked all segments of society to participate in an exercise of national will — to leave old quarrels behind and to work towards economic recovery and the 5 and 6 percent society.

With the economy continuing to deteriorate, the hoped-for international recovery this year not materializing and the federal government's invitation to join in an exercise of national will and cooperation, it became clear to the government that the restraint program announced on February 18 would have to be modified. Accordingly over the past month my ministers and I have been consulting with a wide array of business and labour leaders and with representatives of various groups in the public sector, including health professionals, teachers, school trustees, the university community and individual public servants. One thing has become strikingly clear in the course of these consultations. British Columbians strongly wish to work together, to share and to cooperate in the search for a return to prosperity and security — like the woman who recently called my office to say that her schoolteacher husband would be willing to take less of his 17.5 percent increase if it would allow her daughter, who is also a schoolteacher, to be called back to work.

When the going gets tough, British Columbians are like a family that knows it can only succeed if they all pull together. This is why we have made job sharing the essence of our restraint program. I've been impressed by the willingness of British Columbians to take a little bit less so that more of their brothers and sisters can keep working. I've been convinced through these consultations that British Columbians are prepared to participate in fighting and winning the economic war as long as the solution is fair and equitable to all.

In considering modifications to the restraint on government programs, my colleagues and I have examined very carefully the program recently introduced but not yet passed by the federal government, as well as the view of those in business and labour with whom we consulted.

We've come to the conclusion that Ottawa's program is deficient in several respects. First, the federal program has significantly curtailed the right of collective bargaining in the public service. In contrast, as I stated on February 18, and notwithstanding some initial misinformed criticism, including editorial opinion, under British Columbia's compensation stabilization program collective bargaining in the public sector will take place in the regular manner over a wide range of monetary and non-monetary issues, subject to the limits to be enforced by the commissioner.

Second, the federal compensation program is in some respects unfair in applying rigid, across-the-board limits of 6 percent and 5 percent. A federal deputy minister in Ottawa earning $100,000 a year and his filing clerk earning $15,000 a year will receive the same 6 percent increase. In contrast, British Columbia's compensation stabilization program, by establishing limits for groups rather than individuals, permits agreements that yield greater percentage increases for lower-paid workers — in many cases, women and minority groups — and lower percentage increases for higher-paid civil servants.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be about five minutes longer than my allowable time. I ask leave of the House to be able to continue my statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Third, Ottawa's program, through an inflexible 6 percent and 5 percent solution, preserves intact the disparities that have arisen between and among various unions in the public service. In contrast, British Columbia's compensation stabilization program allows unions that may have fallen behind in the past to catch up with those which have done better.

Fourth, the federal government's program, by simply renewing existing contracts, preserves intact all those practices of featherbedding and unproductivity that are the basis of the low regard in which the public servant unfortunately is held in some quarters, although not by me or members of my government. In contrast, British Columbia's compensation stabilization program contains a special award for productivity increases that are agreed to through collective bargaining, and has a built-in incentive to ensure the economy and efficiency legitimately demanded, and in many cases received, by the public.

Finally, British Columbia's compensation stabilization program has as its foundation the principles of work-sharing and the preservation of a high standard of public service concepts foreign to the federal program. In the course of my consultations I have found that most public-sector employees believe that public service goes well beyond questions of wages and benefits, and is really about serving the public to the best of their ability.

The decision whether to opt into the federal program, which is simpler and would be more easily administered, is really one of whether British Columbia should abandon its compensation stabilization program, which is fairer and more equitable, has greater flexibility and preserves collective bargaining, employment and services in the public sector. Put in these terms the decision was rather straightforward. I'm pleased to inform the House that the government has decided to go forward with the compensation stabilization program, under the administration of Mr. Ed Peck.

However, in view of the 6 percent and 5 percent limits established by the federal government and the continuing deterioration of the economy, I wish to announce that effective today the basic income factor is reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent in the first year, and is established at 5 percent in the second year. These limits are adjustable either upwards or downwards, depending on the impact of certain factors; namely, an experience adjustment factor ranging from plus 2 percent to minus 3 percent in the first year, and plus or minus 2 percent in the second year; and a productivity and special circumstances factor with a range of 2 percent to minus 3 percent in both years. Thus, under the regulations, the range in the first year will be from zero percent to 10 percent, and in the second year from zero percent to 9 percent.

Members of the assembly know that last week the government introduced legislation that will roll back MLA and ministerial salaries to 1.9 percent, effective August 1, and will establish next year's increase at zero percent. Members

[ Page 9037 ]

of this House are working people too, with bills to pay and homes to maintain, but the government believes that elected members have a special responsibility to provide leadership and serve as an example of restraint and responsibility. So, too, do senior levels of the public service, who, it will be recalled, have had no increase since October 1980, and had their salaries frozen by my announcement of February 18, pending a report by Mr. Ed Peck.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to report that the executive council has now received Mr. Peck's first report, which recommends a 6 percent increase for deputy ministers, the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, the president of ICBC and the general manager of the Urban Transit Authority. The executive council has concluded that while a 6 percent increase may have been appropriate under the guidelines announced February 18, it would be excessive under the limits I have announced today. Accordingly, this should not be construed as a reflection on the dedication and commitment of deputy ministers, who, as Mr. Peck reports, are paid less in relation to their responsibilities than many other public-sector executives. The government has approved an increase of 3 percent, which is near the lower end of the newly established limits. Assistant deputy ministers, who in some cases earn more than deputy ministers, will receive no increase this year in order that the problems of compression pointed out in Mr. Peck's report are not accentuated. The remaining public sector employees whose salaries were frozen February 18 will be dealt with in Mr. Peck's second report, which is expected shortly.

Senior members of the public service have a responsibility to lead, not only by dampening their compensation increases, but also through increasing their productivity. Accordingly, effective August 1, all public servants not covered by collective agreement will be expected to work a full 40-hour week. As in the past, the compensation stabilization program will incorporate not only enforceable regulations, but voluntary guidelines for collective bargaining as well. The revised guidelines establish criteria for changes in compensation, ranging downward from 10 percent, and give a larger role to the commissioner in assisting parties to reach settlements that preserve jobs and maintain vital public services. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is responsible for the Compensation Stabilization Act, in the next few days will issue substantially new detailed regulations and guidelines for the revised program. In the interests of fairness, however, I wish to make it clear that groups of employees who have finalized collective agreements between February 18 and today will be treated by the commissioner under the limits announced at an earlier date.

In recent weeks it has become clear as well that the expenditure limits established on February 18 are in need of revision, particularly in view of the continuing economic slide and massive federal and provincial deficits, which are one of the prime contributors to the high inflation and punitive interest rates that are hurting our people. It is evident to me and to my government — additional protests to the contrary notwithstanding — that the limits established on February 18 for school boards, municipalities, universities and colleges were generous and have been easily managed. These limits have already saved the taxpayers many millions of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on nonessential items. The taxpayer today does not have the money to send to government, contrary to the view of the free spenders in our society and in this House.

In the course of our consultations over the past few weeks, I have been impressed by the willingness, and indeed the desire, of public-sector employees and employers to be part of the solution, to participate in economic recovery and to share the available work and resources with their fellow British Columbians. These consultations have above all revealed to me the maturity and responsibility of those working in the public sector. Their message has been clear: tell us what the new figure is and let us get on with the job of working it out at the local level. Accordingly, over the next few days various ministers of the Crown will announce revised spending limits for the public bodies under their jurisdiction, and will invite these public bodies to submit plans to the government by September 1.

In husbanding our scarce resources and in assuming our responsibility as servants of the people of British Columbia, my government wishes to ensure, as its highest priority, that this exercise in voluntary cooperation maintains the highest possible level of employment and services that are vital to the public, and will evaluate the plans submitted by September 1 within this framework. As was the case for homeowners' tax relief that resulted from the February 18 announcement, my government wishes to assure business taxpayers that their voices have been heard, and, to the extent practicable, we will ensure that dividends resulting from this latest round of restraint will be shared with them.

Mr. Chairman, members of this assembly may have noted that up to this point I have excluded the health sector from my remarks, and I wish to assure all members and the people of British Columbia that this has not been an oversight. As scarce as our resources become, there are things of value that we hold in common as a people that are not negotiable, not subject to the bottom line and not merely a matter of dollars and cents. Fat and frills must be extricated in all areas of the public service; economy and efficiency must be the reigning philosophy; but essential services must be preserved at all cost. Health care, the lives and well-being of our people, is one such area. It is vital to ensure that the health-care system, which is our highest priority and accounts for more than 30 percent of provincial spending, operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and his officials for their continuing efforts in this regard.

In difficult economic times we must distinguish between the essential and the desirable in all our systems and services, including the health system. But our people are decent and compassionate, and on their behalf as their Premier I wish to give my personal assurance and that of my government that the first-class quality of health care to which our people have grown accustomed will not be compromised in any way. In the course of my consultations over the past few weeks I have become convinced that health professionals wish no less than other British Columbians to play a part in economic recovery, in work-sharing and in the preservation of high standards of public services in this province. I also believe that if we've learned anything from our initial experience with restraint over the past five months, it is that while the people of this province want and expect efficiency and economy, they are not prepared to sacrifice vital services in the process and are prepared to participate directly in the preservation of these services. Government too is prepared to increase its participation in preserving a first-class health-care system.

[ Page 9038 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. Premier. I must advise you that the time limit has expired. Under standing orders I must ask the Premier to take his place, unless leave is granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: May I have leave one more time?

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the Premier asked for five minutes and he's had ten.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members, I would advise all hon. members that the time under standing orders has expired some time ago. A courtesy has been extended from one side of this House to the other up to this point in time, and I would call that to the attention of all members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will now take the floor for my time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Clearly the time under standing orders has elapsed. The Chair has no alternative, hon. members, but to recognize the next speaker on his feet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, because of the significance of the statement that the Premier is making and because of the state in which all of our economy and our people are at this present time, I'm sure that the statement that the Premier is making is wanted to be heard by the people. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if it could be considered by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the opposition that in addition to the 40 minutes usually allowed, perhaps the Premier could continue as a Premier's statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that unfortunately is not a point of order. Leave has already been asked. General assent — we know we cannot give leave in committee — has not been granted. Hon. members, the Chair therefore has no alternative under these circumstances but to recognize the next speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I was criticized by the Leader of the Opposition for making the last important statement on the economy outside the House. Once more I ask leave to conclude this important statement, or I shall be forced to conclude the statement outside the House again.

MR. HOWARD: On that point of order, the Premier spent a great deal of the time allotted to him within the 30 minutes attacking the opposition and not dealing with the economy of the province. By generosity and courtesy, without anybody saying anything, the Premier went 10 minutes over his 30 minutes and then embarked upon something else. I think that should be taken into account. His time has expired. If he can't organize his time better than that, it's indicative that he shouldn't be Premier any longer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has now entertained points of order on the same matter. The standing orders before us are extremely clear. There is a time limit. That time limit has expired. Points of order have been raised asking for further assent. That has not been granted, and it does not appear that it will be granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you — for the House's interest — could ask the Speaker whether or not he would canvass the records of this House to see whether or not leave has ever been refused the Premier of the province to make an important economic statement.

MR. BARRETT: In light of all our motions for emergency debates on unemployment and requests for extended time — none of which has been accepted — I ask leave of the House to allow the Premier to continue his statement, in spite of his request for only five minutes.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, do we have general consent to continue?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I might continue — and perhaps members will recall the point where I was broken into in my remarks — the government is also preparing to increase its participation in preserving a first-class health-care system. Because of the savings that accrue to hospitals as a result of the revised compensation guidelines, the accentuated focus of the commissioner on the preservation of employment and public services, and other measures to be announced over the next few days, I'm satisfied that if properly managed, sufficient funds will exist to preserve jobs and enhance the quality of health care in this province. To ensure that this intention is translated into reality, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) will send a team to each hospital to smooth out by fall the rough edges exposed in the past few months, and to make sure that efficiency, economy and, above all, patient security are the foundations of our health care system. Our objective is to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential. Our target is to ensure that waiting lists for urgent and emergency, life-preserving services are reduced to the absolute minimum.

These are difficult and challenging times, but those of us in this assembly have not chosen public service because it is the easy road. Rather, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, the people we serve, it is our responsibility to show leadership, to maintain a steady hand at the helm, not to panic in times of crisis and not to seek glib and quick-fix solutions to complex problems. Our people are strong, our institutions are vital and our resolve unstinting. Our children and grandchildren will took back on us 20 or 30 years from now, as we've looked back on our forefathers who lived through the Depression, and they will judge us as we judged them. I would hope that they'd conclude that we've succeeded in putting aside old quarrels, unproductive divisions and petty differences, and succeeded in forging new bonds and alliances through sharing burdens and available resources and by way of a new level of cooperation that saw us through our temporary difficulties.

[ Page 9039 ]

There has never been a recession that didn't end; of this we can be sure. Our province is rich in the resources of its people, its location and its commodities. I believe we will be the first province in Canada to recover once the worldwide recession comes to an end. With foresight and planning, we have put in place the infrastructure and projects that will ensure renewed prosperity with worldwide recovery. A recent report predicted that our forest industry will see unprecedented demand and prices by 1984. Our mines will be active with coal as a new component, and our tourism industry will achieve a new vitality with B.C. Place and Expo 86.

Let us not lose our resolve or our natural optimism, but commit ourselves to cooperation and a search for economic renewal in the months to come. Over the next few days various ministers will flesh out the details of this first element of the government's program of economic recovery and will ask for unprecedented levels of cooperation from all of our people. Over the next while the government will bring forward additional measures in the areas of housing and job creating investments and will seek this same level of cooperation.

As Premier of the province, I'm confident and certain that our invitation will be greeted by cooperation and determination by all members of the British Columbia family,

MR. BARRETT: What we witnessed today is a statement from the Premier of the province, who, in my opinion, has touched on a level of indifference and cynicism that has rarely been met in this House before.

We have just finished four months of extensive debate on a budget and the estimates, during which opportunities were made available for cuts in superfluous spending, related to the kinds of things mentioned yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), by every single minister. In every single instance in that four months' time.... Not once was a single cut accepted by the government, which is wallowing in luxury itself.

To come in in the dying moments of the session and announce that the government is now interested in restraint and that there will be revised spending limits is to say what this government has known all along: it just wanted to play politics with the issue. When confronted with the request for cooperation that the Premier calls for, it rejected every single motion of cooperation by the opposition. Last year this went on as well: $82 million worth of expenditures in travel, publications, office furniture and advertising were proposed by the opposition, in asking the government's cooperation in cutting back its vast expenses. In every single instance they continued to vote themselves huge increases.

The Premier can't bring himself to rise above the bitterness that he seems to feel it necessary to bring into this chamber at a time of crisis, even when we're faced with such a time of crisis. To spend that amount of time — it was to have been a profound statement — in bitter comment about the federal government and the personality of the Prime Minister, let alone the opposition, is hardly holding out the olive branch and gathering together the Canadian family to deal with the problems we face.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the century in 1898, the first socialist member ever elected in British Columbia sat in this chamber. What were the debates in 1898, when this chamber started? The debates were upon the gap between the super-rich, the working people and the poor. What was it that was being debated by that first socialist, Parker Williams? It was a fair access to the riches and the treasures of this province by the ordinary people of this province, not the huge barons of industry, as they were known then. Personnel have changed and numbers have changed, but the essence of the debate has not changed. When the private corporations find that their profits are threatened, when their mergers seem to be in danger in terms of being financed by private savings from the Canadian banks, who is it that they assault? Who is it that they say is at fault but the ordinary working people and the poor who are responsible for the breakdown of the private enterprise system?

I find it ironic that these halls and this chamber should echo again with the same basic, philosophical debate that took place for the first time some 84 years ago. It is the rich that make the poor pay again. Not once did the Premier say a single word about cutting profits. Not once did the Premier say that those corporations that have sucked the treasures out of this province and made huge profits in the past should be asked to be socially or economically responsible for the squandering of our resources. Not once was there a statement that the Crown corporations would stop the gouging that is taking place by massive uncontrolled spending, particularly that of B.C. Hydro. Not once was there a statement calling upon the rich and the super-rich to bear a burden on this. Not once was there a criticism of the banks and the usurious interest rates, which that Premier supported in 1978 as federal policy, that led to this.

We've heard a speech today from the Premier saying: "Don't blame me for the federal government adopting my policies. Don't blame me for Ottawa doing what I told them to do in this financial paper in 1978." We heard the Premier of this province stand up and meekly attempt to dance away from the fact that his right-wing economic policies, which are a carbon copy of those of President Reagan in the United States, have caused the very problems that we have in the province of British Columbia. What is the record of this administration? It is a record of an administration that is geared towards millionaires, multimillionaires, and offshore customers rather than bargaining for a proper return and value-added from our resources.

The Premier touts today the giveaway policies of this government that will allow Canadians and British Columbians the unique opportunity of paying welfare to Japan to please take our coal. This government sitting across there closed the only car-manufacturing plant in western Canada that would have been capable of building those railcars to carry the coal to port. Who lost jobs because of Social Credit action in closing that railcar plant? British Columbia working men and women, who pay taxes to keep the Premier and his entourage in the luxury they're accustomed to. In his office alone there was an overrun of $150,000 for travel this year. The sultan of British Columbia comes in and announces today that he wants restraint on the peons. Pharaoh Bill comes in with his new conscience and says: "We're short of money."

I'm going to give the Premier an opportunity today to test whether or not he really believes in the cuts. I'll come to the motion cutting back office expenditures, advertising and travel — similar to every single motion on every other vote, which they have turned down up until today. If he wants cooperation, let him vote for a cut in his office.

[ Page 9040 ]

Do you want to know what's going to happen? Let us examine the record. But first I must make some political comments. I may be excused for responding politically.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't talk politics in here.

MR. BARRETT: Don't talk politics now, especially when the government's in trouble. Now's the time to be nonpartisan, because if we're political the government might be defeated.

Do you recall when there was a world recession in 1974-75? Did you ever hear a Socred or that Leader of the Opposition stand up and say: "Oh, my goodness! The poor NDP is suffering at the hands of a world recession. This is no time to play politics. This is a time to cooperate and love"? No. He was the one who blamed the New Democratic Party of British Columbia for the worldwide recession, which was just a pimple — a single acne spot — compared to the disaster we're faced with internationally today. What does he get up today and say? "Don't blame us for the world downturn." I never did! I never will! You're not competent enough to have any impact on anything in the world, let alone a recession.

Let's take a look at this government's record of debt — deadweight debt that the children and the children's children and the children's children's children will have to pay because of Social Credit. When the Premier of this province assumed office, the debt in British Columbia was $4.25 billion. This little frugal, cautious government, husbanding its resources with care, that says it will not leave debt for the future, has managed in six short years to double that debt and bury it in the Crown corporations. The debt in 1975 was $4.25 billion. Under Social Credit's restraint, in six short years the debt went to $9,531,000,000. I and my colleagues are surprised that in his vitriolic, bitter, personal attack on the Prime Minister he neglected to mention how much of a debt he's run up. Can you imagine his reaction if Pierre Elliott Trudeau came out to British Columbia and made a public speech saying: "I think your Premier should be chastized for doubling his debt"? Do you know what the Socreds would say? They'd say: "Oh, Mr. Prime Minister, don't mix in provincial politics." If it's good enough for the Premier and he has a perfect right to do it — to criticize the federal government, it would be wise for the Premier to understand that he's criticizing the federal government for doing exactly the same thing he's done here in British Columbia in terms of debt.

The Premier says we have to show some measure of restraint in terms of budgeting. Quite right. Every single critic in the official opposition has proposed restraint cuts, and every single one of those restraint cuts — as, a matter of record in the Journals — has been turned down. Look at the record of this government's growth. I want you to listen to the government's own figures of its own record of growth and how it's out of control. This government has been bureaucratized and committed to death. In 1976-77 the total budget was $3,000,600,000. In 1982-83 the budget is up to $7,689,000,000. Total increases under this Social Credit administration have been $4,247,000,000, or a cumulative increase of 123 percent in spending by a government that is completely and totally out of control. The figure of 123 percent makes even the banks look respectable when it come to gouging money out of people right across this province. I've gotta tell you: as anybody knows, you've got a long way to go before you can make the banks look respectable; but he's done it.

He gets up and gives a pious talk about showing this kind of restraint, and hoping that the private sector and the public sector will follow his example. Well, I want restraint, and I hope that the private and public sector which also want restraint will not follow his example, because every single time we voted for a specific restraint, he voted against it — he led the vote. It was $82 million bucks last year and over $55 million this year. He stands up and makes those Ontario-inspired rolling phrases about homilies at football games being the way to solving our economic problems and tries to sell that claptrap to the people of British Columbia on that basis.

We're paying Kinsella $64,000 a year; and if you want proof of the amount we're paying him, who else could afford to be in the first ten rows of a football game at today's prices other than Kinsella, who's gouging the money out of the taxpayer? Maybe the suggestion came from Hollywood Heal, the man who got paid $13,000 by this government to move his furniture out to British Columbia. Talk about bringing coals to Newcastle — we've got more warehouses full of surplus furniture under this government's purchases than any other place in North America, and they spend $13,000 to have him bring his furniture out.

Nine hundred dollars for a makeup job on the Premier — cheap at half the price; nine hundred bucks to look pretty on television. But we've seen a new Premier today. We've seen a new image today, carefully moulded, carefully couched. The Goldfarb polls say: show leadership. The Goldfarb polls say that people are fed up with politicians, so step above it and on your way up kick everybody that you're going past. I found it an interesting performance.

The Premier is a good learner. Just write a script out for him and he can read it well. His timing is a little wrong — just a little five minutes, asking the House for courtesies I have never seen Social Credit give the opposition. But far be it from us, the representatives of the humble working poor, to allow those who are born into office to be confined by the rules of this chamber. Oh, no, far be it from us, the cloth-cap representatives of the working class that must bear the burdens of private enterprise's failure.

I know today that it is the fault of that $950-a-month clerk buried away in the bowels of government; she has caused the collapse of the private enterprise system in this country because of her profligate ways in asking for a raise to pay her mortgage or feed her child. Does she not know that the needs of the private banking system and the private corporations are more important than food for her child? Does she not know that when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) announces the $55-a-month cut for a single mother on welfare, her earnings may not be much more than what she got on welfare? Why, shame on the poor damsel for being born poor and born to the life of a clerk! We now call upon her to sacrifice her lifestyle so that the big corporations can survive this international downturn and the cabinet ministers can go to Arizona and say: "I bumped into somebody; I can't remember his name. But I'm sure competent. I represent the government, and if I could only think of his name.... I knew that if I put my finger on the right place on the map, I'd know where to land."

That's how cabinet trips are being justified. You know the old Norris cartoon about the little old lady with the hat pin. Can't you see them all now with the new restraint measures in a big globe like that scene of Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times when he was referring to Adolf Hitler and bouncing

[ Page 9041 ]

that globe? Can't you see them all in there in that globe with the little thing over their eyes and a hat pin, saying: "Ping! Arizona. Here is where I've got to go. I'm sure to bump into somebody. This is the way to plan restraint, plan good government, plan control of public funds. Boy, am I glad I missed Broadway; I don't want to get into the same mess that the other guy got into when it came to Sugar Babies."

He came in here, and he was serious when he delivered that speech. That's the thing that really got me: dripping with sincerity, above politics, a little podium for the notes all written out, which is against the rules. After all the years in this House you'd think that a little extemporaneous comment would be acceptable, but instead it's all written out. Even the bitter parts are written out; put that in too. And then he delivers it as if it was a tome from Solomon, saying that we're going to ask that little lady clerk to save the international private corporations.

In the old days they were far better, far more honest. They said: "Let the private sector have what it wants, and let the public be damned." Today they're saying: "Oh, we're not only going to damn the public, but we're going to make them pay for it as well."

You have yet to table in this House for scrutiny by the public all of the bids on the LNG proposal. Was that picked out in the same Hyndman manner of a pin stabbing in the dark and landing on Dome? Is that how it was chosen? Don't you think the people of British Columbia have a right to know what's going on with their resources and have you table that material right here in the House?

It's a sellout of resources. It's the same thing that's been going on in this province on the backs of the poor taxpayers since the inception of this province. For one brief time we had this mild socialist reform government — oh, very mild compared to international standards; we were so polite. We never seized anything like that government, which seized B.C. Hydro and messed that up. We bought some companies; we bought them to keep jobs here in British Columbia. What did they do with those treasures? They privatized them, they BCRICed them, they gave the people of British Columbia what was to be a lesson in private capitalism; and now the final lesson is at hand. First you give a little bit away as a loss leader; second, you buy something that already exists and not create one new job; third, you let the small investors of British Columbia lose their shirts; fourth, you open up a law that you promised and you swore and you stated in this House you'd never do, to allow the big private corporations to come in and swoop up those treasures just before another election.

Do you know what a humble wag with a cloth cap suggested to me on the street? That humble wag suggested to me that the government is doing that just to open the coffers for campaign funds, because those corporations are going to gouge in on those assets. I asked that wag if he was a civil servant, and he wagged on.

You're not kidding anybody. This is the rottenest, stupidest, dumbest government that has ever fronted for private enterprise in the history of the province of British Columbia. They run up our individual debt, not the large corporations.

I may ask leave for time. Do you think they will graciously grant me time? Where is the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) now that we need him? He always says no. He's got a big gramophone inside his body: "No, no, no." We'll see what happens.

Going back to this very serious tome that was delivered by the Premier: it was a doom and gloom message. Instead of leadership, hope, inspiration, instead of saying, "My God, this is British Columbia, and we're going to fight tooth and nail to keep up our standard of living; we're going to fight tooth and nail to see that no one moves back; and we're going to fight tooth and nail to see that we get the best from our resources," all he had to say was: "Cut back on the ordinary people. Suffer, you peasants, because the private corporations have run away with the ball." Those are our resources that should be providing jobs to us, not the Japanese.

This government has driven up the individual debt of every poor citizen of this province, young and old, middle and tender. In 1975, the per capita debt in this province was $1,800 under Social Credit; that per capita debt has been driven up to $4,960. That's just enough to buy a Japanese car to keep the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development of Tokyo happy as he exploits our resources for Japan. You talk about cynicism. You talk about a polished Hollywood performance. I say that it was a grade C movie on a grade A budget, considering what we pay PR people to write it.

Let's get down to some real problems. People in this province who work hard and don't give a fig about government, who don't even know that we're here in Victoria, are sitting down at home to measure their income and outflow, and discovering that they're short at the end of the month. People in this province who have spent 20 and 30 years as industrial workers and who thought they had security from the private sector not only have lost their jobs, but their pensions as well. The elderly of this province who have paid and pioneered in the development of a health care system have long lineups to get into hospital. And all we had today to address those problems were platitudes and cutbacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to sent out a team.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. he's going to send out a team to discover the problems in hospitals. When the head of the B.C. Medical Association — not me, but the head of the BCMA — says that people will die because of the cutbacks, they respond that they're going to send out a team.

I have two minutes left, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to feel a little sense of security. Could I please have five minutes extra?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a courtesy was extended earlier in this committee. I would ask that the same courtesy be given to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Would the committee give that assent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. BARRETT: Mark it down. It's the first time it's happened. This is the new spirit of love, friends. It was given with a sense of cooperation and graciousness, and that's the last time.

We were treated, I think it was, to about 48 minutes worth of a script right out of a 1940s movie: "Gary Cooper Goes to Victoria" — to clean up Washington. I repeat: did he announce today that those people who've lost jobs will get a chance to go back to work? Did he announce today that he will abide by the laws of this province in terms of collective bargaining, ? One cabinet minister was already rebuked for messing around with the labour laws in this province.

[ Page 9042 ]

MR. HOWARD: Convicted of unfair labour practices.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and here is the Premier of the province talking, outside of negotiations and collective bargaining that are going on freely, and announcing the terms of those negotiations. That's hardly showing the spirit of love and cooperation. That's hardly showing the kind of mature leadership that says: "Folks, I want you to know that I'm going to be breaking the law a little bit." Do you think those laws were accomplished in this province without a struggle'? Have you ever heard of Ginger Goodwin? I've never heard of a martyr for private enterprise, but I can give you a legion of martyrs for the rights of working people. Ginger Goodwin was shot by the police of this province while fighting to establish a law of collective bargaining. We don't have any statues to Ginger Goodwin, but we have statutes to Ginger Goodwin. We have statutes to every other man and woman in this province who gave up comfort and security for the right of free men and women to be protected by law in order to sit down at a table in collective bargaining.

I'm not opposed to freedom. Any time a government interferes with freedom it is attempting to play Big Brother. We have fought too long for those freedoms in our society to allow anybody to come in with a Hollywood speech and attack those rights.

MR. LEA: Or from Ontario.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, or from Ontario.

I was prepared today, because I'd received the hype that we would be getting a profound statement about "gathering in British Columbians," to believe that we would get a profound statement saying that the free enterprise system is failing right now, that we would get an admission that those multinational corporations and that private sector, so vaunted to be able to provide a stable economy, have failed. I thought we'd have an admission by a Premier who is committed to Reaganomics, as he outlined in 1978, that our policies have been wrong. I regret that our policies are wrong. We have to make some changes and try new directions to help our people.

Last March we offered 26 specific proposals for employment of the people of British Columbia. The Premier finds it necessary to make snide remarks: "What have you got to offer?" I think I sent you a copy, Mr. Premier, earnestly prepared and made available, As a matter of fact, we tried on three separate occasions in the last four months to have a special debate on unemployment. Then the Premier stands up and says that the opposition never debated the crucial economic issues. Who was it, I pray, who refused permission three times for an emergency debate on unemployment in this province? Tell me who blocked attempts seriously offered three times by the opposition to have a debate by the legislators on an approach to solving problems for people who are begging for solutions?

I know, and I agree with the Premier, that not many people really give a fig about the vagaries of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), except those of us who are in the chamber — and we know how much it means to us. But he's still sitting there and he's making that judgment. They would have liked, appreciated and welcomed an opportunity to hear some specific, concrete debate in this chamber on jobs, and three times the government turned down that offer.

To come in today and give that little speech and somehow think that you're going to wash away your responsibility, and that you're above politics.... Social Credit is saying to the ordinary people: "Pay more taxes, pay more on your hydro bills, pay more fees, pay more this, cut back here." But there's not one mention of an attack on a private banking system that is gouging usurious rates out of people, not one mention of the huge profits made by corporations in years past, and not one mention of our loss of control over our resources throughout the disaster of BCRIC. Blame it all on that poor little clerk earning $950 a month, and tell her for her comfort that the $65,000-a-year boys are only getting a 3 percent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six.

MR. BARRETT: Six percent. That's no answer. That's no solution. We expected a lot more and a lot better.

I really don't need to prolong this thing. I've spoken to the House Leader about this. We'll probably be on the campaign trail within six months, and we'll be exchanging these pleasantries in front of the public. But why don't we just test the mettle of this government right now, here, at this moment. I'm going to put a motion for a cut in the Premier's office, and we'll see whether or not they want to cut the fat. I move that vote 4 be reduced by $22,000 related to superfluous travel, publications and office furniture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE: It's certainly my pleasure and desire to stand to take my place during this debate and speak against this nonsense amendment, similar to what we've been watching and witnessing all through this session. But before doing so, I wish to draw the attention of the public — and I will certainly be making sure that it becomes public in my constituency — the fact that our Premier, delivering one of the most important speeches of this session, was denied the right of extra time by the Leader of the Opposition and one or two others of his gang. I think it's interesting to note that during that little exercise not all of his colleagues were in support of the action that he took, which became quite an embarrassment to him. This would indicate to us the truth of what we have believed for quite some time, that that party on the other side of the House is in total shambles and having difficulty keeping everyone together.

Noting the usual funny and jovial remarks of the Leader of the Opposition — and believe me, I found it really very funny — I couldn't help but think to myself: imagine a man such as that being the leader of this province in the times we're now experiencing. I think that would not only be a joke, but it would also be a terrible disaster.

He talked about the travel of our cabinet. Well, I'd be quite happy to talk about some travel. Of course, it's necessary for me to go back to when he was in office and make that comparison. All I can do, as I look at some of these records, is to repeat the old Scottish saying: "Oh, to see ourselves as others see us." Talking about travel, it was November 13, 1974: "Cabinet Ministers on a China Tour." This is to do, Mr. Chairman, with the Leader of the Opposition's remarks in respect to travel. It goes on to say: "Barrett leaves Friday

[ Page 9043 ]

morning for Tokyo and will arrive in Peking Monday afternoon. But no precise itinerary is available for his travels within China." He just happened to decide that he was going to go to China, visit there and see what happened. He was pressed for an answer as to why he was spending so many of the taxpayers' dollars on travelling overseas, so he came up with the response: "He hopes to set up talks."

I can recall a day or two ago here, during some of his remarks, when he was criticizing one of our members for not having everything set up before going there. How hypocritical can you get? He went all the way to Peking hoping to set up talks. What's interesting is the fact that he brought along some of his buddies. They are as follows: the Attorney-General of the day, Alex Macdonald, and the Health minister of the day, Dennis Cocke; and all three members were accompanied by their wives. I'm not saying that their wives didn't pay their own way, or their husbands didn't pay for them. That's not cleared up in here at all.

In addition to that we had Emery Barnes, the NDP member for Vancouver Centre. He was chosen to join the group, for what reason? The reason given here is: "His constituency includes one of the largest Chinese communities in Canada." That is supposed to justify the horrendous expense — the tremendous number of dollars — required to bring this troupe to China. It goes on to say: "Quon Wong, father of the Attorney-General's executive assistant, will join the group as an interpreter." It goes on to tell us that Mr. Cocke was travelling with the group to study acupuncture in China. I suggest that if they are a party that practises responsible spending, they would not send an insurance agent, which I believe is his profession, to study acupuncture, but rather they'd send along one of the doctors out of the system.

We ask why Mr. Macdonald was chosen. It was because of his long association with the Chinese community in Vancouver. They talk about travel and waste! It's absolutely disgusting and hypocritical, to say the least. I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is wrong for me to call them hypocrites, and I won't do that. But certainly the description is very fitting indeed as you sit and listen to some of the statements being made, and then look at the record.

I'm sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the chamber. It seems to bother him when these things come back to haunt him.

Here's another one. Speaking about travel, from June 18 to June 26, 1975, the Leader of the Opposition and his group rented from Daimler Hire Ltd. in London, England, at a cost to the B.C. taxpayer of $811.64, chauffeur-driven limousines. What was the purpose of the trip? The purpose of the trip was public relations and cultural activities. How can you, Mr. Chairman, convince the taxpayers of this province that you would be a good alternative to a Social Credit government, that you could do the thing that should be done in this province and bring in some responsible spending, when your record already demonstrates total irresponsibility and disregard for the office of the Premier? Mr. Chairman, the cost of those taxis — and those were Mercedes-Benz cars, I believe — converted to today's dollars would represent a total cost of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,600.

He also talks of the high living. I looked up a voucher that shows that while he was in office he spent one day in the Pierre Hotel in New York at $400 a day. If you convert that to today's dollars we're looking at an $800-a-day hotel room. How hypocritical! How deceiving! And how very hard to accept as you sit here and listen to all of the claptrap that comes across in respect to government spending.

Then he talks of profits. He considers "profit" to be a dirty word, something that's illegal. He somehow doesn't understand that profits from business, whether it's the private sector or the public sector running the businesses, are necessary in order to acquire and replace equipment and to create the employment needed. Somehow they feel successful business people should be considered illegal, and he stands here and talks about how he was looking for love and sympathy during the 1974-75 recession. He also talked about how he got into business when he was Premier. But he didn't seize those businesses. No, not at all. What he did was seize the taxpayers' dollars. That's what happened. He took the taxpayers' dollars and got his government into business.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Then he talks about the resources of this province and how this government is giving them away. Mr. Chairman, the people of this province will always remember the deal that he attempted to strike with the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. What was the deal, Mr. Chairman? He promised the Prime Minister of Canada that if he would nationalize the provincial resources, the socialist government of British Columbia would be prepared to turn them over to him. Absolutely disgusting!

He quotes people in the health system who have made wild claims, such as that people are dying because of cutbacks. There are no cutbacks. Certainly our government has put the lid on increases in hospital spending and on spending throughout the health system, but there are no cutbacks at all. If we look through the records, all that we have had from this opposition — and particularly from the Health critic, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — is that people are dying because of cutbacks. Mr. Chairman, I consider the entire debate of the opposition and the attack of the opposition to be one in which they have been riding the backs of the sick, the elderly and those who are less fortunate in this province. It is the only way they have been able to attack this government on our health program. The largest number of dollars ever has gone into this health program, the best health program in the world — and they come along and say that people are dying because of cutbacks.

I spoke the other day in the Health ministry's estimates, and I talked about how the responsibility of the MLA was not to ride the backs of the sick, and not to use those who have a problem in getting into hospital when they need to, but rather to go there and attempt to assist them. I mentioned one case of mine where this person, afraid to go to the member for New Westminster in case she might have her name dragged through the press and her problem made public.... I told him how, in that particular case, I contacted the hospital administrator and asked to have the doctor responsible write me a letter and give me all of the reasons why this person couldn't have her surgery as required, rather than being told that it was going to be four or five months. It so happened that that lady was in for her surgery within a matter of weeks, which proved to me that here we had a situation where one of our professional people was playing politics, along with our opposition. This is the sort of attack that becomes very disturbing and heartbreaking when you consider the number of people out there — senior citizens, sick people — who

[ Page 9044 ]

really and truly need help, and don't need to be used for political gain.

Then, of course, whenever one analyzes just what has been taking place, it's easy to understand, because they came into this session ill-prepared under their leader, not expecting to be here long, but rather expecting to see an election. They couldn't attack our programs, they couldn't offer anything constructive, so what did they do? They found the most emotional thing that they could pick up.

I want this House and the people out there to know that this is a dynamic government led by a dynamic Premier — a man who has vision not only for the province of British Columbia but for all of Canada. Like with the criticism that was extended when the railways were being developed through this great land, the day will come when the people of British Columbia will say: "It was great that we had a man such as Bill Bennett as the Premier of this province, or we wouldn't be where we are today."

It was our Premier who led the provincial premiers to a fair conclusion on the constitutional debate. While that was going on — that was a tremendous responsibility that he had — he still continued to give the leadership that this province expected and deserved. It was our Premier who, on February 18, announced the first restraint program as it should apply to government. We did, as our Premier has already said, expect very severe criticism of our restraint program from all over the province. The most severe criticism we have got is from the opposition members, who, in the short time that I have been here, have done nothing but play games with every estimate, coming in here with nonsense figures and recommending restraint in every session. We didn't get that great criticism that we expected, but what we did get was the Prime Minister of Canada following our lead. It was the Prime Minister of Canada who decided: "It looks like that's the way to go, and that's what we're now going to do. We're going to take the lead of the government of British Columbia." What else did we get? We got other provinces following our lead. Yes, it was the Premier of our province, the man for whom they are now recommending that we cut his office expenses, who gave that leadership in the entire area of constitutional debates and government spending.

I'd like to make a little comparison here of leadership. I'd like to talk briefly about some of the accomplishments of our Premier in respect to the economic development of our province. Let's look at it. We've got northeast coal, Tumbler Ridge and the coal terminal development up there. The grain terminal is going now. So are the liquid natural gas plant, B.C. Place, the stadium, Expo 86 and light rapid transit. These are tremendous accomplishments, considering the times we are in. It must be understood that these ideas or projects do not come to mind overnight. These have been in the planning stage for a long time. Can you imagine where this province would be under that socialist party?

Consider the economic developments led by the Premier of our province and greatly assisted by his cabinet, particularly the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has taken a terrible amount of flak from the opposition because of his aggressive and successful approach to developing our coalfields. Those are exciting projects, ones that are going to bring tremendous wealth to this province. Without them, the unemployment figures would be a great deal worse than they are.

I would like to return to the socialist term of office, and make some reference to their economic development program. This is the program that the Leader of the Opposition referred to when he claimed that they did not seize businesses, as is thought. What they did was seize the dollars of the taxpayers to get ourselves into such things as Railwest. I believe Railwest lost us somewhere around $8 million. I believe that was about an $8 million blunder. He used taxpayers' money to buy out Can-Cel and Plateau Mills. This is a new approach to socialization. This is not nationalizing as we expect the socialists to do it, but this is the way they went about it.

They bought out Panco Poultry, plus all the farms. There's an interesting twist to this one; and I could elaborate a little more on it. The Leader of the Opposition was being critical today of our Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for not divulging information in respect to the liquid natural gas plant. Nothing was ever divulged about this particular purchase of Panco Poultry. At that time the producers, the people who supported and needed that plant, and who were at the mercy of that plant, wished to purchase it. They didn't want the government to own it. They wanted to own it. They made their offer to purchase this business, and what happened? The Leader of the Opposition, as the Premier of the province, on his own accord — I don't believe there was any cabinet discussion or policy decision at all — and in his usual off-the-cuff way increased the price over what the producers were prepared to pay for that operation, and took it from under their noses.

That was the first blow given to the poultry producers of this province under their economic plan. The second blow was that the poultry producers who supported this plan were told: "There's a new game being played now. This plant is owned by the government. We have control over the poultry industry in British Columbia." What did they do? They set the price and conditions under which they would take their product. For weeks and weeks farmers sat with product that should have gone to market but couldn't, because the government of the day wouldn't take it. The NDP government of that day refused to take this product, because the farmers were asking for a fair price. The only reason they were doing that was because it was now under government control and management. They knew they could not pay the prices that the private sector had been paying. They had to chop the farmer's prices down to survive, and that's what they attempted to do.

The records of the superboard of the day will show that the member for Comox, who is sitting here quite embarrassed and is snickering away, was a member of that board, which demanded at the time that the producers of this province take what they were imposing upon them and sign the contract, against their wish and their unanimous decision. It demanded that they do what the government said that they should do.

Mr. Chairman, they bought out Kootenay Forest Products and Ocean Falls. They built Swan Valley; they didn't buy that one. Here is a real dandy, when you're talking about economic wisdom; here is an opportunity for the government of British Columbia to get into new food processing. So what did they do? They told their bureaucrats to move ahead and build this plant, which was going to specially process food for the marketplace. They didn't do any market research, none whatsoever. They merely said: "Build the plant, and whatever it's capable of producing, we will be able to market." I don't have the figures in front of me, and my memory

[ Page 9045 ]

doesn't serve me too well on this particular portion of it, but there were millions and millions of dollars poured into Swan Valley, and it never once got into the marketplace. Here was a great socialist dream: "We're going to build a plant. We're going to control not only the land of this province, but we're going to control the food — the essentials of life."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Did you say that Panco was a turkey?

MR. RITCHIE: Panco was in the turkey business. Yes, it was a turkey. As I recall, someone once asked me what the reason was for the NDP government getting into the turkey business. The only thing I could think of was that the leader of the NDP government felt that he had to have more turkeys under his control.

What else did they buy, Mr. Chairman? They bought Imperial Tours, and then they went on to buy B.C. Parlour Car Tours. I didn't follow those things, but they tell me that they were real downers. That's their economic approach. That's how they would turn this province around.

Then the Leader of the Opposition touched on their labour record. I would say that their record as far as labour is concerned is as dismal as their record in economic development. I believe that the reason for that is because of the way their party is so badly fractured. We see it all the time, and we saw it here today whenever our Premier asked for extra time to speak. The leader and two or three of his mud-liners said no and the more responsible ones were mad at them. You could see that. We can see the way the party is fractured when it comes to labour. When I look at some of the comments that have been made in this House.... For instance, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was talking about collective bargaining. This is the same member that does not believe that the people of British Columbia should own their own homes. The idea of free collective bargaining is to allow the employee to bargain for all they can get, and once they believe that they have everything that the employer can afford, he said they should then go on strike.

How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Chairman? Two minutes? I'll speed it up.

Then we have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I'd forgotten about him because he's been away from this House so long. Here we have a member who, Mr. Chairman, is on a five-week vacation. I'm not sure whether the leader sent him on it or whether he decided to get out of town himself, but it's interesting to note that he's over there receiving full pay for the time that he is in Europe, I believe, when he should be in this House — even more so whenever his partner from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is unable to be here due to health reasons. What did he say, Mr. Chairman? He said that they should be careful in supporting the concept of free collective bargaining. "Lauk agreed that the NDP long-term goal is a planned economy. He said: 'This would be inconsistent with collective bargaining.'" In other words, one member says, "Free collective bargaining is bargaining for all you can get until there is nothing left, and then going on strike," and the other member then says: "We cannot have free collective bargaining because we wish to have a planned and controlled economy."

Mr. Chairman, I should mention very briefly that I'm in full support of our provincial approach, our government's approach and our Premier's approach to restraint. I'm not at all in favour of what is being done in Ottawa, because I believe that the approach that is taken there only widens the gap that already exists. It creates problems, and for that reason our government's approach is a very responsible and fair one. It's going to allow those at the bottom of the scale to close the gap between them and those at the top, who are the ones who really set the cost of living through their buying power.

And then, of course, being a very strong free enterpriser who believes in sharing with the employees, I believe that productivity becomes a very important part of our program. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our province — indeed our country — is suffering more from low productivity than it is from high wages. It's of great interest and encouragement to me to realize that here at long last there is a government with a leader who has the courage and the conviction to bring in some improved productivity standards as part of our program.

Mr. Chairman, I'll wind up by saying that the approach of this government in tough economic times is one of "let's work together, let's work harder and let's share." That makes me very proud indeed to be part of this dynamic team and totally opposed to this stupid, frivolous amendment brought in by this nonsense opposition.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to follow that member. I do so maybe to correct a few statements he made. His lack of speaking to the motion, I guess, goes without saying. I don't think that there was once, other than at the very end of his speech, when he even said anything about the motion, and the red light had already been on for a moment or two.

So, Mr. Chairman, what he did speak about, rather than defending the Premier's office overexpenditure and that way speaking to the motion.... He spent all of his time making inaccurate statements — and now he's going to cut and run — directed at the NDP, and particularly me. One charge that he made is that I've been riding the backs of the sick.

MR. RITCHIE: That's right.

MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is that that's an absolute prevarication; its totally wrong. The fact of the matter is that we have a rotten situation before us at the present time, brought about by restraint.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I just love these cut-and-run politicians. Away he goes, back to his office, putting his feet up. This person who was just telling us a moment or two ago how he believes in hard work — the fact of the matter is that he sold that feed business of his, put his feet up and came into this House in semi-retirement. I don't see him working. He talks about how he helped somebody in New Westminster to get into hospital. The fact of the matter is that politicians shouldn't have to help people get into hospitals; the beds should be available. As far as I'm concerned, that is a very severe criticism of the government right off the top.

He spoke about a China trip that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the then Attorney-General, and one or two of us made. The trip was paid for — the entire time we were in China — by the government of China. Not a nickel did the people in B.C. have to pay for that trip.

[ Page 9046 ]

As for our wives, one or two of whom went with us, let the record show that we paid their way. When we were in China everything was laid on and had been laid on for months.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Limousine?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What book? There was no limousine. For heaven's sake, it was all provided by the Chinese government. What a sheer crock of nonsense! If the government can't tell the truth, then we've come to a pretty pass in this House.

That trip was very worthwhile. We met with the minister of trade for China, and had long discussions with him. As Health minister, I visited a number of hospitals and medical centres throughout China. We came back with a much better understanding of where we could go in terms of our relationship with that great nation on the Pacific Rim. Those were planned, properly organized trips. Mr. Chairman, I hope that that member doesn't try to leave the impression that they were anything but that. Incidentally, that was the only trip outside of this country that I took as Minister of Health.

I would like to tell you about Railwest for a second. He concluded that Railwest was a real loser. Yes, we put it together. I'm not sorry we did. Were Railwest in place right now, it would be a very profitable, job-creating industry. Oh, it lost $8 million, says the member. Who ran it for the last period of its time? The Social Credit government, which wanted to put it down and did. He talked about Swan Valley and what a loser it was. It was a loser because the Social Credit government took over and let it founder.

We bought Col-Cel. What a crime! Columbia Cellulose of New York wanted to sell out their two divisions — north and south. Weyerhaeuser made an offer on the profitable south end but no offer on the north. Our Minister of Forests at that time said to Weyerhaeuser: "Buy it all or none." Weyerhaeuser said no. Under those circumstances, we were put in a position in which we had to conserve 5,000 jobs in the north, among other things. Therefore, for the huge sum of $2 million upfront, we bought one of the most profitable enterprises, which we called Can-Cel — Canadian Cellulose. In its first year it made over $50 million for the people of B.C. Further to that, those 5,000 jobs were conserved. That's the way we treated the economy in 1975. What do we see in 1982? A government whose only answer to our economic problems is squeeze, squeeze, squeeze and make them worse, all in the name of restraint. Nobody argues that there should be good economic policy, at this time or any other time, but particularly in times of hardship.

Then that member went on, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who one would think would take life seriously — of all people in this province, the one who should be most serious.... What comment did I hear him make about Panco? "It was a turkey." Let me put the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) in a position where he can take a better perspective. He was there. He should have known better. He was in the Fraser Valley at the time. Panco Poultry was not up for grabs as far as the growers were concerned. They couldn't purchase it. They said so. Mr. Cohen, the man who owned it, came to our government and said: "I've got to sell it off for real estate, and I'm closing down the plant. We're not going to keep it going." What did we do? There were 450 jobs at stake, and also the agricultural business in terms of their having a processing plant available in this province. They could have sent them on to Alberta. But no, we wanted it to be here and wanted to conserve the jobs.

That was done. It was profitable from the outset. It was profitable until it was sold by the Socreds for a big profit. Who did they choose to sell it to? Cargill, one of the most notoriously grasping corporate enterprises in the North American agricultural business. They were going to keep it going. "Don't you worry your pretty little heads, you British Columbians. Everything will be all right." All right, my foot! It's gone, and its jobs are gone with it.

No wonder we're in the plight we find ourselves in today. It's a government without any concern whatsoever for planning. The member for Central Fraser criticized the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who said....

MR. RITCHIE: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, there is another falsehood. He said the member for Vancouver Centre is away on full pay. He knows full well that the member for Vancouver Centre gets docked $250 a day for every day he's away from this House after July 23. That's going on right now.

MR. RITCHIE: It hasn't been deducted yet. Full pay and expenses.

MR. COCKE: Are you going to move a resolution that it shouldn't be. Is any government member going to...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you?

MR. COCKE: Of course not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that when that member stands up....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, upset? I am upset when I hear people stand up and make notoriously incorrect statements. "Full pay," he said. He, the Premier and the Minister of Finance know perfectly well that he gets docked.

MR. RITCHIE: Has he been docked yet?

MR. COCKE: Has he been docked yet? There is only one way that he will not be docked, and that is if the government moves a resolution asking that he not be docked. I can tell you that will happen when cranberries grow on the dome.

MR. RITCHIE: After what he did to the Bank of Commerce investors.

MR. COCKE: Poor, poor Bank of Commerce.

He also talked about the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He quoted the member for North Island as having said: "Negotiate all you can, and then go on strike." I'd like to see that member put that on the table in this House.

[ Page 9047 ]

MR. RITCHIE: It's in Hansard. Don't you read?

MR. COCKE: Totally out of context and totally wrong as usual. He was given a job by the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to come to order, and I ask the member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: The member for Central Fraser Valley was given orders to get up and take up half an hour while the Premier was in a press conference downstairs. It strikes me that he could have made some statements in defence of his Premier's expenditures. We're asking the government to put it on the line. You say you want a restraint program, you want to economize; we're asking public servants and the health people to restrain themselves. Now's an opportunity for the government to prove that they really mean it by telling the Premier to reduce the spending in his office — the office in which expenditures have absolutely skyrocketed over the last few years.

What else could we ask? Just a very simple statement showing that you understand that restraint is for everyone. That includes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Premier's office. It's little enough to ask. When we're asking the health community to take an economically impossible position under the circumstances, it strikes me that we can ask no less of the Premier's office.

MR. HOWARD: When leadership is involved in virtually anything, there needs to be a tone and pattern established and a course of action set out. There needs to be emphasis on whatever that leadership is pointing to. More than anything, there needs to be precept and example by those in a position of leadership. When that happens, those who supposedly are being led may follow. It implies that the leadership at the top show that what it is seeking to do, and to have the populace do, be established by the examples set for it. A leader who intones the concept of leadership but does not follow it himself can't expect people to believe that he is truly leading in the proper direction. A leader who over a period of time sets one example and then makes a 180-degree turn in another direction cannot expect to be believed immediately with respect to his 180-degree turn.

We have some examples of leadership in this province from this Premier and this government that have set a tone, a pattern, an example that has been followed. It has also resulted in some incongruities — in other words, situations where the Premier says a certain thing which he claims is leadership, but does something entirely opposite. The example comes to mind of his advocacy to the federal government a few years ago that the rate or percentage of increase in government spending should be 1 percent below the inflation rate. This Premier went back to Ottawa and said to the Prime Minister of Canada that the rate of government spending should be 1 percent below the inflation rate. As an example, if in a province the rate of inflation was 10 percent, then the rate of increase in government spending should be just 9 percent. Those are his words in a formal document which he presented to the government of Canada. After going back east and telling the federal government that this is what should happen, he came home and ordered his Minister of Finance to increase government spending in this province by 20 percent, which was then double the rate of inflation. We saw an example of the Premier talking out of both sides of his mouth, a Premier trying to emulate the ancient god Janus, looking both fore and aft — the two-faced god who could look in both directions and say different things from different faces. That's what our Premier did. He went back east and said, "Keep the rate of government spending below the rate of inflation," came back home and made it double the rate of inflation in this province. That was just a few years back. In the fiscal year 1980-81 that was the rate of government expenditures over the previous year — a 20 percent increase.

In 1981-82 there was another 20 percent increase, and his cabinet ministers followed suit. His cabinet ministers thought: "That's the way to go, man. Here's our Premier saying we should increase our government expenditures by 20 percent a year over the year before." And they tried their best to accommodate him. One of them went to New York — a limousine, Sugar Babies and all that. It has been dealt with to some extent in this House as well as outside. But he followed the Premier's advice and figured he should spend more money out of his ministry than was actually coming in. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), brand-new in the cabinet at that time, followed the Premier's advice, followed the Premier's actions, and thought it was best to spend all sorts of money.

The Premier also went back east and said to the federal government: "In tough times you can run a deficit — it's okay." He qualified it somewhat, but he did say to the federal government that even with a reformed, less ambitious fiscal policy, it will be necessary for governments to run deficits in slow-growth years, but that these must be specifically balanced by offsetting surpluses. Then over a five-year period you should plan to balance your deficits with your increased income. That's the old Keynesian approach to fiscal matters. That was the tone the Premier set.

He also went back to the federal government at the same time with the same document that had been enunciated on so many occasions, and said to the federal government: "Your high interest rate policy is the way to go. We support what the Bank of Canada is doing. We think that's the thing to do — increase interest rates, make them as high as you possibly can, because that's monetarism, and that's the way to go." The Premier has not yet recanted from that particular position,

So that's the kind of example the Premier has set for this province: (1) advocating high interest rates, having them accepted by the federal government, and then turning around and saying that the federal government is wrong; (2) advocating restraint in government spending and then coming home and doing just the opposite; (3) advocating deficits at the operating level and now saying it's the wrong sort of thing to do. He's taken a 180-degree turn. The difficulty with the 180-degree turn, Mr. Chairman, is that he forgot to tell the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He forgot to tell the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He forgot to tell the Minister of Finance. He forgot to tell those Ontario types that he hired. I don't know whether the person who is leaning on the Premier's chair is from Ontario or not, but one Patrick Kinsella certainly came from Ontario. He forgot to tell these guys: "Look: we've got a different course of action out here." He's got the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in trouble. He's got the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, otherwise known as Broadway Bob, in trouble.

[ Page 9048 ]

And he's got the Minister of Finance in trouble. He's got the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the-champagne-for-breakfast girl in trouble. He's got all of them in trouble, because he forgot to tell them that he's embarked upon a different course of action. That, I suppose, is what politics is. The difficulty is that the Premier doesn't understand it. He thinks he can juggle and manipulate, and that people have short memories. But people have long memories and they know wrongdoing when they see it.

They know, for instance, says the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).... I can't understand why the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing didn't go along on that trip to Arizona that his seatmate, the Minister of Consumer Affairs went on, because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs told the House the other day that he went to Arizona to inquire about housing. I'm sure the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing feels upset that he wasn't taken along on that binge to Arizona, because, it dealt with housing matters.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'll get back to the Premier. The first year he came into office as the Premier of this province, 1976-77, he set the example by increasing the Premier's office expenditures by 70 percent over the year before. That's this Premier. He wanted to live it up as high as he possibly could. In 1981-82, not too long ago, the increase was 30 percent. We've seen an escalation in the amount of public funds which the current Premier of the province of British Columbia believes was necessary for his own high standards of living and travel. That set the tone and pattern for this government to squander every conceivable penny of the public's money they could get their hands on.

The current Premier has spent on his office in the seven years he's been in office — personally, individually — more than twice the amount of money that the preceding Premiers — the late W.A.C. Bennett and the person who is now the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), who was the Premier in the period of 1972-75 — spent in 25 years. This Premier, in the seven short years he's been in office, has squandered and spent more than twice the amount those two combined did over a 25-year period.

Look at the pattern of activity he set that was followed by people working in the Premier's own office, out of his office and under his direction. We all know about the Kinsella furniture escapade, in which this hotshot from Bill Davis's operation in Queen's Park came out here and attempted to show us peons and peasants who live in British Columbia how the thing operates back east, and how he got caught up short on his extravagance with respect to furniture.

Let's see what this guy Kinsella, a confrere of the person sitting in the chamber right at the moment, I understand, in some way or another.... They talk with each other, and so on. This is what our friend Patrick Kinsella did on November 23, 1981. This is why we want to cut back on the Premier's estimates this year, somehow or other to atone for the monetary, financial abuses of this hotshot from Ontario. On November 23 he rented a limousine here in the city of Victoria, I'm told, from some group called Classic Limousine Service. It seems to be a division of something called Sybarite Investments Ltd. What did this limousine do? This high profile, hotshot political friend of the Premier is not interested in running the affairs of the Premier of the province of British Columbia, but is more interested in his own high living and the combination of straight, absolute, partisan, rotten Socred politics. Let's see what this guy Kinsella did.

He hired a limousine on November 23. One of the things the limousine was supposed to do, which apparently it did do at 7:30 that evening, was pick up somebody at 2345 Cedar Hill. The bill was charged to "Mr. and Mrs. Kinsella, deputy minister to Premier, Mr. Bennett's office." Just in case there was any doubt as to who was the Premier, I suppose, he put in that it was Mr. Bennett's office. After the pickup of a couple of people, this limousine at $35 an hour went to the Harbour Towers. Then they went to Government House. Then they waited for some long period of time. I don't know what went on on November 23 at Government House, but that's where they were. Following that, whoever it was who was in this limousine — there were two passengers — went to 151 St. Andrews, No. 404. The limousine was ordered by one Susan Cutler, who, I understand, at that time worked in the Premier's office and was the secretary to Mr. Kinsella.

Now here is an attitude, I am submitting, Mr. Chairman — a response to the leadership shown by this Premier. This Premier has said, for the period of time that he's been in office, that there is no bottom to the public's ability to pay for the squandering of his government. He has said for as long as he's been in office: "The pockets are there; all we have to do is levy the taxes and the general public will pay up." That's this Premier; that's two-bottle Bill talking. The taxpayers have lots of money; let's tax it, let's take it. That results in people like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs squandering it.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, I can understand the Premier's desire to talk with one of my colleagues across the floor. He doesn't like to hear about his buddy-buddy, his bosom friend that he seconded from Premier Davis in Ontario and the Conservative machine back there to come out here and be paid $60,000 or $65,000 a year to play politics. He doesn't like to hear about his bosom friend ordering privately custom-made furniture. He doesn't like to hear that his bosom buddy, this brainwave from Ontario by the name of Kinsella, would order a limousine for last November 23 and go wandering all over the city of Victoria and have the limousine wait for him and then send the bill to a Mr. and Mrs. Kinsella, deputy minister of the Premier, Mr. Bennett's office. He doesn't like to hear that. But regretfully, that has to be put forward to indicate that the leadership of this Premier has shown that the only thing he has done in the seven years that he's been in office is to lead people to believe that the taxpayers will pay for any amount of extravagance or excesses that he himself wants to engage in or that his ministers want to engage in. Now he's making a 180-degree turn, and as the Leader of the Opposition put it so succinctly earlier, he's asking the $950-a-month a clerk down at the bottom of the list to pay for Jack Kinsella's limousine on that particular day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who?

MR. HOWARD: No wonder the Premier says: "Who?" I'm sure that anyone in the Premier's shoes now would not want to know who Jack Kinsella is.

[ Page 9049 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Jack?

MR. HOWARD: Don't you know who he is, Mr. Premier? He's blowing the taxpayers' money.

I think that is the essence of what this leadership business is all about. The Premier has led us into a depression; he has led us into the area where people will squander taxpayers' money on every conceivable whim that comes to their mind — whether it's limousines in New York for the McClellands and the likes of that or whether it's limousines for the Kinsellas and the likes of him in Victoria; it doesn't matter to the Premier. But if the Premier will have the courage to approach His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and see if a writ will come visiting upon us sometime, the Premier will damned soon find out that his squandering and his excesses are not appreciated by the general public of B.C.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) covered a number of areas. On some of them, of course, I don't know what he's talking about, but I do know something, and if this is indicative of his research, it's the same sloppy research that has been prevalent in speeches the member's made before in the opposition. He said that in my estimates in the year following the first year of government replacing the former Premier whose government was defeated, there was an increase of 70 percent in one year, if I heard him correctly. The fact is that my actual expenditures were a decrease of 31 percent. I have the actual figures right here, and the member for Skeena is incorrect.

We're on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and while I recognize there is a traditional motion to reduce salaries and reduce spendings which in parliamentary processes is never accepted, I want to make a private deal with the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, as is time-honoured, we reject motions in the House, as they did when we were in opposition, to do with procedure, but I'll make you a deal that will reduce the spending of government this year far in excess of any of the collective motions that you have put forward over the estimates. And all I would ask of the Leader of the Opposition, because I'm so willing to go far beyond anything they've asked, is to support the restraint program, which will save the taxpayers of this province hundreds of millions of dollars. All he has to do is stand up and we'll strike a bargain for the people of this province.

Again, just to clean up — that was a pretty good offer, but I understand, by the way the Leader of the Opposition smiled, that he isn't going to take it — I want to assure the member for Skeena, with the level and type of sloppy research that he does.... He's been talking about bills for limousines that have nothing to do with the government and were not charged to the government. They have to do with, he says, a Jack Kinsella. Pat Kinsella is my deputy minister, but no limousine used by him has ever been charged to this government. The event he talks about is not a charge to government. Again, in a very serious debate to do with the economy of this province, the member for Skeena has indicated why he's no longer in Ottawa, and pretty soon he'll get an opportunity to move on again.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I hope so.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, and so do the people of Skeena hope that you get a chance to move on again.

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier wants to make a deal, let's make a deal. Call an election in British Columbia and let the people of British Columbia decide whether or not. You brought in a budget and it was a joke. We've debated for nothing. I call you to vote on this amendment right now. Let's do it; let's see whether or not you really mean what you're saying.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

Vote 4 approved.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We'll resume the rest of this debate on the hustings soon, I hope.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, yes, sometime between now and the summer of 1984. And when we come back, the government will spill over onto that side; very few of those members will return.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections I and 2 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 9050 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 74, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 67, Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 70 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

LAND USE ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 72. This bill has undergone a great public process. There has been a tremendous amount of input from various quarters since the discussion paper was first put out in September 1980. We've had meetings with local representatives. We've had written submissions. We had Bill 9 in December 1981. Generally there has been a lot of opportunity for people to give us their views and comments, particularly those in local government who are affected.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

We are of course addressing a number of problems that have persisted for a good while in British Columbia. The purpose is first to spell out more clearly the responsibilities of government in the planning process, to provide one-stop shopping, to eliminate duplication. The bill also introduces a number of innovations. The changes requested by local government in the last rounds of discussion have, I think, been well addressed. The minister cannot unilaterally amend the local plan; they expressed that concern. We've addressed this by providing the necessary change, as per their request. We have also given the GVRD and CRD an opportunity to do land-use studies if two-thirds agree to it. That information is available to the municipalities for advice and their use. Similarly, the minister cannot be responsible for planning in nonmunicipal areas, nor can the minister require matters of his choosing to be part of a local plan. We have also removed the transit levy impost. The inspector of municipalities is no longer involved in the process of issuing agricultural-use permits. As I have mentioned, we have made a good many changes in keeping with the latest round of discussions with local governments.

In brief, the objectives are that official plans must designate enough land for residential purposes to accommodate expected growth over ten years, and municipalities and regional districts must adopt the zoning needed to achieve this objective. The density of use may be increased within limits and under conditions specified in the bylaw. Local governments may issue residential variance permits which allow residential use in buildings located in a zone where residential use is prohibited. Local governments may issue a temporary dwelling unit permit, which allows a greater number of dwelling units to be created than would otherwise be permitted in the applicable residential zone. The permits would be used in conjunction with the conversion guidelines developed by the building standards branch, to help make better use of the building stock.

Since builders can recover a good part of their expenses for installing excess capacity for individuals or companies which take advantage of it, the financial risk of leapfrogging subdivisions at the private sector's expense will be much reduced. Local governments may accept cash in lieu of the 5 percent for parkland requirements of subdividers. Of course vertical zoning is provided for, and the development approval process has been much streamlined,

It's certainly the intention of the legislation throughout and this is very evident — that we're hoping to see the process expedited, and that building activity will be more readily available to us, as the need develops, than in the past.

The development approval section of the land-use bylaws of local government must include an explicit description of the steps to be followed, the requirements and time limits for each step, and the responsibility of each officer at each step, so there is certainty for everyone involved in the process, be they a one-time developer or someone applying for rezoning or for a subdivision. You no longer need to be a big developer or totally familiar with the process. It simplifies it for everyone. It's available in one land-use act. The municipalities similarly adopt one land-use bylaw, with a procedural bylaw that spells out all the steps and institutes time limits.

A central approvals office will have relevant information on the status of development applications and on the procedures that the public must comply with to carry out developments. Once more, it's one approvals office, as opposed to someone having to wander from agency to agency or all over the municipal hall in order to find out exactly what is required of him.

We have included in the bill something that has been long sought by many people who have been up against it, who have expended large amounts of money unnecessarily at the

[ Page 9051 ]

expense of the purchaser — provision of conditional approval. Under current provincial or local government procedure it is difficult to get approval. As the rules change throughout the process, you are faced with the new rules, regardless of when you first made application. This will give the applicant an opportunity to get on with the project, to get the necessary borrowings, to get the engineering and surveying done. If the rules did change in the time limits stipulated, it wouldn't matter; the rules at the time of application would apply.

Approving officers must approve or reject subdivision plans within two months of the date they are submitted to them. So once more there is a certainty of knowing when you might expect an answer, and once more the onus is on the approving officers to see that the process is carried through, and carried through efficiently.

The decisions of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on a subdivision which affects land adjacent to a controlled-access highway must be given within a time limit which will be set by regulation as well. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways must make its decision within the time fixed by regulation on a subdivision of land outside of a municipality. In a regional district, land-use bylaws for areas where an official plan has been adopted will not require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and thus once more the whole process has been expedited tremendously. Where an official plan is in effect, the approval of the Minister of Transportation and Highways is not required under section 57 of the Highway Act.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Advisory planning commissions in municipalities are limited to reviewing official plans, unless of course there is a resolution of council to refer something specifically to them. Once more, this should assist people in getting their applications dealt with expeditiously and fairly.

Public hearings can be adjourned from time to time, as they are now, but may not exceed a total of two months from beginning to end. Six months from the conclusion of a public hearing on a land-use bylaw until the adoption of it is established as the time limit in which they must deal with it. Where the approval of the Minister of Environment is required for the subdivision of land subject to flooding, a decision must be given once more within a time fixed by regulation.

The measures to improve the equity of the land-use regulatory system are evident. Imposts cannot be required, for example, by a local government unless specifically authorized by a statute or bylaw adopted under the authority of the Land Use Act. The requirement that the development process section of a single land-use bylaw contain an explicit description of the procedures ensures that all builders are treated in the same way, and I've already made reference to that.

All representatives on the regional board will vote on regional district land-use bylaws on a one-person one-vote basis, rather than under the existing weighted-vote system, which favours municipal representatives over rural representatives in many areas throughout the province.

Local governments cannot restrict privately owned land to public use only. The situation which we've seen from time to time where a municipality would designate an area of its jurisdiction as park and then not have a plan of acquisition has been eliminated. The situation that did exist was just another form of expropriation, because anyone having land designated as park could find little in the way of a buyer if they did want to dispose of the property for whatever reasons. Unfortunately, in no particular instance that I'm aware of did the municipality have any plan of purchase available. So it really was, as I mentioned, just another form of expropriation. Fortunately that has been addressed in the act once more.

The central approvals office will provide enough information for the small builder or one-time subdivider to successfully negotiate the development approval process. A builder may appeal to the Minister of Municipal Affairs the terms of a restrictive covenant required by an approving officer on the basis that they are unreasonable. We also have a number of measures to ensure that we protect the environment. The regional planning statement of the province will permit a reasoned consideration of the need to conserve the land resource for future generations. Official plans of local governments can identify areas that should be preserved or safeguarded because of environmental features. Where an official plan identifies an area which should be preserved because of its natural environment features, the area can be designated a development control area, and the local government can put special conditions on development in the area to achieve the objectives it wishes. When developing land-use regulations, local governments must consider certain environmental factors.

There are many features of the act which I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss in committee. I should mention, however, that local governments may by bylaw establish parking regulations for the physically disabled. It's a very small thing, but certainly much welcomed by those who are active with the groups that assist the physically disabled and by the physically disabled themselves. Local governments cannot require that development cost charges be paid for new dwelling units that are designed for use as residences for handicapped persons. Once more, that's a very important feature that will hopefully provide for substantial increases in residential accommodations for the handicapped.

The legislation does provide one-stop shopping. It provides an equity, in that it will certainly be much more evident to people what may be required of them and what the time limit is. It certainly eliminates duplication. Not only have we had duplication within provincial planning, but there's been much duplication between regional and municipal planning. This has been removed.

We are all aware that there's been considerable controversy in the last several days with respect to the Islands Trust. The Islands Trust was established initially in the late sixties, when the government introduced a ten-acre land freeze in order to prevent development that hadn't been properly considered by any particular body representative of the islands. This was followed in 1974 with the introduction of legislation to provide for the Islands Trust. They were given a mandate, a job to do, and they've done this well. We do have the plans and the subdivision procedures. We have the zoning bylaws in place. As I have told the various groups that have made representation to me in the last while, this process can now be carried through very effectively by the regional districts. We don't need another level of government, particularly at a time when this government is very concerned about the amount and cost of government. Anything that can be done to reduce the amount and cost of government will, I'm sure, be supported by people everywhere in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[ Page 9052 ]

MR. BARBER: I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition. First, I would like to welcome persons whom I had the pleasure of meeting with this afternoon, as did the minister. They are mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities; two members of his executive, mayor Mel Couvelier of Saanich and mayor Audrey Moore of Castlegar; and the solicitor for UBCM, Richard Taylor.

Particularly in the last couple of years, UBCM has taken very strenuous steps to establish and reaffirm the neutrality and the bipartisan approach that their group has always taken. Their particular efforts to keep in touch with the official opposition, as well as with the government, have been welcomed and commended, and were admirable. We're glad they had a chance to meet with us today; we're glad they were able to meet with the government. I welcome them here on behalf of every member of the Legislature.

To deal with the bill: the minister calls this bill one-stop shopping. We call it a developers' drive-in. The minister says this bill is the result of consultation. We say that in its present form it represents no consultation at all. The minister says money will be saved. We say municipalities will end up paying a great deal more because of the additional burdens imposed on them by this bill. The minister says this bill is an improvement over its predecessor. We say that this bill represents a failure of policy. The one improvement in its predecessor, the planning act, was that it required, for the first time, public disclosure of the plans and priorities of every agency of government involved in land use, and of every Crown corporation similarly involved. We say the failure of this bill to include those original and beneficial provisions is a failure of public policy that cannot go unchallenged. The minister says this bill represents an improvement in the fortunes of the residents of the Gulf Islands. We say that they say, "Nuts to that," and that that posture is rubbish from beginning to end.

The minister says this will save the people of British Columbia money, and specifically that somehow it will save money because the Islands Trust will be shut down. We say these Socreds spent more on booze and Broadway than the Islands Trust ever spent on planning. If they want to save money, let them cut back on booze and Broadway and keep an institution like the Islands Trust, which has done an outstanding job for the people of that area.

The minister says there is going to be improvement in land use because regional governments will no longer have any planning authority. We say that when you abandon the prerogatives, the authority and the planning of regional government, you leave a vacuum that will be filled by the developers, the speculators and the real estate sharks, who have always known how to swarm in when they spot a planning vacuum. That's what we say, and that is what I think most people who care about the conduct and the future of competent and intelligent land use in this province will also say.

The minister says this bill waters down the authority that he was granted under the previous bill. We say that posture is a massive deceit and misrepresentation of the real contents of this bill. In particular, sections 19 and 46 make it absolutely clear that the political agenda of this government remains intact. Those sections make it quite clear that the minister, personally, on the basis of no published criteria, no stated criteria in the legislation or anywhere else, and on the basis that no appeal is possible, will be able to make decisions in the privacy of his office, favouring developers, that are not permitted now and should not be permitted ever. The minister says that it's one-stop shopping. We say it's a developers' drive-in. Therein lies the difference between the approach of our party and theirs.

This bill signals the end of regional government. It signals the beginning of a set of committees that act, so to speak, as spiritual advisers to local government. They will have no planning authority, except in the unincorporated areas. Those areas are not where the problems of overlap and duplication ordinarily lie. It is in those areas of built-up community, be it in greater Vancouver, greater Victoria or in some of the other rapidly expanding districts of the province, where those conflicts of land use, problems of duplication and difficulties of planning lie.

This bill spells the end of regional governance as a means of resolving disputes between and among municipalities. The committees of spiritual advisers that will be created will prove wholly inadequate to the purpose. In fact, for all practical purposes this bill turns back the clock and will return notions of regional planning to the prewar era when no one believed in those things at all; when municipalities conducted a kind of range warfare, attempting to seize from one another territory and assets; when no regional authority had the opportunity to help them behave in a far more useful and intelligent way. This bill takes us back to prewar British Columbia, before people realized the value of regional planning, strategies, development and collaboration.

I was impressed by the comments made by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, who pointed with justifiable pride to the fact that in and among the four regional districts in greater Vancouver, from Hope to Richmond, a sense of achievement had been obtained and won, because the people elected in those areas believed in collaboration and cooperation and in finding a way to hammer out their differences, and could do so within the structure of law that is currently provided. What this government does is reduce the possibilities of regional planning — the intelligent possibilities of the regional application of our imagination to the problems that we have in the great urban communities of British Columbia — to a do-nothing group of helpless advisers who will stand back handcuffed in the face of those who would move in and crush opportunities for authentic regional development for economic, residential and community purposes.

The reasons why this government has done so are obvious to anyone who understands the history of Social Credit and observes the history of this bill. I recall attending UBCM when the Minister of Municipal Affairs made a slide-show presentation. He said: "Look, we're prepared to propose a tradeoff. You, the municipalities, will be required to do certain things that you have not been required to do before; but in turn, we, the province, will accept the responsibility to do as much. In the new balance the public interest will be better served." Sections 1 and 2 of the planning act were those sections which obligated the province — specifically, its Crown corporations, and the Ministries of Highways, Forests, Environment and, of course, Municipal Affairs — to disclose its plans, to be held accountable to local government for them, and thereby, through that process of disclosure and accountability, better represent, state and manage the provincial interest.

What he said at UBCM in Prince George was that the old era of secrecy that has always confounded the public interest, especially that secrecy for which the Ministry of Highways

[ Page 9053 ]

has been most responsible, would be at an end. They would be required, he said in Prince George, to disclose their intentions. He added at the time a useful caveat. He said that they would not be required to disclose those intentions which involved the purchase of right-of-way and other property associated with highways development. That's a useful protection, because we all remember the Gaglardi scandals. We didn't object to that caveat at all.

What the minister said in Prince George two years ago, he did not say today. What he said in Prince George two years ago, as far as establishing the new partnership between the provincial and municipal interest and the new requirements of disclosure is concerned, he did not say today. In that regard, this bill is another failure of public policy. The only good feature of the planning act was that the province, for once, would be held accountable to the municipalities for the provincial plan and the provincial statement of it. That was a commendable feature of the predecessor bill, which we are not debating because that's been lost in cabinet.

This bill is an abandonment of the public interest in several specific ways. Let me describe them briefly, Mr. Speaker, and at greater length later during committee stage. Let me advise the government now, though, that I will, at the appropriate time, be moving a hoist motion on this bill. I will be moving that this bill be delayed for six months, in order that UBCM and other authorities may be consulted.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The minister says no.

Is it an accident that this bill was introduced one working day before UBCM was closed for its annual holidays? Did you know that? UBCM is closed this week — the office is shut down. Was it an accident that it was delayed as long as it was, in order that UBCM, understandably shut down for the annual vacation, should be less able to deal with it as it came forward?

I will be moving the six-month hoist motion because we think, as well, that this bill contains several important new features about which the UBCM was never consulted at any stage.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That's a very sober comment, Mr. Minister. You know, only in British Columbia would it be considered an insult to have gone to school. Only in British Columbia would someone, like that minister, say there was something wrong with having a university education. Only by the standards of this coalition is it apparently considered an insult to know how to read silently, without moving your lips.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind all members that the first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: We will move later that this bill should be hoisted for six months because, as I said, it contains several brand-new features about which the UBCM was never previously consulted — for instance, the feature that would require municipalities to now pay 20 percent of the capital costs of subdivision development, where previously they have been entitled to 100 percent recovery; it's now been reduced to 80. That is a brand-new feature.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's not true. You've got to do a little studying before you hoist on that account.

MR. BARBER: We've done a lot of studying.

The section which includes the destruction of the Islands Trust is a brand-new feature of this bill. No previous consultation was entertained. No feature like that was found in any previous bill. It is a brand-new section. It is extraordinarily important to the thousands of residents of the Gulf Islands and to many thousands more off-islanders who use it for family and personal vacation time.

UBCM is closed this week. The government knew it and they introduced a bill, with many new features, on Friday. Here it is Tuesday, and they are now moving second reading. They're doing it because it is in their interest to do so — that much is obvious to any logical person. You have to ask as well, Mr. Speaker: whose interests are also served?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Why don't you go back to grade school?

The proposals this bill contains in regard to planning are such as will create a vacuum into which persons who do not care about the public interest and only care about personal profit will be quick to move.

Let me illustrate. Greater Vancouver, for many years, has lived with the problems of rapid growth of a residential, commercial and industrial order. They have dealt with those problems as best they could, initially on a voluntary basis. It's a matter of public record that when the former planning review agency for greater Vancouver decided that it could not countenance the Roberts Bank development, W.A.C. Bennett shut them down. In 1968, when the provincial government of the day ran into opposition from the version of regional government of the day that existed, instead of dealing with the planning conflicts they encountered, they wiped out the planners.

This year they're running into trouble with regional government again. This year the conflict is not over land-use planning for Roberts Bank; it's over land-use planning for ALRT. This year, instead of negotiating, collaborating and dealing as equals with regional government, they're wiping out the planners. They did it before on the issue of Roberts Bank; they're doing it again on the issue of ALRT.

This section contains, as I mentioned before, two sections that are especially offensive to people who care about local government, and the possibility and function of it. Section 19 says that the minister will have the authority, personally, to rewrite bylaws — personally to redraw and redesign local plans and local authority in the execution of those plans. The minister has claimed that he is now required, as he put it, to consult before he does this. The minister tells us that he consulted local government before he introduced this bill today. That claim was a fake. The claim of section 19 is similarly a fake. The so-called consultation that saw these surprise sections introduced on Friday is apparently the kind of consultation he believes will be adequate to the job when section 19 is invoked — the section that gives him awesome personal power to take charge of local planning in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 9054 ]

Section 46 does the same thing. One of them benefits the private sector and the other benefits the Crown corporations. The pattern is clear. The political agenda of Social Credit will not be impeded by this bill. On the contrary, the political opponents of Social Credit in local government are being wiped out by this bill. Those opponents include those regional governments that have had another vision for the future of their area than the one imposed on them by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Those opponents who will be wiped out by this bill include those who have a dream of neighbourhood collaboration and urban growth that is not consistent with the plans that Social Credit would impose on them. Instead of reconciling or negotiating those differences, the Socreds today have introduced a bill that will allow the minister to wipe them out altogether. Only in British Columbia and only under Social Credit would such a bill be considered progress. In fact, this takes us back to prewar British Columbia. It takes us back to an era that we thought had been long ago relegated to the history bin that it belongs in.

Regional governments have made mistakes, regional governments have made enemies, and regional governments have made problems for themselves. The answer of Social Credit to those concerns has been to wipe out their planning authority. Mr. Speaker, if the same standard were applied to Social Credit, we would have no government in British Columbia at all. The government that made the mistakes of the heroin treatment program, the Marguerite, the Ministry of Deregulation, Seaboard, and all the rest of it.... A government that made all those mistakes, were they to be punished by being wiped out, would be a Socred government defunct tomorrow.

Regional government has made errors. The best way to correct those errors is for local people, through the electoral process, to change the planning, to change the system, to change the individuals who participate in it, and to correct those errors locally. We don't defend the mistakes of regional government, any more than we defend the mistakes of the provincial government. We will analyze and examine both, and propose alternatives to each. What does Social Credit do?

They wipe them out. They wipe them out altogether, and they have the nerve to call it progress.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to adjourn, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: I'll adjourn at six.

This bill also wipes out the Islands Trust. That provision is a loss for local government. Wiping out the Islands Trust is a loss for local control. Wiping out the Islands Trust is a tragedy for those who believe that the Islands Trust helps, protects and conserves something rare and special in the human geography of British Columbia. After this bill passes, the islands will be treated like any other piece of real estate in British Columbia. After this minister has his way, they will be developed like any other piece of real estate in British Columbia. We saw what happened when he got his way in Surrey. The mess of planning which the people of Surrey must confront today is the mess of planning that this minister wants to impose on the people of the Gulf Islands tomorrow.

I have a personal vision for the Gulf Islands, and that vision recognizes that in the year 2000 there will be in excess of 2 million people in the greater Vancouver community and some 600,000 people in all of southern Vancouver Island. What I see is the possibility that we could preserve for them the Gulf Islands as they are today — rare, special, very beautiful and very important to the recreational and human options that could be saved for the year 2000.

The destruction of the Islands Trust will lead to the destruction of the Gulf Islands as we know them. Treating the Gulf Islands like any other piece of real estate in the province will lead to the kind of destructive and inhuman development of these rare and special places that we have always seen and suffered in the province of British Columbia. We introduced the Islands Trust in 1974 as a means of conserving....

AN HON. MEMBER: We?

MR. BARBER: Our party, our colleagues and our principles saw the creation of the Islands Trust. That's the "we" I speak of.

We introduced the Islands Trust in 1974, and have been proud ever since of their achievement in protecting and conserving the rare beauty and special way of life on those islands. What does this bill do? It destroys the Islands Trust, it destroys the only instrument and impulse of conservation that local planning may exercise among all of those beautiful islands, which these guys opposite propose to treat like any other piece or real estate.

This bill makes come true all the predictions of those who said that the new sewer enterprise on Saltspring would lead to greater development. At stake in Ganges was the question of the future development of Saltspring. The proponents of the sewer said: "No, don't worry about that; just because we're putting in a sewer doesn't mean we're putting in more development. You needn't worry about more people being connected to the sewer enterprise to pay for it, because" — they said in defence — "the Islands Trust will always be there to protect it and to prevent it from happening." So they imposed the sewer and changed the law retroactively so that no one could take them to court. The final protection which the residents of Saltspring were offered against the development possibilities of that sewer enterprise has now been wiped out by the destruction of the Islands Trust.

There is a pattern, there is a deliberate design, and it involves the destruction of those elements of local government that care about collegial and collaborative planning on a regional basis. There is a design, and we understand what it is. It is a shame and a regret, and to continue this debate I move that it be adjourned until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's sixth report, which was read as follows and received:

"July 27, 1982. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

[ Page 9055 ]

"The preamble of Bill PR402, intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported as amended.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, "

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.