1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981

Night Sitting

[ Page

6773 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

On the adjournment motion

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6773

Mrs. Wallace –– 6773

Mr. King –– 6774

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6778

Ms. Brown –– 6781

Mr. Lea –– 6785

Mr. Barrett –– 6789

Mr. Cocke –– 6804

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6807

Mrs. Dailly –– 6808

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6811

Mr. Skelly –– 6815

Mr. Lorimer –– 6820

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6823

Mr. Hanson –– 6826

Mr. Davis –– 6830

Mr. Mitchell –– 6833

Mr. Brummet –– 6835

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6836

Mr. Passarell –– 6840

Mr. Lockstead –– 6842

Mr. Barnes –– 6846

Ms. Sanford –– 6850

Mr. Barber –– 6852

Division –– 6856

The House met at 8 p.m.

On the adjournment motion.

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

Speaking

to the motion that was moved by my colleague the hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I would like to indicate to the members of

the House that this practice that, we're debating is historic. This

motion has been utilized in this Legislature before. It is, indeed part

of the practice, custom and usages of the Legislature of British

Columbia.

The budget and the estimates, as the official

opposition well knows, are in their usual course of preparation and

they're going to be furnished at the usual and appropriate time: in the

spring, as is the historic manner in which the business of governments

in British Columbia has been conducted since Confederation. [Applause.]

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

We're

going to be returning in the spring of 1982 to fully debate the budget

address, the estimates and the legislation that will be presented to

this Legislature in the interests of all of the people of the province.

I fully support the motion of my colleague.

Mrs. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this motion certainly indicates to me that

the government is completely devoid of any ideas or initiatives to meet the

pressing economic problems in this province. If they had ideas or initiatives

they would be pressing forward now to take steps to protect the people of this

province who are facing very difficult times.

would like the members opposite to review briefly with me the situation

in my own constituency. We are a forest-based economy; 90 percent of

our economy is based on the forest industry. When one recognizes that

one out of five forest workers is now unemployed, you can recognize the

kind of lack of economic drive that results from this lack of jobs.

think one of the most startling things to come and one of the first

moves that caught the eye of all British Columbia and all of Canada was

the situation at Honeymoon Bay, a mill that has been in operation for

some 30 years. Suddenly on Wednesday the employees of that mill are

advised that they're out of.a job permanently as of Friday — 357

employees in total out of a job. A great many of those employees had

given upwards of 20 years — and some of them over 30 years — of their

working lives to that company.

Why? They say it's lack of

timber supply. That's not the case. The reason is they're not making a

profit. It's even deeper that that. The reason — and the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there knows it full well — is that

the companies which he allowed to purchase that mill had no intention

of keeping that mill operating — in spite of all his promises and

platitudes and all the crocodile tears he's been crying over those

employees up there. He was the man who was responsible for it, because

he allowed a consortium of three companies — two of whom have adequate

mill capacity right in the Cowichan Valley — to come in and take over

that forest land, and along with it the mill. He is the man responsible

for those workers being out of jobs. Yet we have them wanting to

adjourn the House until some unforeseen time — and we have fairly good

information that it will be March.

What are people to do who

have no jobs? They not only have no jobs, they're not going to have any

homes. Many of those people lived in company houses, and they have been

given six months to vacate. Certainly there is no question that the

consortium that owned that mill wants it out of business. They have

offered it for sale at a ridiculously high price. They paid some $13

million for the mill when they bought it. They say that they have

operated it at a loss of $3.5 million for three years. Now they're

putting it on the market for $30 million. They have no intention that a

buyer will pick up that mill. They want it out of business. They don't

want competition. They bought the timber supply there. The Minister of

Forests let them do that, in spite of his powers under the Forest Act.

He is responsible. He should be the one speaking up against the

adjournment of the House until some date in the future so we can get on

with the job of creating jobs for those people. He's the one who should

be standing up and making some concrete proposals as to how those

people can be employed and what jobs can be found to keep those people

working and keep that town viable.

The chamber of commerce

and the village council have written to the minister and had no

satisfactory response, They wrote some months ago to the Premier. As of

a week ago, they had had no response at all from the Premier. That's

his interest. He gets up here and speaks for two hours, giving

lip-service to concerns about the people of this province. What are his

real concerns? He doesn't even bother to answer a letter from the

council at Lake Cowichan. Why doesn't he answer it? Because he has no

plans. He has nothing to offer. If that government had something to

offer, we'd see it on the order paper; we'd see some legislation; we'd

see some interim supply, some emergency bills that would take some

action and make jobs for those people.

No, this government

is happy to sit back and bring in a throne speech that has nothing in

it at all. Then they have the audacity to say: "Okay, we're going to

adjourn the House until next March. We'll all go to Hawaii or Mexico or

somewhere and have a nice suntan for the winter, and we'll come back

here in March." What are the people who are here without jobs going to

do? This government has no plans to provide jobs for those people. They

have no plans for any thing that will help this very serious situation

that we're in with the economy.

For a year and a half we've

heard about their housing program. Well, now they say we've got a

housing program. Where is it? Why isn't the bill on the order paper?

Why aren't we discussing it? Why aren't we doing something to keep

those people in their homes, instead of having them turned into the

street? There's nothing there. If he were serious and sincere about

protecting those people who are facing doubled mortgage payments as a

result of high interest rates, he'd have something on the order paper,

and he'd have a bill presented to this House right now, so we could get

on with the job.

You can talk all you like about interest

rates being the responsibility of the federal government. Other

provinces are taking initiatives. All you have to do is look at

Saskatchewan; they're taking an initiative to protect homeowners. This

government has no program and no policy. They're doing absolutely

nothing. That's why they're adjourning. It's because they have no

program, they have no policy and they have no initiative to carry out.

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

[ Page 6774 ]

from

the labour force, as a result of the layoff, the earning capacity of

those people is so badly curtailed that all the merchants are showing

grave concern as to how they are going to keep their heads above water.

They are facing the same high costs of interest charges and carrying

charges on their stock, and yet they're facing a depleted market,

because the dollars are not there in the consumers' pockets. The whole

economy is winding down so badly in the whole Cowichan Valley that

there have to be some definite measures taken. There have to be some

job-creation programs to put those forestry people back to work.

can talk all we like about the reforestation programs or the

silviculture programs that this government has said they're

undertaking, but surely to goodness when you have a situation like

this, you move into some of those programs. I've written to the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and he's

acknowledged that he's going to have a look at doing something about

some park development in the area. That's another thing that's long

overdue. When is it going to happen? You know, I've had these kinds of

vague promises so many times from those ministers over there that I

will not believe anything is going to happen until I actually see the

programs in progress. When I see a work crew going into Gordon Bay Park

to enlarge that park or when I see a work crew going in on the west

side of the lake to establish a new park there on the park reserve,

then I'll believe it's going to happen. I won't believe it until then,

and no vague assurances from that minister are going to indicate that

to me.

MR. SKELLY: He's asleep.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, he is asleep. He's asleep as far as what's happening in this

province and asleep to the need to create jobs, jobs, jobs — to use his

terminology.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That woke him up.

Mr.

Speaker, of course one of my concerns is also what is happening in our

agricultural industry. If our agricultural industry folds, as they may

well do under the lack of support from this government, we will find

ourselves in — to use the much coined term — dire straits. I know of no

direr straits than being unable to feed ourselves and unable to produce

food. We're coming close to the time when we're going to have to have

that food produced locally, because it isn't going to be available from

outside the province. And yet, what is this government prepared to do

to support that agricultural economy? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

have the president of the Social Credit Party going into Prince George

and talking about phasing out the agricultural land reserve and turning

it over to private developers. We have a few people in this Legislature

talking about that, and I feel sorry sometimes for the little minister

over there who tries to protect his own job. The president of the

Social Credit Party is going to phase out the agricultural land reserve

and along with it all the farmers; he's also going to phase out ICBC.

When you phase those two out, you've phased out that minister, so it's

no wonder he gives some degree of lip service, at least, to the

agricultural land concept.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member,

I would like to remind all members that the throne speech debate and

its wide relevancy rule has now been drastically restricted by the

words of the motion before us and, of course, we can accept only that

debate which is relevant to reasons why. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, reasons why we should not adjourn. The reasons why we should not

adjourn are that we should have some strong incentives before this

Legislature to bring some assistance to those hard-pressed farmers —

assistance on their interest rates and assistance on their land

preservation. Those are the reasons why we should not be adjourning,

Mr. Speaker.

I was sorry that for personal reasons I was not

able to be here to participate in the throne speech debate, but really

I don't know what was in that throne speech that required any comment.

It's the things that aren't in that throne speech that are of interest

and of real need as far as the people of this province go. It's the

things that aren't in that throne speech that we should be discussing

in this Legislature. That's why we have taken this tack — to try to

force this lazy government, that wants to come down here for six, eight

or ten days and then go off on holidays and not come back until March,

to take some action and come out with some programs. If they don't have

the programs, they just have to call the House back and we'll certainly

present programs for them. If they don't have them, we can present them

and all they have to do is to support them, Mr. Speaker.

The

Legislature must continue to sit. We must continue to do the job for

which we were elected. We must move to protect the people who are

caught up in high interest rates, inflation and loss of jobs. We must

take that action, and we must not pass this motion that adjourns us

until the whim of someone who comes to you and says: "Well, let's get

with it." That's not soon enough, Mr. Speaker. March is not soon

enough. If you're hungry, if you're cold, you need food now, you need

clothing now. You don't need it on the first of March.

This

is a ridiculous motion, Mr. Speaker, to bring before this House. We

should be getting on with the job that we're sent here for

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose the motion. I believe there are good

and valid reasons why this Legislature should stay in session and

should come to grips with many of the pressing problems that are

bedevilling our population in British Columbia.

We need

programs to deal with the very severe economic slump in the forest

industry. We have nothing in the throne speech but some vague promises

about privatization and some other exotic terms that are not explained.

Now the government suggests that we should go back and think about

those vague promises of inaction until March of 1982.

Mr.

Speaker, that's a clear example of the government reneging on its

obligation to properly and responsibly represent citizens in the

province of British Columbia. I find it interesting that not a

government member thus far has got up to give any credible explanation

of why they want to adjourn until March.

The House Leader,

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) got up

and mumbled some things about tradition. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been a

member most of the time since 1968, and the long-standing tradition in

this Legislature for many years was that we met on the last day of

January and sat until completion of the business before the government.

We never used to meet as late as March.

[ Page

6775 ]

Consistently, for the last number of years, the opposition has criticized calling

the Legislature into session so late in the year, at the beginning of March,

because the fiscal year ends at the end of March. That time-frame does not allocate

adequate time for the government to present their budget and for the opposition

to scrutinize and debate that budget.

what we have been seeing is a move away from tradition to a new

procedure which deprives the Legislature, and certainly deprives the

opposition, of full debate on the budget estimates of the government.

We think that is a serious breach of parliamentary tradition, Mr.

Speaker. It has now become the custom under this government rather than

the exception, as it used to be — that interim supply was only sought

in emergency situations. Now it has become the hallmark of this

government to call the session so late in the year that no time remains

for full presentation of the budget and the spending estimates of the

government. As a consequence, they have been coming to the House and

asking for interim supply two and three times before the budget is

fully approved. That's piecemeal government. That's irresponsible

government. That's a denial of parliamentary tradition. It's a

dangerous trend, in my view, and that's another reason why we should we

should not now be adjourning this house until March so that the

government can pursue the same irresponsible policy.

Mr. Speaker, the government is lazy. This government is caught up in inertia.

This is a government that has no life left. The headlines that the leader of

this government is getting down east for his activities are: "Early to

bed." Where is the Premier now? I presume he's headed off to bed again.

Well, we have important issues on the economy to be debated here. The Premier

snuck off with his little briefcase, and I don't know whether he's on

the couch in his office, Mr. Speaker, or whether he's gone down to Harbour

Towers. But he should be here in the Legislature defending the policies of this

government. The reason he's not here is that the policies of this government

are indefensible.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the members on that side, particularly the minister of

counties and other things, seem anxious to get on their feet. We're

anxious to hear the views of that minister and his colleagues in terms

of defending their do-nothing policy. We're very anxious.

see a number of very disturbing trends in the forest industry which are

contributing to the massive unemployment that is being experienced in

the industry at the moment. At one and the same time that economic

problems are besetting the industry and there is a soft market in the

United States, other things are happening right here in British

Columbia which should be dealt with now by the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his government. We're seeing an increasing

trend towards merger — acquisition of small companies by larger ones,

corporate concentration in the forest industry. A short time ago the

Minister of Forests wrote a letter to the industry newsletter, Beale's Letter ,

saying that that was a trend that he was concerned about because it

really didn't meet the criteria that the government themselves had laid

down for economic stability of regions and for the preservation of

employment opportunities in the forest industry. He decried that trend.

Mr. Speaker, these mergers are increasing. They're happening more frequently.

We had the case of Atco Lumber Ltd. up in the Kootenays buying out Hadikin Bros.

There's nothing wrong with one company buying another one per se, but the

minister has stated his policy that when this occurs there should not be a net

loss of jobs accrue from that merger, because that contributes to unemployment.

the case of the company I referred to, the Ministry of Forests approved

the sale and the transfer of their cutting rights from Hadikin to Atco

Lumber, and he did it with a four-line letter. I'm going to read it

into the record to demonstrate the kind of problem which is

contributing to unemployment and economic hard times in the province

now. This is a matter that must be dealt with now, not in March. This

letter says: "Further to your request, and pursuant to

section 50 of

the Forest Act, I hereby consent to the acquisition by Atco Lumber Ltd.

of all issued shares in the capital of Hadikin Bros. Lumbering Ltd."

The

House will note that there's no condition set; it's an outright carte

blanche approval. The fact of the matter is that as a result of that

approval, Atco Lumber immediately closed down the Hadikin Bros. mill

with a net loss of jobs. Perhaps they had a good and sufficient

economic reason for doing so, but the point is that there is no

indication that the minister conducted any economic survey to determine

whether they were justified in acquiring these new cutting rights and

at the same time closing down an existing plant, with a net loss of

employment. The minister has the authority, under

section 50 of the

Forest Act, to refuse or approve on a conditional basis. In this

particular case, no condition is attached. The transfer of valuable

cutting rights to Crown timber, a net loss of jobs in that area, and

people who had worked many years and had seniority and undoubtedly had

mortgages on their homes, which were all of a sudden chopped off.... I

want the Minister of Forests to explain why he does this kind of thing

when his Forest Act and the five-year range and resource policy issued

and printed by his ministry provides the power under

section 50 to

prevent the very kind of thing he approved in a four-line response here.

That's

a denial of his responsibility. He's obviously willing to allow one

company to acquire increased cutting rights, to allow unemployment to

accrue, when that violates the stated and publicly enunciated

objectives of his ministry. I say that's irresponsible, and I want some

assurance — before we leave here, Mr. Speaker, not next March — that

other mergers pending now will not be approved until the conditions and

the criteria enunciated by his ministry are in fact enforced, so that

our workers in the province of British Columbia are protected.

It's

not just me who's concerned about this. I have a letter from the city

of Revelstoke. We've had a similar acquisition of a mill. In this

particular case, some 350 workers were laid off. That mill is closed

for the first time in 30 years. The mayor of Revelstoke has written to

me, and he expresses these thoughts:

"We have

all heard of the plight of homeowners and small business across our

country, but it never seems so bad until it reaches home. We as a

council are writing to you, our representative, to express our sincere

concern over the recent announcement of one of our major employers

shutting his door. The closure of the Downie Street sawmill will affect

about 175 employees. We also understand that the Canoe mill is also

shutting down at the end of October, affecting a couple of hundred more

employees.

[ Page 6776 ]

"We

would request that you inquire of our senior levels of government how

much longer must we put up with this regressive and damaging action.

The government has just announced that thousands of new jobs will be

created in western Canada, and in particular B.C. When do we see these

new jobs? After we close down all the old ones? We want jobs, period.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this precisely outlines the problem.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to give the members

of the House an idea of the scope of the debate that is in order on

motions to adjourn to a future date. This has to do particularly with a

motion to secure a sitting of the House at a time or on a day other

than the next ordinary time or day of sitting. Speaker Morrison says:

"I must point out that on a motion of this sort, which is a motion to

adjourn until another day, it is quite allowable and proper to urge that the

House should not adjourn to that date because certain subjects are of considerable

importance. On the other hand, it is not in order to go into these subjects

in any detail. They can be advanced only as reasons for not adjourning."

I wish the members would accept this as a guideline.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm attempting to do: give the general context

of why we should be continuing to meet in this Legislature, and why we

should be dealing with these very important matters that are important

to the communities as well as the workers who are adversely affected.

The mayor of the city of Revelstoke has written to me, asking that I

keep them in touch with developments, that I keep them in touch with

the government's plans for creating alternative employment so that the

economy up there won't be irreparably damaged over the course of this

long winter. How can I do that when I come here and I'm restricted to a

debate on a throne speech having no content? Then the government puts

forward a motion to adjourn until next March. I'd be completely

derelict in my duty and my obligation to represent the small

communities in my riding, as well as the people, if I did not stand and

voice my objections to this kind of unspeakably lazy direction by this

government. I find it unbelievable that, given the economic

circumstances facing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians this

year — particularly this winter — the government seriously suggests

that we should adjourn and run away from our duties and obligations to

the people who elected us. That's not only lazy, Mr. Speaker; it's

cowardly of the government to suggest such a course of action

The mill I referred to is not the only one. My colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) talked about the massive impact of the mill closures at Honeymoon

Bay. Again, the minister of Forests had the power and authority under

section

50 of the Forest Act to require, as a condition of approving the transfer of

cutting rights, that that plant continue to operate. The minister failed to

shoulder his responsibility. He failed, not only in defiance of common sense

but in denial of his own enunciated policy. This was the objective of his ministry. He

allowed the mill.to be sold. He allowed the new cutting rights to be acquired

by the purchasing companies and then he entered a pale and very weak plea

that that company continue to operate the mill. The fact of the matter was that

the minister had then and still has the authority under

section 50 of the Forest Act

to, require as a condition of transfer that that mill stay in operation

and those jobs be preserved. Mr. Speaker, perhaps those cases are by the board,

but I suspect that over the course of this winter when economic times are very

difficult and more small forest companies are going to be obliged to close

the doors permanently, there will be an increasing trend towards acquisitions

of the failing companies by larger firms. Unless this Legislature can be assured,

Mr. Speaker; that the Forests Minister is going to act in a decisive and responsible

way to ensure that jobs and plants are preserved and continue to operate, then

certainly we are failing to live up to obligations as legislators.

Mr.

Speaker, we have many hundreds of young people in the province of

British Columbia — not just young people; predominantly young people, I

suppose, but many of all ages — who are facing mortgage renewals over

this current year as well. We were promised a housing policy by the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The minister

laboured long and gave birth to a dud that, he had to scurry back and

rewrite after consultation with his federal counterpart. As a result

the people of British Columbia facing a crisis in shelter accommodation

in terms of affordable housing and in terms of their ability to

maintain mortgage payments are left without a vestige of hope over the

coming winter. And this is the time that the government chooses to say

we should fold up our tent and steal away. That's totally unacceptable.

Mr.

Speaker, every time this government gets into trouble, it seems,

usually by their own devices and not as a result of anything the

opposition does. They usually get into political trouble because either

they try to be too cute and too smart or they try to manufacture nasty

political tricks to improve their stock. Every time that happens and

their image wanes with the public, their trend and their tendency is to

run and hide. We see it with the Premier every time. As soon as the

heat's on, he finds a place to hide out. We see that this evening as

far as the government is concerned. Where's the Premier? Where are the

cabinet ministers? I think we have two and a half of them in here at

the moment.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has some

compelling reason.... If they are working on some master plan or some

blueprint that would haul British Columbia out of its economic

doldrums, share that with the House. We're reasonable people. If they

have some major strategy that they intend to unleash in March that's

going to do dynamic things for the province of British Columbia,

perhaps then they could justify this lengthy holiday that they are

planning — this lengthy holiday in destinations unknown. If that's

their objective, that's one thing, but I don't think it is. By

everything we've seen — by their silence, their inattention and their

unwillingness to enter in this debate — we can only assume that they

have nothing in mind at all. They have no positive programs or policies

outlined and prepared for a legislative session, so they simply called

this one to get the throne speech put aside.

Mr. Speaker, I

want to know if the government can really justify calling this short

session.to debate a shallow, empty document that did not do one thing

to initiate a program.

MR. RITCHIE: Be nice.

[ Page 6777 ]

MR. KING:

I'll be nice, Mr. Speaker. I'll say to the member that the throne

speech said some nice things. I'm not going to condemn it totally, but

it didn't do anything. It didn' t do a thing. There was not one program

initiated that is going to affect the life or the circumstances of the

welfare of one British Columbian, be they a laid-off worker, a

homeowner facing onerous mortgage renewal costs or a small businessman

teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

MR. HALL: Just political mercenaries from Ontario.

MR. KING:

Yes, perhaps it benefited Mr. Kinsella and some of his colleagues who

were able to flee Ontario and find employment in British Columbia when

no one else can.

MR., HALL: Political mercenaries.

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

my friend..

don't know what it costs to convene the Legislature and to bring all of

the apparatus of the parliamentary process into play for a week or

eight days, The Socreds at one time when they were in opposition

criticized the New Democratic Party government for calling an emergency

session of the Legislature. They said: "It's too costly; you should

never have done it." At least we had something of an emergent nature to

deal with, which we did. Mr. Speaker, we haven't dealt with one

positive program during the course of this short session. What can

possibly be the justification for the outlay of perhaps half a million

dollars?

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

MR. KING:

I wonder if the government is planning another ball, at Government

House in March. The people of British Columbia have nothing to dance

about this year. Large numbers of the people of British Columbia can

ill afford workaday clothing and apparel, much less the fancy garb that

would be necessary to rub shoulders with this gang of millionaires in

Government House at the public expense. It's shocking and it's

disgraceful.

I don't know what it costs. I don't think one

can put a price on the democratic process, but when the democratic

process is prostituted and perverted by this sham of a throne speech

and this short session, which accomplish nothing for people, then that

is not its intent — not at all. I say that it's a complete squandering

of public money. Wastrels, lazy at that, they're not prepared to put

forward a program. The big-spending boys, the fat cats, are free with

the public coffers when it comes to their interests, but are tight when

it comes to working mothers with small children: "We'll cut back on

them." Typical millionaires: "Let the poor eat cake. We'll revel at the

public trough. We'll put on a little charade of doing something

positive, at huge public expense. Not one effective program, then we'll

adjourn and we'll run away and hide in the sun." Shocking! Scandalous!

Lazy!

These are the ones who are fond of saying: "We want

people off welfare. We want them earning their livelihood." I say to

them: stay here; earn your livelihood; bring in some programs for

people.

The maverick from Omineca indeed! Represent your

riding. Represent your constituents. Demonstrate that you're prepared

to work, like you're so fond of saying you are, through you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm scandalized by it all. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that W.A.C. Bennett would never have done anything like this.

W.A.C. Bennett, as much as we disagreed with his policies, was a hard

worker and a compassionate politician. He wasn't prepared to turn his

back on the people of British Columbia in dire need, in their moment of

crisis. How can you ignore these people who are being drummed out of

their homes? The people who are having a field day today are your

friends, the millionaires and the sheriffs. They're the ones who are

having the field day, at the expense of human suffering. They revel

here in luxury, and then want to run off and hide, without doing one

iota of work on behalf of the public. Shame on them!

Yes.,

Mr. Speaker, it makes me angry. I talked earlier in the brief

opportunity I had in question period about the matter of a bridge in my

riding that is a danger to public health and public transportation. An

accident occurred on it — a school bus with 45 pupils on board. You

know what their answer was, Mr. Speaker? Condemn the bridge and run the

school bus around ten miles so that the kids have to get up an hour

earlier and be an hour longer getting home. We can't afford a bridge

for public safety to get kids to school, but we want to pour hundreds

of thousands into football stadiums for the friends of these people who

can afford to shell out that kind of money. It's public money you're

dealing with.

When I see the basic services denied to my

constituents, yes, I get angry! And then when I see a government that's

so damnably lazy, Mr. Speaker, that they're not prepared to stay here

and come to grips with these real problems that I want to make

representations to them on, then I find that they are anti-democratic

and they have no conception whatsoever of what their public obligation

is.

This is the most shameful, shocking, scandalously lazy

band of coalition politicians that I've ever seen put together

anywhere, a rag-tag bunch of political opportunists who haven't got an

ounce of human compassion within their veins. Leave the people to

suffer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I know the hon.

member feels very strongly about the contents of his debate, but

language and vocabulary, and I think we don't have to resort to

expletives or other terms which might be considered offensive in public

speaking. I would recommend the same to the member.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, if I've uttered any epithet which is offensive to any

member of the House, I certainly apologize. I felt my language was

singularly moderate, quite frankly, because my feelings are a good deal

more intense. But far be it from me to insult anyone; that's not my

objective.

On previous occasions I've appealed with every

degree of reason I've had and it's fallen on deaf ears. I'm trying to

drive home now as forcefully as I can, Mr. Speaker, the need to respond

to the problems that people are having out in the communities. It's not

just in my area. It's certainly in the north: the town of Terrace,

totally reliant on the forest industry, without jobs, without hope for

this winter.

Are they really satisfied to leave people at

home languishing on unemployment insurance and social assistance when

they could introduce a program to put those people to work in a

productive way in intensive silviculture in our forest industry for

very little cost and for massive advantage in terms of production?

[ Page 6778 ]

They

say they're against laziness. They say they're against idleness. They

say they're for productivity. Mr. Speaker, their lack of action and

their lack of imagination belies those statements.

Mr.

Speaker, if they don't understand what is needed, if they have no idea,

please let's get together and consult. We'll go to the office of the

leader of the opposition and we'll sit down and design a program

together as legislators, rather than party politicians, that would give

some hope to people for the coming very difficult, very bleak winter

months. What's wrong with that?

You've subjected the public

to the high cost of calling this institution together. You've produced

nothing, not an iota of anything positive. The people are in

identically the same position they were in the day before we arrived

here.

It angers one. From a group who like to suggest that

they are the doers and the movers and the shakers, that they have some

business acumen.... Well, they don't. They're willing to leave people

at home, getting paid unemployment insurance to sit in idleness — which

those workers don't want to do. They have a mind. They have an

intellect. They have an ego. They'd rather work.

Why not set

up a program of tree-thinning? We need that in our forest industry. The

minister is saying we're going to be short of timber inside of 15

years. Okay, here's a perfect opportunity. Thousands of people are

unemployed, and they know something about the forest industry. They're

committed to it. What would it cost you to put them to work? It would

only cost you a couple of bucks more than to leave them sitting at home

in idleness. You haven't got the brains to see that. The government

hasn't got the brains, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mean the individuals; I

meant the government collectively.

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

Interjections.

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

Really

it's not funny. It's incredibly discouraging and unfortunate that any

government, regardless of its party philosophy, would be so useless as

to subject the public to the kinds of costs involved in calling this

Legislature together, and then fold up and steal away without doing

something positive for the people, in one of the most difficult

economic times we've faced in many years. If this is your decision, and

if by the weight of your majority you are intent on proceeding down

this road, I predict that it's going to come back and haunt you. The

people will forgive many things, but they will not forgive anyone,

particularly publicly elected people, for abandoning them when they

need help most. They will not forgive the waste of money for a foolish

ruse, which up to this point is all this current session can be

categorized as. They certainly will not forgive a government that

abandons them and runs away and hides at a time when they need

assistance. They need inspiration and they need help and direction from

a government more than they've ever needed it since the 1930s.

It's

absolutely shocking and scandalous that this government would

contemplate folding up, stealing away and going about their business,

whatever it may be, without respect to their public obligation to come

to this Legislature, debate and put forward positive programs on behalf

of the people in British Columbia who are hurting desperately tonight.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, it's been a while since we've heard so much debate on a

motion to adjourn. I was hoping perhaps we might receive some

convincing argument from the members as to why we ought to carry on. I

hadn't heard it during the throne speech debate, so I was certainly

looking forward to some hint as to what in fact might be offered by

members of the opposition as alternatives or approaches that might be

developed other than those which the government is actively and

forcefully involved in now.

I listened to the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke go on at great length. I thought perhaps I could

gather some indication as to how or why we might continue with the

session as we now see it. But no., nothing came. I must confess that

perhaps as one of the government members who practically lives in the

buildings, and spends 15 or 16 hours a day, day after day, here anyway,

I thought maybe this session, as we've seen the opposition perform,

could offer some comic relief. Perhaps in that respect I had a bit of

bias when considering the motion. But, again, I thought about what

we've seen happening.

Even though members of the opposition

are for the most part resident in Victoria and occasionally travel back

to their constituencies, I know that their attendance during these last

ten days, as the record will indicate when you check the votes, has

been horrible. Even the members who live here all the time and

occasionally travel back to their constituencies.... This has got some

members on their side into some bad trouble. Unfortunately, their

leader recently had to go to Rossland-Trail to try to keep their forces

together, because their member had no credibility with the constituency

association. After all, he only goes back now and again. I don't know

where he is the other times. He's obviously not here. That sort of

attendance from the other side has been typical. And then, I thought

perhaps....

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, I'm

wondering if the first member for Surrey could explain to you, Mr.

Speaker, whether what he said is in any way relevant to the motion on

the floor, which deals with the question of whether we should or should

not adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate on

motions is much more restricted than the general debate on the address

in reply or on the debate in Committee of Supply. It is strictly

relevant to the proposition within the motion itself. I might further

suggest that Sir Erskine May says that matters which have already been

discussed, either in debate in supply or on the address, may not be

raised in the motion for adjournment after the hour of interruption

that evening, and that's where we are.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, in considering whether in fact I should be supporting this

motion or voting against it, I certainly have to keep in mind whatever

contribution might have been provided, if we were to continue, by the

Leader of the Opposition. But again, unfortunately — and I'm very

pleased to see that he's here now — he's missed so much of the last ten

days that I really couldn't count on that in my consideration of

whether I should support or not support the motion. I realize that's a

problem, and I thought about it a great deal more.

[ Page 6779 ]

Tonight

I saw on television the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi),

who unfortunately is not here now, speaking about books. He's not here

now, and I don't think he was here this afternoon. I don't recall when

he was last here, although I understand he lives in Victoria. I would

expect him to be here for this debate, and certainly I would have

expected him during the throne speech debate, so that perhaps he might

have given me some clue as to why we ought to continue with this

session. Because if continuing could be of real benefit to the people

of British Columbia, I would be the first to support it.

I watched the member on television tonight very briefly I was reminded

about another television show on CKVU on November 20, 1981 — just a few

weeks back. This is where I saw a picture of a group of Douglas College

students padlocking the administration offices of a school. I

remembered this incident as I was attempting to make up my mind as to

whether I might go on speaking with respect to this motion. These

students were protesting budget cuts in response to the federal budget,

but they were saying that we're only doing this in advance of what

government is trying to do because somehow, perhaps, they thought that

the provincial government would suddenly latch on the example given by

the federal government and all would end for the college students.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They

were representing this, and then suddenly, as big as life on the

television screen, appeared the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. He

met with the college students and said: "There's one thing they" — that

is, the government — "react to, and that is protest. They'll react to

protest." It struck me as strange, because in my mind I immediately

related this to the protests in front of the buildings, at the Hyatt

convention and in various parts of the cities where people are getting

together and carrying signs on different issues. And I thought: is this

member encouraging this, or is he really telling me that he's been

doing this all along and that he might have been a part of.... Maybe,

as somebody suggested, in part these protests were orchestrated by the

NDP. Perhaps that's a part of the strategy. I put this out of my mind,

because I thought: no matter what party or what their political

philosophy, they could not possibly be that irresponsible.

However,

then I was really struck by the following comment, the shocking,

shocking comment made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. The

member said: "If enough students could get over to Victoria next week,

maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature." Can you imagine

that? This is the same member that represents the same group over there

which wants to go on with the debate. One of their members said to- a

group of students on television: "Let's lock the Legislature." That's

democracy? They call themselves the New Democratic Party? If that's new

democracy, I want no part of it. No British Columbian wants any part of

it. Is that new democracy? Are those the new democrats? Is that what

they've got to offer? Is that all they've got to contribute to the ten

days that we've spent, in which time they had a perfect opportunity to

address many issues of concern to all British Columbians? That's the

only suggestion they had to make: padlock the doors, shut the place,

and have some protests. Is that the NDP approach to government for the

people of British Columbia?

I couldn't believe it. I

thought, when the session starts, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition

will come in and apologize for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Obviously there ought to be some explanation. Day after day I look at

that chair in which the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be

sitting, and he's not there. He's someplace else. I don't know where he

is. He lives close by. He could be here, but no, I guess he's just at

home. Maybe he was sleeping. Now that could be it. But he wasn't here.

So anyway, I thought maybe he'll come in towards the end. He did come

in. I saw him today. I knew where he was at one point. Hon. member, I

knew where you were at one point. I heard you said someplace that

farmers were real estate people. So I know you were someplace at one

point. So I take back that I didn't know where you were all of the

time, hon. leader.

But he did come in. Then all day he's in

and out and he never speaks. He never says a thing. Can you imagine?

When there are so many things of concern to all British Columbians,

when the people are looking for leadership, not only from the

government.... Obviously, as a part of the process, we expect

constructive suggestions from the members of the opposition. But

nothing happens, nothing is said, no alternative.

The member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) made a great speech, and went on for

45 minutes. He called everybody names and said things that I'm sure he

might regret. Another member from the other side only aped what had

been said by the president of the Federation of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird.

He said there are a bunch of right-wing thugs. That was repeated today.

So I suppose perhaps somehow there may be some connection there, but

even that spiritual leader of the NDP, Mr. Kinnaird.... Maybe he's the

real leader, eh? Could be. Maybe we found the real leader, Mr.

Kinnaird. My goodness, it suddenly occurred to me. I've been figuring

out who the leader of that group might be. Maybe it's Mr. Kinnaird.

anyway, I thought perhaps Mr. Kinnaird, the spiritual leader, will give

us some advice. Maybe he will have some alternatives. Maybe he'll have

some suggestions that could be of benefit to British Columbians. But

no, their spiritual leader said nothing either. So we've seen nothing.

We've had nothing.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it's been a real

problem for me making up my mind as to how I might present the

arguments, because, frankly, I would love to go on, if somehow in going

on we could seek from them some proposals that could in some way assist

even one British Columbian — one solitary British Columbian. Nothing's

happened.

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

Obviously

we could have no session at all if we locked up the place. That would

give them a permanent holiday. They could stay in their homes in

Victoria for a long time. Maybe that's what they were seeking. But that

member that wanted to lock the doors — I thought of his neighbouring

member, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I thought maybe

he would have something to contribute to the debate, and perhaps I

should consider which way I may go on this particular motion, because

there's always a chance that the member for Coquitlam-Moody has

something to offer.

I've been listening all of these days,

and I still don't hear anything from the member for Coquitlam. Then I

go through some of my papers and find out maybe why it is. The

[ Page 6780 ]

possibility

of getting some contribution from the member for Coquitlam if we go on

has been shattered after I see this

article in one of the newspapers.

You know, I'm sure this

article must be accurate. It has his picture

and it says: "Stu Leggatt is Man — Barrett's Successor?" Then it opens

up, so now my hopes are really shattered. As a contribution to this

debate, I certainly want to tell you what it is he said as it was

reported. It says: "For a guy who is being touted as the eventual

successor to Dave Barrett, Coquitlam-Moody MLA Stu Leggatt showed

precious little in a small crowd of some 50 people at Echo Centre

Wednesday night. It was a speech peppered with collegiate socialism and

not one concerned much with economic alternatives."

So, you

know, there is the man whom they see as the successor to the existing

leader of the New Democratic Party, and I'm looking to that man to

follow the present leader of the New Democratic Party, a leader who has

offered nothing and who has lost all credibility with by far the

majority of all people in the whole of British Columbia. Only the

staunchest of die-hard socialists would ever think of supporting him.

Obviously any good-thinking CCFer would have no part of him or part of

them. So I'm thinking maybe their new leader — not the spiritual leader

I mentioned earlier, but the new leader for Coquitlam-Moody — has

something. So then he makes a speech peppered with collegiate socialism

and not one concern with economic alternatives. So now I'm really

worried because there he's addressing a total NDP audience — the whole

of the NDP group remaining in Alberni, 50 people — and he can't even

offer much there. As I go on reading the

article I'm saying: "Hey, you

know, maybe there is a chance if we continue that we'll hear something

yet."

So I'm reading what it says about the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly): "Skelly pumped his brainstorm, a wood-fired

thermo-generating plant for the valley. He also ridiculed local

politicians vying for civic seats and went out of his way to insult the

valley chamber of commerce." What do I do now? My goodness, what a

hope. What do we do?

So really, Mr. Speaker, I'm still

wondering where I might go on this motion with respect to adjourning

the House. Now I see that the majority of them are gone most of the

time, even though they live in Victoria. When they come in here they

spend very little.... At one point today, Mr. Speaker, much to my

sorrow, they had one member in the House — one member, that's the

truth. O-n-e — I'm spelling it for the benefit of the opposition — uno,

one, one only. Do you know the surprising part of it? Would you

believe...? Hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), you probably

won't believe this either. Do you know who he was? The guy whom I

accused earlier today of being out there polishing his Mercedes, the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I take it all back; he

was out there. He was there all by his lonely self.

So again I'm wondering if we really should continue this when only one

of their members has enough interest in the debate. Is it worth continuing when

only one of their members remains in the House and all the rest of the troops

have taken off? They're taking an afternoon nap. They've gone back to

their home someplace in Victoria. I don't know what they were doing, but

obviously they were not around. There was one member in the House. Maybe that's

never happened before in this House, I don't know. I don't recall things

ever being that bad. This is the last day in the debate, when we're looking

to the opposition for some alternatives, some suggestions, some recommendations

— not a lot of name-calling, not a lot of nonsense, not a lot of frivolous stuff,

but something concrete, something that you could really get your teeth into,

something that would make you want to stay on and on, because while we have

a lot of work as members in government and while we spend many, many hours day

after day in these buildings, it's good to get advice from others. We should

always be prepared to accept good alternatives, good recommendations.

I'm

still very benevolent. I'm still wanting to somehow give them the

benefit of the doubt, because I appreciate that our system must somehow

provide for a constructive opposition. That is good. That makes for a

healthy system. I'm hoping that somehow, if we persist, and we

continually attempt to draw out some suggestions by telling it like it

is with respect to the economic development and the wonderful things

that have been happening in British Columbia; if we could somehow

inform the opposition that there's more to British Columbia than

Victoria or downtown Vancouver; if we could somehow inform the

opposition of the diversity and the development that is taking place in

the north, in the northwest, in the northeast, in the southeast; if we

could somehow show the opposition that British Columbia is a positive

place full of potential, with plenty of opportunities.... It's a

wonderful province that we shouldn't be negative about. There are

people here that can do things, people here that can make things happen

without government. If we could convince the opposition of that, if we

could get them thinking positively, maybe we should go on. Maybe there

could be some constructive suggestions. But there's nothing.

was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would be here. I was so sad he

missed all of these days, because I was thinking that perhaps he would

elaborate on a suggestion that certainly caught the attention of all

British Columbians. He said: "When the mills go broke and the mines go

bankrupt, we'll buy them up. We'll take them over." He would have them

all go broke and take them over. That's his answer. Now there obviously

must be better suggestions. Their leader could not have been serious. I

was hoping perhaps maybe the second man in charge, the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), might give some explanation for his

leader's statement. Or maybe we could hear from their spiritual leader.

But anyway, nothing happened. I didn't get an explanation as to why the

people of British Columbia would pool their tax dollars to buy the

losers. I just didn't get an explanation for that.

So time

went by, and I thought perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, if he

doesn't want to give an explanation for that, would maybe tell us about

his interest subsidy program, where he was going to take a billion

dollars the first year and a billion dollars the second year and a

billion dollars the third year and a billion dollars the fourth and

fifth years. All these billions of dollars, and he was somehow going to

devise an interest subsidy program.

"We'll fix

those bad old banks and finance companies." And I'm not saying they're

very good; I wish you would have elaborated on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hey, I can certainly sympathize. "We'll

fix them. We'll take the tax dollars. We'll take the taxpayers'

money. We'll just somehow gather billions of dollars from the taxpayers

and we'll devise a program, a good NDP program."

[ Page 6781 ]

said: "Well, maybe we could get all of these billions of dollars by

putting a few cents on every bottle of booze." Can you imagine the

booze we'd have to consume? I mean, I just don't know. The distilleries

would have an awful time keeping up. Obviously we'd have a good

industry making booze. I'll tell you, that would suddenly become the

biggest industry in the world. With a few cents on every bottle, you'd

have to make a lot of booze to keep up with it.

Maybe he was

somehow going to get into that business too. Probably not, though,

because it makes money. No, I can't see him getting into that.

But

you see, Mr. Speaker, again no positive suggestions, no concrete

alternatives, nothing at all, Nothing's happened. So they've been

rather sad days, and we certainly had every opportunity to speak during

these past ten days and provide some alternative suggestions. There's

so much good could come from helpful debate, and now we're discussing

the motion whether we adjourn or don't adjourn. I suppose, looking at

it from a personal point of view — and all members of government are

spending their time here anyway, instead of perhaps working on the

various programs, getting ready for when we meet again — we could

possibly come back to this House day after day. If only I could be

assured that there might be something positive, I would be very pleased

to support that. But after ten days of nothing, after ten days of no

suggestions — ten days of opportunity for the opposition to bring forth

some alternatives, to zero in on some of the problems as they affect

British Columbians, the most outstanding suggestion, the one that will

be remembered most as having come from the opposition, was in fact not

even made in this chamber.

Lock the Legislature. Shut the

place up. We don't need a Legislature — have some protests, put the

chains and padlock on the door of the Legislature. I truly hope that

British Columbians won't forget that sort of statement, because it's

perhaps indicative of some of the attitudes that we've seen displayed

by members of the opposition.

Can you imagine when, on the

one hand, I hear from the opposition the argument that we ought to

continue — though they've contributed nothing — and on the other hand,

I hear the member who's conveniently missing tonight say: "Lock the

place, padlock it.... If enough students could get over to Victoria

next week, maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature. Is that a

responsible statement from a member elected to the Legislature of

British Columbia? Terrible! Shame, shame, shame! I would hope that the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) — you live in Victoria,

but you're originally from Vancouver East — I would hope that the

Leader of the Opposition will get up and explain for the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) what it is that he intended here,

why it is that on the one hand they want to lock the doors and on the

other hand they're now debating to continue on. Mr. Speaker, as I try

to make up my mind on this particular motion, I can't help but think

that maybe the reason they want to go on is that they've been caught.

They did not contribute. Their leader did not speak in the debate and

all British Columbians must be aware of that. He did not speak in the

throne speech debate. Shame, shame, shame!

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

MS. BROWN:

On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express my most profound

thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for describing the last ten

days as accurately as possible: ten days of nothing. That's precisely

what it was, Now after ten days of nothing, that minister, the person

who insisted that every person in British Columbia should be given a

shovel so that they could go out and work, wants to pick up his

paycheque and slither off to his lettuce patch and not do the nation's

business. Then he complains about the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) wanting to lock him into the

Legislature, so that we can get some work out of that lazy, shiftless

government over there.

I have no choice but to speak against

this motion. Earlier this afternoon, when the Premier was in his place,

before he went home to bed early tonight, he said that what his

government wants for this province is work and wages for the people,

not waste and welfare. I think we're going to have to start by getting

them off welfare.

Earlier this month in a column in his

newspaper, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kemp) congratulated the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for getting the bums off

welfare.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We're

going to start with him. We're going to start by getting that bum off

welfare. I do not know one single income assistance recipient in this

province who would have the gall to put in ten days of nothing, as

described by one of his colleagues, and would want to pick up a

paycheque and go home for another two or three months, and think that

he had earned it. I don't know one income assistance recipient who

would dare do that — living off the public purse; come down here,

dressed up in his tuxedo, dancing at Government House, pick up his

cheque, and then off for a holiday. Well, the opposition came here to

work, and we're going to stay here and work. If they don't want to

work, they can go home. They can do their holidaying. They can go

elsewhere.

I can't believe it. I'm not even going to quote

that minister any further — the one who went around this province,

talking about deadbeats, lazy people and shiftless people, and trying

to move the income assistance recipients from the rural areas to the

city, from the city to the rural areas, shifting them back and forth.

King PREP. Who remembers PREP? Can anyone forget PREP? PREP was

supposed to find work for people who didn't want to work. We need PREP

now for that minister over there. We're not going to have him rushing

around at the taxpayers' expense and picking lettuce all over the place

when he should be here. I don't know what he's going to do with the

lettuce, but whatever it is he's going to stay here and work.

The

Minister of Human Resources, in an

article in April 1980, said: "The

welfare problems of this province could be solved if only the clients

would go to work." That's right. We could solve the welfare problems if

only the clients would go to work. I can tell you that every single

client — all 60,000 of them — would take on that job today, if they

thought they could get her kind of salary for six days' work.

believe that charity should begin at home. I believe it should start

right here. We should set an example. The government that said to the

single parent, "Unless you are lactating, get to work, " should

themselves, unless they are lactating, get to work.

Interjection.

[ Page 6782 ]

MS. BROWN:

I don't know what their excuse is. I don't know what the excuse of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs is — why he doesn't want to stay here and

work. Or the member for Omineca, who was so thrilled that the Minister

of Human Resources was going to be getting bums off of welfare; or the

minister of methane over there — what's his excuse? We don't know what

the methane minister's excuse is.

The Premier is at home in

bed. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is at home in bed. The

Minister of Human Resources is at home in bed. The Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is at home in bed. The Minister of Finance is at home

in bed. Highways is home in bed. Municipal Affairs has now gone home to

bed. Energy is at home in bed. I don't know why they call it energy,

but anyway, he is at home in bed. Let the record show they're all

sleeping.

I'm telling you that even if we were tempted to go

home and go to bed ourselves, we can't do it because the Minister of

Human Resources said in the Times-Colonist not more than two or

three days ago that any welfare mother who would rather stay home with

her child than go to work does not have a leg to stand on. Single

parents with children six months of age or over — they can't go home.

They can't put in six days of work or ten days of nothing, pick up a

paycheque and then go off on holiday until March. No, they can't do

that. Once a month they have to trot down to the welfare office and

say: "I have been looking for work. I have been unable to find work,

because that lazy government hasn't created any jobs for us. Therefore

will you please, for one more month, give me that lousy cheque that I

have to live on." That's the kind of thing that the opposition is not

prepared to allow you to go home and continue to let happen in this

province.

In a page 5

article in the Sun the Minister

of Human Resources says there is an alternative to welfare. It's a

beautiful article. The headline is: "There is an Alternative to

Welfare." Have you got the slightest idea what that alternative is, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Get elected as a Socred.

MS. BROWN:

That's what they'd like to think. But the alternative that the minister

put forward to the welfare recipients was work. I think that that

government should explore that alternative themselves. I think they

should get some work done. We came here with a number of issues that we

thought the government was prepared to address itself to.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name one.

MS. BROWN:

Pharmacare. That's the first one I'm going to talk about. The Minister

of Human Resources stood on the floor of this House and said: "You

didn't tell the world about the great program of Pharmacare which we

have."

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

MS. BROWN:

I am not finished with Pharmacare, Mr. Prep. The golden shovel shovels

and having shovelled moves on. No way! You're going to stay here, Mr.

Prep, until we get this thing done.

Pharmacare. What do we

hear about that great program? Last year they discovered that the

average person on Pharmacare submitted a bill for $130, which meant

that the government had to cough up $30 for each of the 200,000 people

who put in a claim for Pharmacare. Do you know how they dealt with

that, Mr. Speaker? Do you know how that wonderful, wise, kind, lazy,

shiftless, indolent government dealt with that? They raised the base by

$25, so that this time all they have to pay, rather than $30, is five

lousy, measly bucks. And they have the nerve to stand around for ten

days of nothing and brag about that great program of Pharmacare. Making

money off the backs of the poor — that's what your government has

always done. That's your trademark.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

I'm not through with Pharmacare yet. You are very uncomfortable when I

point out that these programs that you go around bragging about and

call universal, when you're through putting them into place, don't

benefit anybody but yourselves. That's what's wrong with your universal

programs. The government's going to start making money from Pharmacare.

The government's going to start making money off the backs of the poor

so that you lazy, indolent people over there can put in ten days of

nothing, pick up your paycheques and go on holidays for three months.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, it's okay if he interrupts me; I can understand his

discomfort, because now the truth is coming out, and he doesn't want to

deal with the truth.

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

Interjection.

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

Mr.

Speaker, GAIN was $38.88 for every person who needed that supplement.

The GAIN supplement, when they came in in 1976, was $38.88. What do you

think it is today, Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1981, when they're about

to take off on their four-month holiday? What do you think their

supplement is today? It is $38.88, exactly what it was at the end of

1975. And the Minister of Human Resources had the gall to stand on the

floor of this House and say that they've raised the bus passes because

the bus passes have never been raised before, and the senior citizens

are living in the lap of luxury and so they should be able to handle an

increase in the bus pass.

They haven't increased the

supplement that they pay to the senior citizens, but they've certainly

increased every charge that they've ever placed on the senior citizens.

You know what the senior citizens are doing? For the first time in the

history of this province, there are more senior citizens leaving this

province than coming into it. Now that should tell you something. Young

people always leave the province looking for work, because they know

that this government is too lazy to create any jobs. The young people

have always had to leave this province. The seniors used to stay, but

they're not staying any more. They can't hack the increases. They can't

afford the increases in utilities, in their heating, in their housing.

There's

a little cafeteria, Mr. Speaker, called "The 44," which is specifically

designed to feed people who are in receipt of the GAIN supplements or

income assistance or on fixed income of some sort. They've increased

the cost of food to those people. The Minister of Human Resources, when

she

[ Page 6783 ]

justified

that, said the same thing: the food hasn't been increased in a long

time. But neither has GAIN. They have not received one single increase

since they came into office in 1976. Can the Minister say the same

thing about the perks and the benefits that the minister receives? Can

she?

If she had to make do with her 1976 salary, would she

be taking off on a four-month holiday now after ten days of nothing?

Would she? No, she wouldn't.

Mr. Speaker, if that government

is serious, as the Premier said, about work and wages rather than

welfare, if that minister is serious about putting everybody to work....

The greatest waste....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent

on us to remain with the subject matter before us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, please hear me out without the interruptions from the

other side. There is every opportunity to discuss the estimates for the

Minister of Human Resources when they come before the House, and

certainly now is not the time to get into the estimates of the Ministry

of Human Resources. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you keep the hon.

members in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon.

members. Again, it might be an appropriate time just to refresh

ourselves with the actual motion before us. May I just briefly read it

for the benefit of all. The motion is:

"...that the house at its rising do stand adjourned

until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, after

consultation with the government that the public interest requires that the

House shall meet. Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may give notice that he

is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated on such

notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that

time."

Hon.

members, that is the motion before us. We must not allow ourselves to

enter the same latitude of debate that we had in the throne speech, or

the debates that have just gone by. I would ask all members to bear

that in mind, as both the present member and the previous speaker have

done.

MS. BROWN: I will certainly carry on in the

footsteps of the speaker who spoke before me, because I know he didn't

go out of order even once. So I will certainly follow his example and

stick to the motion, which is the reason why we must not adjourn. We

cannot adjourn, because the work that we came here to do has not been

completed. As much as we regret the demonstration of laziness on the

part of the government, as much as we regret their inability to

concentrate for longer than six days on anything, and despite the fact

that we recognize that they really would like to get started on their

four-month holiday, we cannot permit that to happen, because the people

of British Columbia have work that must be done, and it has to be done

by the members of this House. So we're just going to have to carry on.

speaking to this motion, I can only address myself to the issues which

I came here to work on and the issues which I came here to raise, and

which must be raised before this House is adjourned. They are the

reasons why I am speaking against this motion to adjourn.

Mr.

Speaker, I was talking about the senior citizens who sent us here to

work and fight on their behalf. The first point I raised had to do with

the Pharmacare program, which is now going to penalize them, and on

which the government will make money. The second point I want to raise

is the SAFER program. In each of these, I want to reiterate that the

government goes around talking about the universality of these

programs; how universal they are; how they help so many people and they

do so many things. In fact, when you get to look at the programs, you

find that that's not what is happening after all. Look at the budget

for SAFER in 1978 and 1979. It was $12.2 million. In 1979 and 1980 it

dropped to $9 million. In 1981 and 1982 it's still $9 million. Why is

that? Because, for one thing, SAFER doesn't kick in until a senior

citizen is paying more than 30 percent of their lousy benefit on rent.

They don't get any assistance at all until they're paying more than 30

percent of their benefit on rent. Secondly, the base at which SAFER

kicks in does not have any relationship whatsoever with the actual rent

that seniors have to pay.

The House cannot adjourn until we

pay attention to the kinds of things that the Council of Senior

Citizens organization in B.C. are saying. They have called upon the

government to re-examine SAFER so that senior citizens do not have to

pay more than 25 percent of their income on rent. I remind you again

that the federal government has an incremental increase in terms of

what the senior citizens receive, but the provincial government has not

given the senior citizens of this province one red cent over the $38.88

since they came into government in 1976. Chuck Bayley himself wrote in

an

article in Primetime in April of this year in the Vancouver Sun

that Safer was becoming less and less helpful because the number of

people who are eligible under the formula lagged far behind the actual

rents. The problem is that rent goes up, but SAFER doesn't kick in to

help.

It is easy for a government to create a program which

gives some level of assistance. The fact that the amount and current

rates don't bear much relation over time to the reality is hidden by

the political posturing of the Minister of Human Resources and her

colleagues, who go around and talk about the brilliant programs and the

wonderful things this government is doing for the senior citizens. In

fact, in 1980 there were 13,000 people who were in receipt of SAFER,

and this year it's down to something like 866 couples and something in

the neighbourhood of less than 10,000 single people.

The

senior citizens recognize that, and it's because the senior citizens

recognize that, Mr. Speaker, that they are leaving the province. I

think it is disgraceful at a time when our senior citizens are being

penalized. They cannot make ends meet when they're finding inflation —

increases in the cost of housing, food, transportation and utilities —

deliberately brought on by this government. All of these increases are

making it impossible for them to make do on that lousy $38.88. This

government has the gall to come here, Mr. Speaker, and spend ten days

doing nothing. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Go to a ball

at Government House, dress up in their tuxedos, pick up their paycheque

and tell the world that they're going on holidays for four months." We

cannot tolerate that; that is just not good enough. It's not just that

they're lazy, but they also lack compassion. They have no care

whatsoever for the people in this province, who unlike themselves....

And the Minister for Municipal Affairs now goes home to bed. He said

his two bits and he goes home to bed. How many senior citizens cannot

sleep

[ Page 6784 ]

tonight,

Mr. Speaker? How many senior citizens cannot sleep tonight, because

this government is shutting up shop and going on holidays for four

months and not addressing themselves to the fact that they are asking

for that amendment to the act to be brought in so that senior citizens

don't have to pay more than 25 percent of their income on rent.

What

percentage of income do any of those government members pay on rent? Do

any of those government members pay 25 percent of their income on rent?

No, and that's the reason, Mr. Speaker, that they can take a four-month

holiday. They can take off for four months in the sun, in the lettuce

patch, up north, down south or wherever. They can take off for four

months because none of them have to put up 25 percent of their income

for rent.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A

quarter of a million dollar house on Rockland Avenue? Well, he probably

needs a four-month holiday to recover from that, so we can understand

it.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to stay here and

work; I came here to work. I'm not satisfied with the ten days of

nothing that we just went through. That's the reason I'm not supporting

this motion. You should be fighting with your government on behalf of

your colleagues in the IWA. That's what you should be doing. Instead of

that you're voting yourself a four-month holiday. There are 15,000

colleagues out of work and you're going on a four-month holiday? Mr.

Speaker, I know that 15,000 of your colleagues are not out of work.

They're here, aren't they? But 15,000 of the colleagues of the member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) are, and that member is voting himself a

four-month holiday after six days work and ten days of nothing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Anyway,

I'm still speaking on behalf of the senior citizens, Mr. Speaker,

because there is no one here — certainly not on the government side —

who is prepared to speak on behalf of them. The SAFER program was just

the beginning. You know, the senior citizens asked for increases in the

SAFER benefits. They asked that SAFER benefits not be cut off from one

spouse just because the other spouse had died. Do you know what they

got? They got a telephone service. Now they have a phone to phone in

and say....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That's right. The number is no longer in service, not for four months

anyway. This line is out of order until March 1. That's what they'll

get when they phone that information service. So all the complaints

that they have about the bus pass and the lack of increase in their

GAIN and about the SAFER and Pharmacare and all those other expenses

can't be dealt with until that bunch of dilettantes over there come

back from their four-month holiday — all brown as nuts from their

four-month holiday in the sun, Mr. Speaker. We really can't support

this. Even the auditor-general isn't taking a holiday.

Interjection.

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

The

auditor-general was so concerned about the Ministry of Human Resources

that in her report tabled in this House in March 1980 she voiced a

number of serious concerns about the way in which the income assistance

program was being run and about the on-line computer system there. In

the report she tabled in the House, the minister responded by saying

that a formal view of the income assistance computer system has been

carried out by consultants, and this report was going to be completed

by October. We anticipated that it would be released in October.

October came and October went. November came and November is gone.

December is here, and we understand that everyone is getting ready to

go home and won't be back until March. What's happening to that

auditors' report? When is it going to be tabled in this House? The

minister has it. I know the minister has it. Why hasn't that report

been tabled in the House? We can't pick up and go on a four-month

holiday until we find out what the auditors had to say in that report.

wonder if one of the reasons the minister hasn't tabled that report is

that the main findings and recommendations of the Currie, Coopers and

Lybrand management audit of the on-line income assistance system are:

The objectives and goals of the system are not clear; the major

features desired by the district offices have been omitted — further

bungling and incompetence on the part of that lazy and inept minister

and her government.

2. This finding was that the best use of

the currently available technology has not been made — further bungling

on the part of that inept and lazy government and minister.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Standing orders and the precedents of this

House, which you have placed in my hands in order to assist you in your

debate, say: "It is not in order to go into subjects in any detail.

They can only be advanced as reasons for not adjourning." I'm waiting

to hear some more reasons, rather than some more detail.

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

can't believe this. Mr. Speaker, there are only six government members

who are not home in bed. There are only six government members still

awake, still around, still in this House. Of the cabinet ministers,

there are only three here — who shall remain nameless. All the others

have left, at a time when we are finding out from the auditors' report

about the bungling going on in the Ministry of Human Resources, when we

are finding out about the problems of senior citizens, when I'm about

to talk about the problems of the disabled, to say nothing of the

problems of infants being kicked off Human Resources because they're

over six months of age. There are only six government members in the

House. There are only six government members working. They're not even

working, because one is rubbing his eyes and the other is sleeping.

However,

the auditors' report on the on-line system said that the Ministry of

Human Resources is not organized to get the job done. The lines of

accountability, the roles of personnel, and responsibility for control

of the project are unclear. That's the reason the report has not been

tabled in the House. It has been devastating. It has been an indictment

of the ineptness, incompetence and bungling that goes on in that

Ministry of Human Resources.

[ Page 6785 ]

Something

you also may not know is that, in fact, the Minister of Human Resources

has already wired the system in order for it to be in place. Money has

already been spent thousands upon thousand of dollars to put this

on-line computer system in place, which the auditors now tell us is not

able to do the job. They recommend that it is not designed to

accommodate the needs of the user to the level possible, and that the

ministry should redivide the project organization and related

accountability. Do you know what the ministry has done, based on these

recommendations? After spending thousands of dollars putting the system

into place — having it audited, being told that it was totally out of

order and that it wasn't doing the job — they have scrapped it. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know, but I want to remind you that in this

article in

the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, November 28 the minister said:

"In times of ever-increasing costs it is essential that my ministry

take a hard, look at how it spends taxpayers' dollars to ensure that

they will go where they will do the most good." Putting in an on-line

computer system costing thousands of dollars and then scrapping it....

Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that that was being careful with the

taxpayers' dollars? Would you say that was taking a hard look at how

the taxpayers' dollars were being spent? Would you say that that was

ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars were going where they would make

and do the most good? As I said, I am not going to table the report. I

am not going to discuss the report, because that's not allowed and I

don't want to be out of order.

But I do want to bring to

your attention that I cannot vote for adjournment until March until

we've cleared up this issue. We have to find out from that minister how

much money was spent on the wiring for that on-line system. We want to

know what it costs and we want that translated, Mr. Speaker, into how

much is being taken away from single parents to pay for that bungle.

How many fifty-five dollars had to be sucked out of the pockets of

single parents to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How many

thirty-five dollars had to be taken away from families on income

assistance to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How many senior

citizens had to pay the increase in their bus passes so that there was

enough money to cover the cost of that Human Resources bungle? Because

you know what happens when Human Resources bungles and wastes money,

Mr. Speaker. The poor are the ones who pay for it, not the government

members over there. They are the ones who pay for it — the senior

citizens, the disabled, the infants over the age of six months and the

single parents. They are the people who are being told that they must

go to work so that the ministry can make money off their labours to pay

for this kind of bungling.

After the auditor-general brought

in her report, the ministry assured us that a study was being done that

was going to be tabled in this House. It hasn't been tabled and we find

out why. When the minister says that there is no money that's going to

be made from taking away from the poor the $55 a month which they

haven't got, or the $35 from the single parent families.... Now they

won't make any money because that money has to go to cover the cost of

this kind of bungling and ineptitude on the part of that incompetent

ministry and that lazy shiftless government over there,

Mr.

Speaker, the association for disabled persons in British Columbia has

asked us to come to this House before the International Year of the

Disabled comes to an end and ask that the Human Rights Code be amended

so that their rights are protected and they no longer have to suffer

discrimination because they're disabled.

We can't adjourn

this House until March. That has to be done now. We want the Minister

of Labour to bring in that Human Rights code and to bring in that

amendment. We want to see the Human Rights code amended before the

International Year of the Disabled comes to an end. December 31 is the

last day of this year of the International Year of the Disabled. The

minister who has been responsible, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith), has done little enough, so may he rest in peace. But one of the

things that the disabled people ask for and have never stopped asking

for was that they be treated exactly the same as everyone else in this

province. That's what they've asked for. They have asked that in the

same way that the Human Rights code forbids discrimination based on

age, sex, race or marital status. They ask that their rights be

protected too. Now is that too much to ask this government to do before

it takes off on a four-month holiday? Is that too much, Mr. Speaker?

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry that my time is up. Very quickly, I just want to

read into the record a letter which the Minister of Human Resources

received from the council in Lake Cowichan. It said: "Dear Madam

Minister:

"At the last meeting of council, I

was requested to write on their behalf to express their dismay and

protest the recent changes to the GAIN program. Council is not happy

with the reduction in benefits and the

interpretation of 'employable'

for the following reasons:

" 1) Even if one

were to agree that single mothers should be working, there are no job

opportunities for women in Lake Cowichan. The 27 applicants received

from unemployed women for the village's one secretarial vacancy last

month is evidence of this.

"2) Day-care

facilities in Lake Cowichan already have up to a two-year waiting list,

and they are unwilling to accept children under the age of three.

"Last

year, the Island Shake and Shingle mill, through a fire, displaced many

employees. Last week Western Forest Products announced the closure of

their Honeymoon Bay and Gordon Bay operations, displacing 357

employees. The immediate future for many people in this area is not

bright, and for those people requiring social assistance it is even

more dim. It is not a time to make social assistance more difficult to

obtain, and we would urge your reconsideration of this matter."

cannot, Mr. Speaker, support this motion to adjourn, because for the

first time in 60 years of social services in this province, the money

for income assistance is being cut back and the family is being

undermined, threatened and dismantled.

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

MR. LEA: Mr.

Speaker, there are two and a half million reasons why the official

opposition cannot vote for this motion. Each and every one of those

reasons is a citizen of this province. With the exception of those

members in this House who were Social Credit Party members previous to

1975, I'm not surprised that the government members didn't come to this

House with any idea of helping anyone. I am surprised, though, that

Social Credit members prior to 1975 can vote for

[ Page 6786 ]

this

motion, because Social Credit, like our party, Mr. Speaker, even though

we have our differences, believes that government is an instrument that

should help the people, not hinder people. We had different ideas, the

old Social Credit and the old CCF, of how we would use the instrument

of government to help people, but we both believed that government

should. Not the Liberals and Conservatives over there; they don't

believe in it. Look at the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Can anyone honestly believe that he

believes government is an instrument that should be used to help

everybody — not just the few, not just the elitists, not just the rich?

Mr.

Speaker, there are two kinds of people in this House. There's one group

that looks at the future and, especially this winter, sees it as pretty

bleak. The other group looks at this winter and the future and they see

it as pretty bleak. We agree on that. But should we do something about

it? Should we use the power of the state to actually help people over

these coming months? Should we actually use the power of the state to

help the economy in this province? We on this side of the House believe

yes. But on that side, every time those government members get up to

speak they do nothing but bad-mouth the state. They do nothing but

bad-mouth government. They don't like state and they don't like

government. Mr. Speaker, what would it be like if they actually had

their way and there was no state? They're so fond of standing up in

their places and talking about the evils of the state. If, for one

moment, they would stop and think about the barbaric state we would be

in without the modern state, and without democracy, maybe they would

spout a different story. Just maybe.

The Premier stands in

his place in this House. I've heard him and other members over there

time and time again talk about how the state takes away from the

individual. If only they'd read history. Without the state, individuals

have no right except the right of the sword, the mighty, the rich.

Without the state we are barbaric. Without the state we are not

civilized. The reason that they don't think they should help is not

that they don't want to; they're not bad human beings. They just

honestly believe that the state should not help people. They believe

that the government is only there to make sure that the state doesn't

interfere with people's lives, whether it's good or bad. They don't

believe we should.

They don't really believe that there is a

role for government to play at this critical time in our history. They

don't believe that the state has any business interfering with the

economy. Well, we believe differently. We believe it is the obligation

of the state to husband, nurture, guide and make sure that the economy

serves everyone. What could be done? Over there, they have not one

positive suggestion as to what could be done. It's a little

inconceivable that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) stands

in his place and lays out a program of putting IWA members to work in

this province, doing something that should be done on behalf of the

state, and therefore on behalf of the people, and they have no positive

suggestions. They believe that you set the climate, and that you set

the climate by not doing anything. But the state is there to do

nothing. We saw a throne speech in the last ten days that proves that's

what they believe: the state should do nothing to help people.

One

of my earliest memories is my father getting up in the morning and

going out. It was during the Depression. They used to dig holes and

move the dirt down the road and pile it there. The next week, they'd

get up and they'd take the dirt and put it back in the hole. They

believe in that, because that's dole. They believe in welfare, but they

don't believe in sharing.

Why is it, you have to ask

yourself, that a group of human beings would come into this Legislature

as government, in the most trying times since the last Depression, and

offer not one bit of hope, not one bit of help for the coming months?

It's because they believe it's dog-eat-dog. They believe it's a cruel

world out there. They believe people should help themselves, and by

God, if this government's in power they'd better learn to help

themselves, because they'll get no help out of that bunch.

They

are willing messengers of the rich. I love the words "free enterprise."

They used to be called capitalists on that side of the House until it

became a bad word, and then they changed it to "free enterprise." It's

got such a nice ring to it. It's free and it's enterprise. They're not

capitalists over there any more. They like to yell over here:

"Socialist! Socialist!" But maybe we should start calling them by their

right name. Capitalists. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), shakes his head and says that's right.

There are

other words that get changed in time. When this kind of economic state

first hit us, it was called "panic." Then it was called "crisis"

because panic got a dirty name. Then it was called "depression."

Depression became a dirty word, so now we call it "recession," and now

some people call it a "downturn, " and the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) over there calls it "hard times." Hard times for whom?

know that we're wasting our time here tonight. We know we're wasting

our time if we expect to get results from that government; but we're

not wasting our time speaking on behalf of the people of this province.

I don't believe that the people who are working in this province or the

people who are in business in this province agree with what the

government is not doing. I can't believe it. As legislators, we meet

with some of the top business people from the biggest corporations in

this province. And not once have I heard the insensitivity towards the

working people in this province expressed.... Not by those people —

they feel sensitive; they have to work with those people; they work for

them and with them. But this group doesn't have any sensitivity towards

what people are going through.

Does the Premier have

sensitivity? Well, I guess it's easy to feel that it's a dog-eat-dog

world and only the fit will survive when you've been born with that

golden spoon in your mouth. It's not that big a feat to walk into the

bank, when you're the Premier's son and your brother's a director of

the bank, and get a little old loan to get you going or tide you over

for the winter.

But when you're all alone.... Maybe you've

just moved out here a year ago from New Brunswick — one of the people

they're always talking about. Maybe you're somebody who saw an

opportunity in British Columbia to come out, raise a family, send your

children to school and make a living — not with all the connections

that any of us in this Legislature have got. We're going to survive the

winter and we're going to do it very nicely. But what about the people

we represent? Who is going to help them survive? Who is going to get

them through the winter?

I believe that that government is

so callous they won't follow the suggestion of the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Do you know why? To put people into the

forests to help replant trees, clean creeks and do all of those things

that need to be done would take money out of the

[ Page 6787 ]

provincial

coffers; but to leave them idle and collecting unemployment insurance

takes money out of the federal coffers. It's as simple as that — no

help from this government because they would rather see idleness than

productivity; they would rather see federal tax dollars spent than

provincial. Even if they're on social assistance, part of the money is

picked up by the federal government. So it's not a bad deal for that

group over there. No matter which way you slice it, the feds have to

pick up a big chunk of the bill.

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

MR. LEA:

I'm relating it, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we should not be

adjourning this House, because that group over there is irresponsible

and will not do what people want them to do. I do not believe that

there are any more than 30 people in this province — and I exclude you,

Mr. Speaker — who don't think the government should do something,

except the group over there. Maybe in the back bench, I don't know. But

they want a cabinet post so bad they can taste it, and they're not even

going to represent their own people.

What about the member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) ? Is he going to vote for this motion? Is he

going to vote that we leave this Legislature, and all of those people

in Kootenay riding who don't have enough food, who don't have enough

money to pay their mortgages, who don't have any hope over this winter,

who are going to have to spend Christmas — not like we are, sitting

around our fires and our trees with our children and our presents....

No, they're not going to be doing that, but the member for Kootenay is

going to vote for this motion to get out of here without doing one

thing for his constituents.

What about the new member for

Kamloops (Mr. Richmond)? What does he think of it all? Is it what he

expected? Did he expect to come down and take his place in this august

chamber, and then go home to Kamloops after ten days of doing nothing,

having to tell his people: "I didn't do anything for you, because I'm

in the back bench and I have to vote for them. Some day I want to be a

cabinet minister. Isn't that important for Kamloops?" I tell you it's

more important for Kamloops that those people have a Christmas turkey

than that they get a turkey in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I

don't know how those people stand up in the morning and look into that

mirror and shave, if they do shave. I don't know how they get up in the

morning and look into that mirror and comb their beards. I don't know

how they can look in that mirror and look themselves straight in the

eye and say: "We did the best for our people in British Columbia." How

can those backbenchers say, "We did the best for the people we

represent, " when after ten days of doing nothing — not one program for

the unemployed, not one program to put them back to work — they want to

go out of here voting for a motion to come back in March? How are they

going to explain it, Mr. Speaker? How are they going to explain that we

came back into the fall session of the Legislature and left without

doing one thing for the economy or for any individual who is up against

it?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says we're going

through hard times. The Premier admits it, because no one can deny it.

We're going through one of the roughest winters in the last 30 years,

and at the same time we have said to single parents in this province:

"You're going to take a cut. Now, the reason you're going to take a cut

is so that you're going to have the opportunity of going out and

finding a non-existent job." No training.

I've got a

positive suggestion, Mr. Speaker: instead of putting people on social

assistance and then offering them no hope, why don't we give them a

little bit more money and put them into some training programs? Why

don't we say that down the road we're going to need these skills in

British Columbia? What better source do we have than the unemployed?

What better source do we have than single mothers? What better source

do we have of people who can be trained to do the jobs in industry?

The

downturn isn't going to be forever; it's going to pick up. We all know

that because we've all got faith in British Columbia; we've all got

faith that things are going to get better. But when things get better,

Mr. Speaker, surely the very people who are suffering the most now

deserve a chance at that better life. What are we going to do? Cut down

their money, with no training and no day care? That is unfeeling, and

it's insensitive.

Did you see the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, when he was being interviewed by the press, and he kept

insisting that we weren't in a recession, or, as they used to call it,

depression; as they used to call it before that, panic; as they used to

call it before that, crisis? He said: "Well, no, we're not in a

recession; we're in hard times." The reporters pressed the minister and

said: "But when you have two quarters in a row where there is a

downturn and no growth, isn't that a recession?" The Minister of

Finance said: "Well, I guess economists would call it that, but our

government calls it hard times." We call it hard times too. But you

know, Mr. Speaker, it's harder for some than it is for most of us. It's

hard enough to get along these days with the inflation when you're

making money, when you're working for a living. It's hard enough to

make the old paycheque stretch, Mr. Speaker, when your mortgage can

double overnight, when your groceries can go up $100 a month from one

year to the next if you have a family of four. Those are hard times,

Mr. Speaker, and because those hard times are not in the future but

here with us now, this opposition cannot vote for a frivolous motion to

skedaddle — to run, to offer no solution, and not come up with one

program.

I never thought I'd see the day when I thought it

would be a bright outlook to hope for the old dole that the federal

government used to dish out during the Depression, but those days are

looking pretty good for some people. Mr. Speaker, for the length of

this throne speech the government has stood over in its place and said:

"We don't know what to do. Don't you in the opposition have any

suggestions? We're out of ideas." When we give them an idea, they say:

"No, not that one. That will cost us money, not the feds" — planting

trees, cleaning out streams, making fish habitat a better place to be.

Look at some of the things that can be done in public works — jobs that

mean something to our society in the long term. It is not dole, but

paying out taxpayers' money for jobs that need to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you as a family man: does it make sense? Let's

equate the economy of British Columbia with the family. Really that's what

it boils down to. It's the same thing. The numbers are bigger, but it's

the same story. You can use the analogy. We have people out of work, and what

are we doing? We're building Pier B-C, B.C. Place and northeast coal. Every

time we point to those projects with some criticism the Minister of Science

says: "Are you against them? Okay, tell us what they are. We'll tell

the people. In 1933, 1937, 1944." It makes a cute speech.

[ Page 6788 ]

Take

the average family, when times get rough. The family may have planned

to build an extension on their home — a worthwhile thing. It's like

B.C. coal — a worthwhile thing. It's like B.C. Place — a worthwhile

project. A convention centre in Victoria, Vancouver and in other

communities — worthwhile projects. But surely when times are rough on

the family, regardless of how much cash flow you have to buy groceries

for the table, you don't go out and build the extension to the house

anyway. You'd probably say: "You know, it's a worthwhile thing that we

were planning on doing — building the extension on the house. But while

we have only enough money to feed ourselves and to put clothes on our

backs, maybe we should cancel the extension on the house for a while —

not forever but until the mortgage rates come down and until we can

afford to build." Not these birds. They say: "We don't care whether our

children get fresh fruit. We don't care whether our family has a

nutritious diet. We don't care whether they have rubbers for the

winter. We don't care whether they have fare to go to school. We don't

care about all those things. The extension on the house is more

important than the everyday requirements to get through this winter."

Does

it make sense? Could anybody in his right mind say that it makes sense?

The extension on the house might bring a better way of life in the

future, as will the convention centre and the stadium and a sensibly

planned coal export. All those things are good for the future, but you

don't go ahead when you don't have any money to put food on the table

for the people of this province. It just doesn't make any sense. Yet

they like to think of themselves as the common-sense group, the people

who know what a buck is. Obviously they don't.

Is there any

one of them who would run his own personal affairs the way they are

running the affairs of this province? I doubt it. Is there any one of

them who would go ahead with the extension on their house at the

expense of a nutritious diet for their children? I doubt it. Yet when

they get in government they can't seem to see the forest for the trees

— that's no different. The extension on the house and B.C. Place and

Pier B-C are no different.

I can't honestly believe that

they see the difference. They do. But the political opportunism that

brought them together as a group of opportunists won't let go of them,

even after they've had power for six years. They can't bring themselves

to realize that they aren't there just to be there; they aren't there

just to keep us out. Not everything goes to keep us out. That's why

they got together in the first place. It's not because they had a

common goal; it's not because they had a common dream; it's not because

they had a common perception of what the future should hold in this

province for the citizens and our business community and for the

handicapped. No, they came together for a negative reason: they came

together to keep the NDP out.

Now they want to go home. They

bring a motion before this House saying: "We want to go home. We've

been here for eight days. We talked about the throne speech. There's

going to be a conference in the spring that will solve the economy.

We're going to have coal going out in 1984; that will help people this

winter. We're going to have big sports games in the stadium in

Vancouver; that's two years away, and will be a big help. Oh, if we can

just get Pier B-C on the way, won't that be great? The answer is yes,

they will all be great, and they're needed. But they're not needed this

winter when people are suffering.

One of the members here

said one of the positive things that you could do is bring in a program

on interest rates like they did in Saskatchewan. I heard Premier

Blakeney said: "Well, you know, the banks may be a little mad, but our

obligation is to the people of Saskatchewan." That's because Premier

Blakeney doesn't owe the banks anything. These people owe everything to

that group, because when you take a look at the directors of the banks,

you see that it's the same people who pay the campaign funds to make

sure they're here.

Now if you take money from the very

people who are setting the banking policy in this country, then you've

got to suffer the consequences. And that government and that political

party over there can't seem to understand that when those people who

are the captains of industry and the banking system in this country

give them money to get elected, they want to be paid back.

There's

only one thing they have to pay them back with, and that's the

resources in this province that belong to us all in a commonwealth.

They take our common wealth and they give it to a few, for their own

personal desire to get into government, which they hate. They don't

like government. They don't like the state. They think the state should

keep out of everything, and what the state doesn't keep out of, the

government should. The only reason they want to be in power is to

maintain and perpetuate the status quo. And after ten days of nothing,

they have succeeded in perpetuating the status quo: do nothing.

Mr.

Speaker, I can't figure out why they want to be here. I can't figure

out why the government wants to be the government when they don't feel

that they should be doing those things that the government should do.

Are we so cynical that we have to believe that they want to bring a

motion to get out of here because they're just in it for the money, or

for the prestige, or for their egos? Why do they want to be the

government?

You know, I think I'd go on the election

campaign trail with that. That would be enough. Why do they want to be

the government? They don't think the government should do anything

except set a climate. And even there, they've failed, because the major

projects that are underway in this province are underway with

taxpayers' money. What climate was it that brought in all of this

foreign money to invest in this province? Where is it, Mr. Speaker?

What kind of a climate did they set? They must have set a pretty bad

climate, because I don't see the entrepreneurs and the financiers

coming into B.C. to invest their money under Social Credit. They

actually had to resort to spending the taxpayers' money to get the

economy going. Is that the climate they were talking about — the

climate to spend the taxpayers' money in subsidizing private industry?

Yes,

that's the kind of climate that the free enterprisers — no, I'm sorry,

the capitalists — like. The free enterprisers may be a little bit

different, because they're modern capitalists and believe in a mixed

economy. In six years these people have not shown one reason why they

should be in government.

I remember a by-election a few

years ago where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Peter Hyndman) ran and lost. He ran for the Conservative Party. After

that election, he sent a letter to us. He sent it to my colleague,, our

leader, and said: "Boy, at least one thing: we kept the Socreds out."

We still have the letter on file, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6789 ]

don't know why. What change of heart! What a change of mind! What made

that politician change his mind in such a very brief space of time? I

think it was probably a couple of weeks later that he joined the

Socreds. If you can't beat them, join them, and for what — to come into

this House and for ten days, give us nothing?

Mr. Speaker,

if we leave here now, this will be the winter of our discontent.

Because if we leave here without doing anything for the people who need

our help, not as political parties but as a Legislature, as government,

government backbenchers and opposition members.... Are we so damned

uncivilized that we can't talk to one another? Are we so uncivilized

that we can't come up with a plan among all 57 of us here that wouldn't

be one little bit of hope and help for the people? Are we so partisan

that in ten days the government could do nothing but talk about the

evils of socialism? Are we so bankrupt of ideas and integrity that we

put all of that stupid, political partisanship in front of the people

of this province? Have we fallen to the depths of that, that that

government doesn't care as long as they're there? Until this session I

didn't believe it, but how can we not?

After ten days we're

going to leave the people of this province destitute of hope on

interest rates, on jobs and in some cases on food. A cutback to us

doesn't mean that much. The federal people bring in a budget. We have

to pay a little more income tax; it means we can't go to Hawaii this

year. But for some it means no meat on the table. Don't you understand

that, Mr. Speaker? That's what it means to some people. A cutback to us

means putting the new car off for another year. A cutback to us means

postponing our holiday, not buying the new suit or only buying one suit

instead of two. That's really what the cutback of the federal budget

means to us as middle-class and upper-middle-class wage earners. I

don't mean that in the class sense, only in earnings. It doesn't mean

that much to us.

I saw John Crispo, an economist from Simon Fraser, on the Webster show last

week or the week before. He said: "Yes, the federal budget is going to

hurt me; I probably won't be able to keep my hobby farm." He said,

"It savaged me, but I'm not sure I should have had it in the first

place" — that tax break, that loophole.

You

know, we're going to be just fine on that side of the House and on this

side of the House. We're working. We've got a paycheque. Probably most

of us have got a bit of savings. We've probably got some credit we can

still go and get. It's all too easy to forget, but I think probably

most of us can remember, if we think, that we weren't always in this

shape. We couldn't always get through the winter without a bit of help

from somebody — our parents, our friends, our neighbours. Have we

forgotten that soon that just because we don't need help now there

aren't others who do?

Has anybody here spent a Christmas

with no turkey and no presents? Probably most of us have at some time

during our younger years had something like that happen to us. But, my

God, Mr. Speaker, do we want it to happen to our neighbours because it

happened to us when we were young? I don't think so. I don't believe

that the people of this province are anywhere near as callous as the

government that represents them. I just don't believe that the people

of this province want us to leave this Legislative chamber without

doing something for the needy, without doing something for the

unemployed — they don't. And yet we're going to, because the majority

votes in here are government votes. We're going to leave, having done

nothing.

When I said that this could very well be the winter

of our discontent, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

laughed. It must have been real funny. That's the first time I've seen

him laugh in six years. But I'm going to tell you that unless we do our

duty, unless we do what we were elected to do — and that is to help the

people in this province when they need it — our winter of discontent

will see people doing things that they would never have dreamed of

before. It's easy.... We on this side of the House believe that there

should be social assistance, because we believe that we should help our

brothers and our sisters and our neighbours. On that side of the House

they believe in welfare, because if you don't give them something, you

can’t sleep in your big house at night and feel safe. That's the

difference. We believe in a civilized society in every way — not just

socially but economically. That means we share, because if we don't

we're barbaric and if we're barbaric we're not civilized. And if we're

neither of those, we're Social Credit. Somehow this group of people

over here feel that there should be constitutional law and order.

The

only reason for constitutional law and order is to get a civilized,

orderly society. When you act in a non-civilized way — and a

non-civilized way means not sharing, not being neighbourly — then you

will get disorderly conduct in your society and you will lose the thing

that democracy stands for: civilized behaviour. The only way we can be

civil to one another is to know where the next meal is coming from and

where we are going to sleep tonight. Take those two things away and you

will take away civilized behaviour. If it starts over here it won't be

long before we are completely taken over by uncivilized behaviour.

had a chance in this Legislature to help people, to act civilized.

We've missed that chance, and now they want to go home. Mr. Speaker, we

cannot vote for this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize

the Leader of the Opposition. I would remind the hon. member before he

begins that we are on a motion and that the scope of the debate is

rather limited.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome

your advice and I want to tell you that I intend to keep the scope of

the debate within the very narrow confines of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he spoke.

I rise to

speak against this motion, which I was not surprised to find coming

after the formality of the throne debate. I am still trying to fathom

the high-school antics that went on this afternoon, when the Premier

got up and deliberately took all the time before I got up to speak. One

wag in the corridor — and I'm not suggesting somebody who interfered in

one of my press conferences; it was another wag — Mr. Speaker,

suggested to me that the Premier didn't want me to speak. I can't

believe that after all they have been saying about the democratic

process, about how they wanted to hear from all the members before they

shut down after seven days and went home.

Mr. Speaker, if we

vote for this short work week that we have, it will be known as the

eight-day fall. When we expect the working people of this province to

show prudence and wisdom and work harder, the demonstration given by

this government is that we come here for seven days, with two days off

for the weekend. We've done our little thing here, and we're