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 )

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Brown: social assistance changes –– 6669

Oral Questions

Assisted rental program. Mr. Barber –– 6670

Special employment programs in forest industry. Mr. King –– 6670

GAIN cheques. Ms. Brown –– 6671

Projected provincial deficit. Mr. Howard –– 6671

Travel restrictions on public servants. Mr. Lea –– 6672

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Finance annual report, December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6672

Ministry of Labour annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6672

Human rights branch annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6672

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment.

Mr. Brummet –– 6672

Mr. Hall –– 6674

Mr. Davis –– 6676

Mrs. Dailly –– 6679

Mr. Ritchie –– 6682

Mr. Mitchell –– 6684

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6687

Mr. Hanson –– 6689

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6691

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6692

School Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6692

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today we have one of British Columbia's best-known

journalists, who has recently retired from the news editor position of

radio station CKWX. He's an active commentator and he is here in the

capital today with his lovely wife, Leila. I'd like to introduce Mr.

and Mrs. Roy Jacques.

MS. SANFORD: Members of the IWA

from various locals on Vancouver Island are outside today demonstrating

on the lawns. Some of their representatives are seated in the gallery

this afternoon, and I would like to introduce them to the Legislature.

First

of all, there is Roger Lewis, who is the president of Victoria Local

1–118. Then there is Roger Stanyer, who is president of Duncan Local

1-80, and Henry Nedergard, who is the third vice-president from Port

Alberni Local 1-85. In addition, there are a number of workers here

from Western Forest Industries — the mill that's been shut down at

Honeymoon Bay. Also seated in the gallery is the person who addressed

that group out on the lawns today, Jack Munro, president of regional

council number one of the IWA.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Speaker, I too wish to welcome the delegation. While I was away from

the buildings during the speeches, when I returned and found they were

here, I was able to very quickly arrange a meeting with Mr. Munro and

representatives of the demonstration. Certainly we share the concerns

expressed and the problems that are being created for many British

Columbians both in and out of the forest industry, and I think we've

agreed to try to work together on this resolve. On behalf of the

government, I'd like to thank them for coming here today and welcome

them to the buildings.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like the House

to welcome Alderman-elect Len Nelson of Port Alberni. He is secretary

of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council and a member of the

Canadian Paperworkers Union. He is here today with the delegation.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to recognize the president of the

Douglas College Student Society, Mr. Kevin Hallgate, who is here on

behalf of his students' council today, concerned about education.

MR. LAUK:

I thank the Minister of Education for introducing Mr. Hallgate. Mr.

Hallgate asked me to present the Minister of Education with a tuition

fund that was collected among the students at Douglas College and a

chain that the minister can use to lock the front doors after the

recent cutbacks.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a little unusual.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like the House to recognize the presence of

four residents of Richmond who are visiting the Assembly today. They are Mr.

Barry Wright and Mr. Ted Brandon of the Richmond Optimist Club, along with two

students, Mr. James Enns from Richmond High School and Kevin Boyce from McNair

Secondary in Richmond. These two young men have been selected by the Optimist

Club to receive the Youth Achievement Award for the year. I'd like the House

to offer their congratulations.

HON MR. SMITH:

I want to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who

is always sartorially correct. I had not expected to receive his watch

chain today.

HON MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a

lighter vein, the members of the House have on their desks today some

beautiful B.C. apples. They are the compliments of the Naramata Co-op

Growers. I guess they are wishing you good health during the session.

might say that the Naramata Co-op is owned by the growers in the

Penticton area. I recently attended an opening of an expansion of that

co-op. I just want to take a moment to compliment a man who has been

with that co-op for some 30 years, Mr. Jake Danderfer, the manager.

Through his enthusiasm and ability he has made that co-op one of the

most successful fruit-packing houses in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The apples, of course, will be consumed in the corridor.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, it's a delight for me to see so many members of the IWA

here today. I do not know where they're from, but if there are any from

my constituency, welcome. Good friends and honourable citizens every

one, I'm delighted that they're here.

However, I rose in my

place to introduce two good friends — the others are good friends too —

Miss Viola Katinen of Vancouver and Mrs. Myrtha Beamer of San

Francisco. Mrs. Beamer is a former Canadian who married an American. We

lost one more, but we're bringing some others back. I would be pleased

if the House would bid them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr.

Speaker, it's hardly likely that any of our friends from the forest

industry would come from my constituency. However, if they do I'd

welcome them. I'd also welcome some comments from some of our friends

in respect to the speech that I made in this House last Tuesday

concerning the labour situation in our province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, may I interrupt the proceedings. We are in

the segment of our orders — this is actually before we enter upon

orders of the day — in which we traditionally welcome guests to the

chamber. There have been occasions when we have had some departing from

that strict observance, but I think that by the time we start debating

matters and welcoming people and speaking directly to people who are

actually not here.... Any further introductions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've had other politicians in this country who spoke to people who weren't here.

Mr.

Speaker, I too would like to introduce a brand-new and first-time

alderman-elect — my executive assistant, Carol Gran of Langley.

Presenting Petitions

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave to present a petition.

[ Page 6670 ]

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: It reads as follows:

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

"The

petition of the undersigned, Leni Hoover, Alan Hoover, Jane Nordstrom

and 814 concerned citizens of lower Vancouver Island humbly showeth

that the action of the Minister of Human Resources in reclassifying

single parents of small children denies these parents the freedom of

choice to raise their own children at home. Wherefore, your petitioner

humbly prays that your hon. House may be pleased to support these three

petitioners and the 814 other concerned citizens of lower Vancouver

Island in their request to rescind this policy on the part of the

Minister of Human Resources."

Oral Questions

ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The

British Columbia Housing Management Commission currently provides some

856 units of affordable housing through a program called ARP, the

assisted rental program. I am advised that the B.C. Housing Management

Commission has been instructed by the government that this program is

to be phased out, that the five-year leases upon which it is based are

also to be phased out, and that in fact several of these leases have

now been phased out altogether. The practical consequences, Mr.

Speaker, include poor persons and seniors who are resident in this

accommodation being now required to pay a commercial rent that they

cannot afford. This means that they will be evicted, because they can't

pay it.

Can the minister in the first place confirm that

this is the new policy — to phase out the five-year lease agreements by

which BCHMC manages and makes available for persons in its clientele

roughly 850 units of affordable housing in this province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice. I haven't given any instructions to BCHMC, relative to ARP.

MR. BARBER: Well, you may not have given them, but they certainly received them.

Can

the minister confirm that BCHMC itself currently has a zero vacancy

rate and could not possibly take up the slack if these 850 units are

made unavailable and the persons within them have to look for alternate

accommodation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be inclined to think that that's correct.

MR. BARBER:

Might you also take on notice and bring back to the House some advice

as to what plans you are prepared to make in order to accommodate the

people who will be effectively evicted when the subsidized rent is no

longer available, when the commercial rates cannot be afforded and when

BCHMC cannot take them in either.

MR. SPEAKER: That's inquiring into future action. The minister wishes to respond.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Yes. The member is making a suggestion which could quite conceivably be

erroneous, so I'll take the question as notice. I'm not aware of the

issue that he has raised. I haven't issued any such instructions. I

want the member to be clear in that respect.

SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question to the Minister of Forests. On October 29 I wrote the

minister a letter requesting that he initiate some special employment

programs in the silviculture area of our forest industry — thinning and

that type of thing. At this particular point the unemployment situation

in the forest industry is worse. We have 12,000 workers unemployed in

the forest industry — 12,000 members of the IWA at least, possibly more

in the unorganized sector — and that represents about 22 percent of the

workforce. Can the minister tell me why he has not provided me with the

courtesy of an answer to that letter of a month ago, and can he advise

me whether or not he has taken action to set up some special employment

programs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did

receive a letter from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, at which time

my ministry and I were already engaged in attempting to determine

whether or not there were forest management projects which could be

either accelerated or initiated over and above those many thousands of

man-days of jobs which have already been created this year by the

much-expanded forest management work that we have undertaken. That

review work is still in progress. As a matter of fact, there are still

a considerable number of jobs being maintained in forest management

which would not have been in place had we not taken this initiative

several years ago.

We have certain funds with which we have

to work in the ministry. These funds are being applied in a manner

proposed in the budget last year. I'm afraid that forest management

work is not something that you can instantly turn on and off. By simply

throwing money at a problem in an attempt to accelerate certain things,

you could actually do more harm to that forest, which is needed in the

long run by these employees, than if you had not done anything.

However,

we are still trying to find out if there are ways we can increase that

work now. I don't have the answer yet, but when I do I will certainly

be happy to share it with that member and answer his letter at that

time.

MR. KING: The minister has known for some time

that we have a sluggish economy and a declining forest industry. I

wonder why he has to wait until there are over 12,000 workers

unemployed before he anticipates any action.

I have a further supplementary. I want to point out that on April 22, 1975, page 1579 in Hansard , the minister's colleague the now Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) asked this question:

There are 12,000 IWA members out of work at the present time; there will probably

be more due to the pulp market happenings. There are millions of acres of public

land which are not reforested because they are taken over by non-productive

weeds. There are miles of fishery streams that can be cleared of obstruction.

What specific programs will the minister initiate to put these out-of-work citizens

back to work for the benefit of the public land?

[ Page 6671 ]

ask the minister: if that policy made sense in 1975 and his colleague

was convinced it made sense then, why doesn't it make sense now?

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Before we proceed, I would remind all present of the

standing orders and of the traditions, practices and procedures of this

House. Guests in the public galleries are always welcome. Interruptions

or noise of any description from the public galleries have always been

met with, first, a quiet reminder that it is unorthodox. Secondly, the

Sergeant-at-Arms' staff are alerted that if it persists the public

galleries must be cleared. I wouldn't wish that to take place here

today. So I recommend to all present that they abide by the standings

orders of our House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response

to the question by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, that member has

been seated in this Legislature since that date in 1975 which he

mentioned, and having been present here, I'm sure he is very much aware

of the very aggressive forest management programs that have been

initiated by this government.

The question made sense at the

time. We are doing just what was suggested. We are expending a great

deal of tax dollars and effort, and we are doing an awful lot more in

our forests now than we were during the term when that member was on

the government side of the Legislature. We have a very aggressive

program spelled out in the five-year management program, which that

member has copies of. However when debate comes up on my estimates

during the Legislature each year, he chooses not to talk about real

forestry things but rather to make political comment about things not

really related to forestry and forest practices and that very important

resource.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, in further response that

we indeed have a very difficult time in our forest industry in British

Columbia, and I know that most people in the industry — including our

IWA friends — throughout the province recognize what the root of the

problem is. We know that the root of the problem is a lack of housing

starts in our major market area of the United States. And we know what

is causing that. The cause of that is interest rates which cannot be

afforded by the people there who want to buy homes.

Mr.

Speaker, the revenues of the government are suffering drastically as a

result of the reduction in sales for our forest products. The revenues

of the industry have become non-existent and in most cases are actual

negative revenues. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that pain is also being

shared by those who are employed in the industry. I have no slick,

easy, pat answer. One thing I guarantee you I will not do is use that

as an excuse to nationalize the forest industry, as has been suggested

by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in further

response to this member's question, I'm sure he is aware of the

tremendous lobby taking place in the United States. I understand he

appeared on NBC television last week. The threats that are underway

there now to put embargoes against the importation from Canada of

forest products is a very, very serious matter. And if such measures

are taken, as have been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, all

of the other IWA members in this province will not have any market for

their goods, and there will indeed be some serious times.

GAIN CHEQUES

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human

Resources. On November 13, the Minister of Human Resources assured

those people in receipt of GAIN for the handicapped that their cheques

would be dated December 22 and would be mailed the same day to assure

that they would arrive before Christmas. In conversation with the Post

Office today I was informed that the very latest date that they would

guarantee delivery before Christmas is December 17. What steps has the

minister taken to ensure that the disabled people receive their cheques

prior to Christmas Day?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby-Edmonds for the question. I'd

like to tell you that the cheque which she is discussing is the January

cheque for GAIN for the handicapped, which will be sent out early in

order that it should arrive in time for Christmas. I'll certainly be

pleased to take her suggestion regarding the mailing dates and discuss

it with my ministry. If there is some question as to the delivery date,

our ministry will address itself to that problem.

PROJECTED PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.

In a statement on November 9 the minister forecast a deficit for the

province for this fiscal year of some S36 million. At about the same

time — a few days before that — the minister affixed his signature to a

document filed at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission

saying that the projected deficit was $176 million for this fiscal

year. Can the minister advise the House why he tells the United States

Securities and Exchange Commission one thing and the people of the

province of British Columbia something entirely different, and which of

those two figures is the true one?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I will take the bulk of the question as notice; but

neither figure is at variance. The reference to the Securities and

Exchange Commission prospectus — I assume he indicates a prospectus —

would be as of a particular date. I would like to take the whole

question as notice, because that member frequently has great difficulty

understanding precisely what is going on in the Ministry of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: Supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a new question, hon. member. We can't accept a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. HOWARD:

It's a new question. Is the minister going to give us the same

irresponsible answer to this as he did to his attempt to borrow $100

million in Europe, when he told bald-faced lies to people in this

province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the reference to lies.

[ Page 6672 ]

MR. HOWARD: I have no hesitation whatever, Mr. Speaker. But we know what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter is closed.

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

ON PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the

Minister of Finance a question. On August 4, following the release of

the first quarterly report, the minister is quoted as saying that he

would impose travel restrictions as a psychological measure to make

everyone in government aware that times are tough. Well, it's had some

effect in my riding — I don't know whether psychologically — and in

other ridings, I suppose. It means the health inspector cannot get from

Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlottes. It means that the biologist from

the wildlife branch can't go out and check to see if there's any damage

to fish streams.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the question, please.

MR. LEA:

Yes. I'd like to ask the minister, if those kinds of services to

citizens are curtailed, why the trip to the Kootenays — $100,000 for

the cabinet, a political trip — wasn't curtailed. Why was the Minister

of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) allowed to go all the way

over to Europe during B.C.'s Agricultural Week? I'd like to know why it

is that services to people are cut, but political junkets are not.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I have some concern about statements contained in the

question which suggest that travel within the province of British

Columbia by public servants carrying out their duties on behalf of the

people of B.C. have been curtailed. There was no such directive

verbally or in writing with respect to....

MR. LEA: What about psychologically?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly to the question, Mr. Speaker.

There

was no such directive from my ministry or from anyone in the Ministry

of Finance with respect to travel by people employed in the public

service of British Columbia, carrying out their duties within the

province of British Columbia. I reject the inference categorically.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask

leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose

of discussing a matter of definite, urgent public importance. The

matter is dealing with discrimination against women. The federal

government today is still unable to ratify the 30-article United

Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination

against women unless it has the approval of all the provinces.

Today,

British Columbia still remains one of only two provinces which have

failed to give their approval. It is sad and shocking that as a result

of the failure of the provincial government to support the federal

government and the other provinces on this very important issue, Canada

may not be able to be a member of the United Nations committee, setting

standards and monitoring discrimination against women throughout the

world. The provincial government earlier this week reneged on its

commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, which

will ensure and guarantee the continued discrimination against women in

British Columbia. A debate is urgently required by this assembly since

the deadline is fast approaching for a final decision on this matter

and we want to ensure that this government's actions do not further

penalize the women of Canada.

I am raising it at this time

because I have just been in contact with the social policy and

international relations person for the Status of Women, as well as with

the Secretary of State's department in Ottawa, and they both assure me

that they are still awaiting the final word from this provincial

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will review

the stated matter to see whether a matter of urgency exists according

to the rules, and we will report to the House without prejudice to the

member.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Ministry of Finance for the calendar year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon.

Mr. Heinrich tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Labour

and the 1980 annual report for the human rights branch.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Peace River.

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have silence in the chamber until the offending members are escorted to the door.

MR. BRUMMET:

This morning, at the end of the sitting, I had made the point that I

was speaking against the amendment because, in kind words, in my

opinion it is balderdash. The amendment was suggesting that this

government's policies are not promoting economic development and job

opportunities. I think on both counts that is very, very wrong. I'm not

going to repeat what I said. I was just trying to summarize and bring

it up to the point where I left off.

This government is

stimulating the economy and is creating job opportunities. Many

projects in this province which are the whipping-boys of the opposition

are either initiated by, encouraged by, or assisted by this government.

Those projects create jobs and revenue, and even in difficult times,

the policies of this government have made this province one of the

places that stand out in the way of job opportunities and other

opportunities.

Despite the bad-mouthing that we get in

public and in various ways from the members of the opposition who try

to paint the picture of doom and gloom in this province, people have

kept coming to this province because the opportunities are here for

them. Investors have continued to invest in this province, not out of

any charity but simply because they

[ Page 6673 ]

believe that the investment climate here is good, the future is good and this will be good for all concerned.

Despite

some of the bad publicity that has been attempted, tourists keep coming

to this province because it's a good place to visit and they get good

service here. And industry in various forms keeps coming to this

province because industry builds for the long term; they build for the

future, and the long-term future is greatest in British Columbia.

Many

jobs are being created in this province, as I've mentioned, through the

various projects. It's interesting to note that while the opposition is

castigating this government for not providing economic development and

job opportunities, we have to look at what they are against. They seem

to be against all forms of energy projects in this province. At least

from what I have read and heard, the opposition is definitely against

any further hydroelectricity developments in this province.

They

seem to be against the Hat Creek coal project. I find it's a slight

turnaround there, because during the 1979 election campaign power dams

were out, but Hat Creek coal was the way to go. And then I find, after

having been here for a couple of years, that they have discovered acid

rain is a problem and so now they're against Hat Creek coal as well.

They seem to be against nuclear power. Just this morning....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BRUMMET:

Well, a few of them may be in favour of it, but they wouldn't dare say

so. This morning, one member was questioning our right to even allow

anybody to talk about the possibility of nuclear power. And we have the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who is against any further natural-gas

development because we might run out. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we

do not encourage the market for natural gas, if we do not have markets,

then we will not have gas or oil discoveries. That has been proven over

and over again. So we must encourage those through the liquefied

natural gas plants, through the methanol plants and various other

petrochemical uses of natural gas — even the widespread use, I would

hope in the near future, of methane as a motor-vehicle fuel, because

that would encourage the use of natural gas. We seem to have an

opposition that is against all energy projects. Yet anywhere in the

world people will tell you that available energy is the key to economic

development.

We have suggestions from the Leader of the

Opposition to buy the sawmills, and, of course, the problem comes up:

where do you sell the lumber? The major objective is to keep that

forest industry strong and to keep it going. If in the short term we

buy up the sawmills, nationalize them and pile up the lumber, I would

ask any members who know anything about the forest industry: when

you're not selling any lumber, how long can you stockpile it? When it

is stockpiled, a year down the road, six months down the road, then you

have a real crash where you have no possible sales. The other thing is

that you have money that has been taken from the taxpayers' pockets,

money that could go to create further projects, further investments and

further services to people — that money would have to pay for lumber

that is sitting there stockpiled. So you have a situation where the

Leader of the Opposition is advocating for short-term political

expediency that the government spend money. The government does not

spend any of its own money: it spends public money, and the public, in

the long run, contributes.

If there is any fault in the

throne speech, Mr. Speaker, it is that it has not resorted to empty

promises and has not resorted to creating false expectations for the

sake of political expediency. I mentioned this morning that a lot of

things are not in the throne speech because if all the good projects

that have been created in this province by this government were listed

in the throne speech, and all those items that are planned for the

future, it would take far too long to read in one day.

I'd

also like to comment briefly on the throne speech as it points to

education and training, which in turn creates more opportunities for

employment. I think it's generally understood that it is the unskilled

people who have the least opportunity for employment. So in the last

few years we have had a tremendous expansion of community colleges. In

our own region one new campus has been built in Fort Nelson, another

one has been started in Fort St. John, renovation has been started in

Dawson Creek, and these campuses are being utilized and are much

appreciated in the area. For the future, of course, in the southeast

district, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge are being considered for expansion

of college services. These community colleges are good in the sense

that they not only provide an academic education; they also provide

vocational training and skills training and job training. The

apprenticeship programs have been expanded.

One of the

concerns I have there is that enrolment is limited in many courses —

artificially limited — because of a theory that you must not produce

too many skilled people in a particular trade. I think that has to be

changed. I don't think we can produce too many skilled people in this

province, because when the crunch comes, over and over again

development is hindered not by a lack of willingness, not by a lack of

investors, but by a lack of properly trained, skilled people. We should

train people in advance. There is nothing wrong with a person getting a

training in one field and being trained and working in another field.

That does not mean that that person's educational training has been

wasted, because when the opportunity comes along for mechanics, if we

have plenty of mechanics or welders they are there. If we wait until

the need for welders has actually been established, and we limit the

enrolment in welding courses so that we create only up to that need,

then when any expansion develops we cannot possibly train these people

in time to be available. So then we have to import.

I think

a fair amount has been said about increased opportunities for women in

the workforce, colleges and training courses. I don't know of any

courses that are restricted — in other words, the courses are open to

all persons. Vocational training has been increased and improved

vocational counselling is also going into the schools.

One

of the things that I am quite concerned about in this province is the

almost abrogation of the democratic procedure. We have a great deal of

talk and support for the democratic process. Yet we have over and over

again encouraged in many ways groups who are trying to get us to run

this province from a pressure point of view — by anarchy, if you like.

We have groups that seem to have the implicit support of the members of

the opposition. When they feel that that support is implied, then we

are going to have those types of problems. We have the opposition

making statements that increased funding and services are readily

available, but they don't mention where the money is going to come

from. So these groups are encouraged, with these false expectations,

[ Page 6674 ]

believe that it's simply a matter of political pressure and chanting in

unison in order to bring it about. I would hate to see that day come,

because if it does, we are returning to who has the biggest club, and

we have moved a long way from that in our democratic system. I think

we've got to go back to democracy.

I would like to suggest

this as an example. Last weekend we had the Downtown Eastside Residents

Association, who organized a parade, or protest march, at the Social

Credit convention. That, I would say, is a democratic right. But when

the people were almost encouraged, by what many people have said, to

resort to violent and unacceptable tactics, then we're approaching

anarchy. I think it's a sad thing when people want to resort to that.

When I'm making these implications, I'm referring to, for instance, the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who on a television show

when the students locked the doors of Douglas College, and we had a

chain introduced here, trying to put levity into the situation.... To

me, it's a very serious matter. That member went on public television

and spoke to the students, and did not say: "Take it to your member.

Take it through the democratic process." He advocated that maybe the

answer was to come and lock the doors of this Legislature. Yet that

same member will stand up in this House and talk about the rights and

the freedoms and everything that we must preserve. Surely our

parliamentary system must be preserved, and surely the answer is not to

encourage students to come and lock the doors of this Legislature.

Mr.

Speaker, earlier this summer, around May, a couple of members of the

opposition actually advocated civil disobedience in order to accomplish

what people wanted. Then we had the Downtown Eastside Residents

Association pulling a hoodlum stunt like printing some pornographic

bills to distribute in order to try to accomplish something, and

putting their name on it. That sickens me. People have seen that. And

we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) standing up at a

convention and saying "We will have violence in this province if people

don't get their way." And then you wonder why some of these groups are

encouraged to resort to violence to try to accomplish their aims. When

you encourage hoodlumism, and use hoodlum tactics, you're going to

invite hoodlums to take

part in these demonstrations.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member to please relate his remarks to the amendment.

MR. BRUMMET:

I guess I was getting carried away because the amendment more or less

implies that there is a viable alternative to responsible government in

this province. Judging from the actions that I've been describing, that

is certainly not a viable alternative.

Let me conclude with

this item. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made a statement

in public.... We have a new image. We have pin-striped suits, worn not

only by the leader but by others as well. We have this image of "we are

different; now we are responsible, reliable; we've learned our lesson,"

and so on. Then at the convention we have the Leader of the Opposition

saying: "No, no. That's only what I'm trying to tell them to get votes

out there. Please remember that philosophically and and politically I

am still the same person." Then at another convention he said: "We are

headed for the bitterest, dirtiest, most vicious election campaign

ever." I would think that we have had some of the signals of how this

is going to be accomplished.

This group in opposition is

saying that we are not dealing with economic development in this

province, yet they are blocking every possible route to economic

development. If they had their way they'd shut down the energy project.

They don't want us to develop and sell our resources. If you do not

have a market you certainly cannot produce. Yet that is their view.

They are blocking everything that is being done to create economic

development and jobs in this province, yet they hold themselves up as

the great white knights, supporting the working people in this

province. If you take away the development of our natural resources and

if you take away the investment that must come in — because government

itself has only the taxpayers' money to spend, so you've got to attract

other money — then you do not create jobs and you do not serve the

workers.

I'm going to suggest that the policies of this

government do create services to people in various ways, and that we

must not yield to the short-term political expediency of accepting the

policies that are pushed at us by the official opposition.

MR. HALL:

Following on the last contribution, I'm reminded of a childhood poem

that goes something like: "Frightened of shadows and things that go

bump in the night." It seems to me that the previous speaker is more

frightened of his own shadow and of things that go bump in the night.

He's spent more time in this research department searching out things

that we may have said — he certainly was brave in choosing moments when

neither of the two members he attacked were in the chamber — to

castigate the opposition. He says that we've stopped economic progress.

says that we've done this and we've done that. I've been here for three

years since my re-election. I don't remember us winning a vote. I'm

sorry we haven't, but I don't think we've won a vote. I don't think

we've stopped that huge majority over there from doing anything they

wanted. So I don't know how we can be blamed for anything that's gone

wrong. I don't know what's worrying him, except his own fears, and

those are the worst things of all. That's what's really got him going:

things that go bump in the night up in North Peace River. When the

member first came here in 1979, I told him that the most common

practice in North Peace River and the things that go bump in the night

most often are members themselves because they get replaced. So I guess

he must have been counting the membership rolls in North Peace River

again.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here debating this throne

speech? I see you're wondering. We're debating an amendment to the

throne speech debate. It is in my view a vacuous, long, well-written

instrument. It was written by strangers — written by Ontarians, I

presume. Cecil B. DeHeal. Abbott and Kinsella. I think it was written

for the perusal of British Columbians, and it was written, I think, for

the benefit of anybody who lives outside British Columbia, particularly

if you happen to live in Japan.

It certainly has got nothing to do with meeting today's problems. Now I'll tell you why I'm a little bit cynical, Mr. Speaker

The

amendment seeks to point out those major shortcomings. But you and I

know — because we've been here long enough to really know — that we'll

be out of here about next Wednesday. We'll be out of here next

Wednesday after this throne speech debate is all over. We won't have

passed any legislation. We'll have gone through an exercise in which

we'll have sent back an illuminated address to His Honour

[ Page 6675 ]

thanking

him for coming in here and reading this speech very nicely. The

government could have done whatever it's going to do without bringing

this Legislature into session at all.

That shows to me, Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure it shows to you, that it has no real plans at all.

It doesn't want, and it shows it's got no need for, the Legislature, no

need for legislation; and we'll be out of here, as I say, by next

Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

This is an exercise

that's being carried out here for one reason and one reason only. In

the Premier's mind, by having the throne speech now, we foreshorten

next year's debates by about ten days — by about six to ten days.

That's the only reason. There's no program. There's no plan. There's

nothing in the works. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) still has his unlisted postal code number, and we're

carrying on just the same way — no plans, no nothing.

listened to the previous member, who has now left, who is from North

Peace River, who just told us about all the bad things that we've said

about this buoyant economy. He said that only the members of the

opposition are complaining, that bad news is equated with socialism.

Well, who else, Mr. Speaker, is talking about British Columbia the same

way that every speaker on this side of the House has been speaking

these last two days? That raving socialist, Calvert Knudsen — same

language expressed. That Marxist-Leninist, Bruce Howe — same language.

Every editor of every bank letter — same language. They're worried

about the economy of British Columbia. And the member for North Peace

River says anybody who knocks it must be a socialist.

Who

else has been criticizing the economy? Bill Hamilton, paid-up member of

the NDP. Who else has been talking about the economy in exactly the

same terms as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi), the very member who the member for North Peace River and

the member for Little Mountain have been criticizing as being doom and

gloom. I'll bet you they voted for him. Who else has been talking in

the same language that we've been using about British Columbia? Joe

Clark. Now you can't have it both ways, Mr. Member for North Peace

River. You either vote for Joe Clark and believe what he says, or Joe

Clark is saying what he's saying for political expediency. Now which

way is it, Mr. Member for North Peace River? Is it the truth, or is it

political expediency? Is B.C. buoyant, or is it somewhat faltering? Mr.

Member for North Peace River, you'd better go back to the research and

do it properly.

Since we were here doing this same kind

of exercise a year ago, in Surrey, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the

effects of the various criticisms that this amendment points out.

Housing. Employment. Employment, just to mention one thing, is the

closure of that famous — if not infamous — poultry production unit

called Panco. Termination notices were served this week to every one of

the workers. The last 225 workers had 18 years and 15 years service in

that plant and received termination notices this week for December 15,

December 31 and January 22. Eighteen years service in that poultry

production plant. That plant was bought for $4 million and sold for $10

million, so you've got $6 million profit, and you won't lift a finger

to help the people of Panco Poultry. The last time Panco was in

trouble, in August of this year, the Minister of Agriculture was out of

the country. The next time it was discussed was during Agricultural

Week, and the Minister of Agriculture was out of the country. This

week, we want to discuss Panco Poultry, and the final notices are being

put on the desks and the work tables and in the production lines of

that plant. Where is the Minister of Agriculture? He's out of the

House. For the first time in living memory, in recorded history, a

responsible bunch of farmers have passed a vote of non-confidence in a

Minister of Agriculture in this province.

Not only that, Mr.

Speaker, but in a private meeting those self-same farmers have asked

the Premier to fire him. What do people say when you go around my

district? You travel through my district, Mr. Speaker, as I travel

through yours. The first thing they talk to you about is housing and

the second is jobs. The third is often gasoline and the prices. What

are people saying about the farmers in the Hazelmere valley and the

truck farms in the southern part of my riding? What are they saying

about ICBC and that self-same Minister of Agriculture and the

stiff-arming and the double-crossing that ICBC pulled on many of the

small businessmen in this province when all the people went back to

work after the strike? What are they saying around your community, Mr.

Speaker? What are they saying around the district of Langley, Mr.

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland)? Are they saying how ICBC double-crossed the deals they

shook hands on at the beginning of the strike? What are they saying

about that Crown corporation? What are they saying about Panco?

What

do the ministers do? Some of them go abroad. My own colleague in

Surrey, who is a minister, buys a heritage farm on the one hand, in

Langley, and the next minute he buys a quarter of a million dollar

house on Rockland Avenue in Victoria. That's no help for the people in

Surrey. Buying a heritage farm in Langley and moving out to Rockland

Avenue in Victoria with a quarter of a million dollar home is no help

to the people in Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

The hospital cuts. I

didn't think the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was good

Minister of Health, because I was very fond of the previous Minister of

Health. But in comparison he's the best of the ones the Social Credit

Party ever had, because it's got worse and worse and worse. I suppose

that's a back-handed compliment, but at least he knew what was going on

in his department. Now we find out that in Surrey, what with cuts and

broken promises at the Peace Arch Hospital, we've got petitions going

to the department and we've got petitions going to the deputy minister

to restore cuts in employment and get people back on the payroll. In a

district I share with you, Mr. Speaker, for public health inspectors,

we have the worst ratio of public health inspectors to population in

any urban area in British Columbia, and we're the fastest growing

district. It's worse since that man left office, so I guess he was the

best that they could produce. We now have one inspector to 30,000

people. Other districts in an urban area have one inspector to 17,000

people. That means that routine inspections aren't taking place. That

means that food processing plants.... Maybe that's why Panco's being

closed down — they can't inspect. Just get rid of everything.

Schools

are only being visited once every two years in my district, because

public health inspectors have such a workload. On top of that, the two

programs that have been the cornerstone of this province's health

delivery system are now under serious attack. One of them is the home

nursing program. In my district, to follow up a discharged patient from

an acute care hospital costs $23 a visit. It costs $23 a visit. In

[ Page 6676 ]

order to make cuts and prevent the employment of these people....

[Mr. Davidson in the chair].

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, the amendment mentions that the speech "fails to

recognize economic policies of the government have resulted in economic

stagnation, and, further, fails to provide proposals for strengthening

the economy...to provide full employment opportunities...." I don't see

where it mentions hospitals or public health workers or home care

programs. I would say the member is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The member could possibly remember the remarks that were made earlier by himself.

MR. HALL:

Yes, I'm talking about the government laying off its own people. If

that's not unemployment, I don't know what is. Your colleague, Mr.

Minister, has sent a notice saying that unless 18 part-time nurses are

dismissed from the Boundary Health Unit by a certain date, there will

be no more money. If that's not unemployment, I don't know what is.

Those

18 part-time nurses, whose names I have in my office — you can have

them any day, and you should know them — have been told they have to be

separated. Those 18 part-time nurses help to fulfil a function which

costs $23 per visit. If you or I come out of an acute-care hospital,

Mr. Speaker, it costs $23 for that visit. If we stay in hospital, do

you know how much it costs per day? How much does it cost, Mr. Member

for New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: Two hundred and fifty dollars.

MR. HALL: How much does it cost to stay in Dr. McGeer's hospital, Mr. Member for New Westminster?

MR. COCKE: Six hundred and eighty dollars.

MR. HALL:

Six hundred and eighty dollars, if you stay in Dr. McGeer's hospital,

Mr. Speaker, but in Surrey it costs $250. That's a saving of about

$220. This government can't even recognize $200 when it sees it. It

can't even understand the saving of $200.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm never going to stay in order again.

MR. HALL: Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to point out that if it was saving money I could

applaud the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I

think he tries his best, but he just doesn't understand that it's false

economy.

There are demonstrations. In Surrey three weeks on the run I attended demonstrations

about the stagnating economy that this amendment refers to — mobile-home owners,

interest rates, lack of heat in our generative economic engine in British Columbia.

While that was going on, while there is protest all over the place.... There

was once a member who sat over there for a while called Wenman. He had 400-and-something

people out at a protest rally about landlords, interest rates and everything

else. Another member, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman), praises landlords in today's society. Well, I don't know whether

he can count.

However,

I've dealt with the Boundary Health Unit employment program. I want to

finish up by pointing out the hollowness of this exercise we're going

through. We've been called together with no plans in front of us, and I

know as surely as you sit there and I stand here that we'll be out of

here by next Wednesday with nothing passed. All the programs that are

being announced in the corridor can be done without legislation, as

I've understood up till now. What bothers me, and what affects me as a

British Columbian and one who is concerned about my citizens,

regardless of politics, is the uselessness of the exercise, from your

point of view, in getting the thing going.

All 31 of you are

totally concerned now with your own survival. You're not concerned at

all with the province. You're not concerned with getting us back to

work. You're simply and solely concerned with your own personal,

political survival. You won't listen to the public, obviously. It

appears — although I wasn't there, but I've spoken to people who were —

you don't listen to your own party. I think that's a very great

mistake. If I may address myself simply to those who sit on the

Treasury benches — and I'm not telling tales out of school — I

understand you're not listening to your backbenchers, even though they

stand up and make some brave speeches here. I'm saying, through you,

Mr. Speaker, it really is time for you all to go.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, don't take that last member's advice personally or seriously.

I'm

speaking against the amendment, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons —

first of all, the accomplishments of the past year. This year, 1981,

has been a banner year for Canada, it's been a great year for British

Columbia, and it's been a very important year insofar as

federal-provincial relations are concerned. We've put our imprint on a

Canadian constitution, made in Canada and amendable in Canada; we've

stopped warring, temporarily at least, on the energy crunch. Reference

to both of these important matters is made in the Speech from the

Throne, and rightly so. They are achievements of which we can all be

proud as British Columbians and as Canadians, but they're only a

beginning. They mark the start of what our first ministers have

referred to as the "renewal process" — the renewal of Confederation.

Renewing our Confederation, however, calls for a more popular input

than we've seen here of late.

Talking about input, Mr.

Speaker, what about this Legislature and what about the MLAs? Unlike

the House of Commons in Ottawa, where bills have been presented,

committee hearings have been held, bills have been presented again —

much of it involving debate that went on for weeks on end — we in this

House had little to say, indeed heard little about the constitution.

Most of what I've learned personally I've gained from the newspapers,

radio and TV. This is not legislation at the provincial level in any

ordinary sense, it's legislation by the executive, of course. I think

that in the case of a constitution which is just as binding on the

provinces as it is on the national government, this matter should be

debated at some point and should have been debated earlier in this

House. Mind you — and this is part of the point of my remarks — we're

dealing with no ordinary law. It's a law above all other law; it's our

constitution, which stands when other laws fall. Neither the Commons

nor a legislature can pass a law which is in conflict with it. So the

formulation of

[ Page 6677 ]

our constitution, together with its passage into the supreme law of the land, must be taken very seriously indeed.

Not

only should we legislate federally but we should legislate

provincially. A resolution phrased by this government should be put to

this House even now. Not only should it say substantially what has been

agreed upon by nine of our ten provinces, and by them in turn with the

federal government, but we should also be told what our own executives'

reservations are. We certainly should know what the provincial

over-ride means insofar as our Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

is concerned. Why were women's rights left out initially? And what

about mobility? I, frankly, don 't think that any province should have

the power to limit the movement of Canadians from one part of the

country to another.

There is another thing which concerns

me, Mr. Speaker. This government started out on a different tack: it

was against the infringement of a charter of rights and freedoms; it

also had different priorities. It put Senate reform, reform of the

Supreme Court of Canada and provincial representation on federal Crown

agencies ahead of everything else. It also wanted B.C. to have a veto

like that which Ontario at an earlier stage deemed it had, and it was

in a different way the constitutional amending process was concerned.

These matters have either gone by the board or have been dealt with

differently in recent weeks. Why the change? And where are they now?

Have we given up on some of these things? If not, what are our

priorities today?

As most hon. members know, I personally

have always favoured a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms —

individual rights and individual freedoms — a special law; as I said

earlier, a law above all other laws which guarantees us our

individuality, our God-given opportunity to be ourselves and do our own

thing regardless of our sex, colour, creed or place of origin. This is

essential if Canada is truly to be a free land, one in which

government, corporations, unions and other bodies and agencies exist

solely as servants of their membership — of the people, in other words

— not as their masters.

We're going to have a charter of

personal liberties, a full-fledged recitation of individual Canadian

rights and freedoms, it now appears — too long perhaps, too verbose,

too fuzzy around the edges, too full of loopholes, too easily exploited

by those of a collectivist mentality who, typically, would put the

group ahead of the person and sometimes divide us into racial,

cultural, economic or other enclaves for their own selfish purposes.

Let

me dwell on this basic conflict between individualism on the one hand

and collectivism on the other. I'm for the person, as opposed to the

group. I'm for putting individual rights and freedoms ahead of

collective rights and corporate initiatives. They all have their place,

but when I have to choose between the two, I choose liberty of the one

over the purpose or intent of the many. This is why I've always

believed that we should have our own Canadian Magna Carta — our

personal declaration of independence to protect us all individually

from the ganging up efforts of others, especially of big government now

and for as long as Canada exists as a separate political entity on this

earth.

To qualify as a democracy we must have the security

of our own person. We must be free to enjoy life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness, as the United States' Bill of Rights terms it. We

must have freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of the

press and freedom of worship, and we must have something else which our

charter now ignores. We must have the right to own property as

individuals and not have that property taken from us in an arbitrary

way or without proper compensation for our loss.

Unfortunately

the word "property" has disappeared from our charter of rights and

freedoms. I'm sure that the socialists are happy with that. True

socialists don't believe that people should own property in their own

right. The state can own property, of course. Government agencies and

cooperatives can own property, but not you and I individually, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE:

My point of order is that the member is not debating the issue before

us in any way, shape or form. We were quite prepared to listen to his

debate but certainly not to take his insults and untrue remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The members of the House have been made aware on numerous occasions of

the rights and obligations of a member, and it is not for the Chair to

determine whether what any member says is right or wrong. Nonetheless,

the amendment before us is the one we are debating. I'd ask the member

to bear those remarks in mind in continuing his speech.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I think the textbook definition of a socialist is: one who

believes in common ownership of property. Perhaps the hon. members

don't agree with that. It would be interesting to hear them

individually say what their thinking is in that regard.

believe that personal ownership in the proprietary sense is a concept

foreign to socialism. It's foreign to the collectivist mentality. It's

something which must be kept out of our Constitution — the law above

all other law, as far as the socialists are concerned. Otherwise — and

this is the situation which we could face under a government of another

stripe — governments wouldn't be able to take over personal property.

Ottawa, acting on its own, also wouldn't be able to take over personal

property without proper compensation. This is the first thing which

socialists do when they gain power at any level, and certainly it's

what the textbook socialists want to do if they can.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, it would be improper for me to debate with the

member on what he's talking about at this moment. But I don't think

it's improper to have Mr. Speaker again remind the member of two

things, because in my opinion he's breaking the rules of our House in

two different ways. One way is that he's reading his speech instead of

using notes, and the other is that he's not speaking to the amendment,

as was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

I would be willing to overlook it, but this is the third time I know of

that that member has come in on an amendment, either on the budget

speech or the throne speech, and just carried on as if as an individual

he had no responsibility to the collective, which is this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Bearing in mind that we are on an amendment and that the member is

familiar with the wording of the amendment, I would ask that he

continue.

[ Page 6678 ]

MR. DAVIS:

Speaking in the economic area, let me say this: why, given our free

enterprise inheritance, don't we have the individual right to own our

own property in our own Canadian constitution? That's the greatest

source of energy and drive which can possibly be harnessed to generate

more economic wealth in the country. Essentially the reason is that

property and civil rights have been the first and foremost power of the

provinces ever since Confederation. It tops the provincial list in the

British North America Act, which was signed 114 years ago. It's

something which no province and, indeed, no provincial Premier in his

right provincial mind would surrender easily to Ottawa. It's something

which our first ministers from coast to coast instinctively wanted to

keep to themselves and unto their own separate provincial

jurisdictions. It has to be seen to be part and parcel of our own

Canadian version of provincial rights as in the past.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a further point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, it's the same point of order. Again, the member is reading

his speech, and he's made no attempt whatsoever to talk to the

amendment. He threw in economics and then went back to reading his

prepared text. It seems to me that part of being an individual is to

understand that there are rules that are going to govern the collective

of this body, and it seems to me that he is just thwarting the rules

and throwing them in the face of yourself, sir, and the members of this

House. You can't get around it through the back door. I mean, he either

has to adhere to the rules or remain seated.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I strenuously object to the opposition taking four shots at our member

for no reason at all. If he hit a sensitive nerve, let them be strong

enough to sit and listen to it. I am disgusted with their attitude.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, and again to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, we

are on an amendment to the throne speech debate, dealing primarily with

economic matters. If the member could relate his remarks more directly,

then he would be, in fact, in order in the debate. Insofar as the

reading of or referring to notes is concerned, Beauchesne's fifth

edition,

section 310, clearly allows a wider latitude in throne speech

debate. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'll simply finish in a few short paragraphs what I

basically wanted to say about individual initiative, about the right to

own property being elevated to a Canadian charter, and then switch to a

few comments about resource ownership, resource development and

provincial jurisdiction with respect to resources, and conclude my

remarks this afternoon.

I think in essence what I am saying

is that I believe that an appropriately worded resolution should come

to this House — the sooner, the better — saying that the individual

right to property should be in our Canadian charter. Being passed,

certainly with weight of the majority of this House, it would be the

position of the government of the day in British Columbia. Hopefully,

those of like mind could convince at least seven other provincial

legislatures to do the same. I would trust that the House of Commons in

Ottawa would pass a similar resolution. Given our new amending formula,

this then would mean that the individual right to own property was in

our Canadian constitution and in our Bill of Rights dealing with

individual freedoms. This is an initiative which I hope this government

will take and an initiative which I hope other provincial governments

will take.

I think it's too bad that property rights weren't

in the charter of 1981, but hopefully it will be in the charter as

amended in 1982 or 1983, because it's one of the fundamental rights and

freedoms which people in this country, and certainly in this province,

think they enjoy. They believe that those rights stand above all other

law and shouldn't be taken away easily or readily. I think it's very

important that an initiative of that kind be taken here in this

Legislature. We should start the ball rolling and encourage other

provinces and the national government to do likewise and amend the

charter in this way.

I'll switch to resources. The hon.

member wants me to say a few words about economic matters, and then

I'll sit down. There is a passage in the Speech from the Throne which

states: "The formula for future constitutional change ensures that no

future constitutional change can challenge British Columbia's ownership

of its natural resources." That bothers me for several reasons. First

of all, the formula for constitutional change itself says that given

the appropriate majority of provinces — seven — and federal agreement,

any change is possible. In other words, B.C.'s ownership of its natural

resources is not necessarily guaranteed forever. It can be changed by

constitutional change. The second concern I have is the wording of a

notice of motion now before the House of Commons in Ottawa and

currently being debated there. It says that while each province may

make laws in relation to the export of a resource from the province,

"such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or

in supplies exported to another part of Canada — or abroad."

Further it says:

"Nothing

in the preceding

section derogates from the authority of Parliament" —

i.e. Ottawa — "to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to

earlier" — i.e. trade and resources — "and where such a law of

Parliament and the law of a province conflict the law of Parliament

prevails to the extent of the conflict."

This says in effect

that if B.C. exports a resource to another province or abroad, it loses

control of the quantities to be exported and cannot set prices either.

The

third reservation I have in this area of resources is the wording of

the November 5 accord signed by nine provincial Premiers, including our

own Premier of British Columbia. It says that equalization payments

made to the provinces by Ottawa will take into account provincial

income from resources. In a backhanded way this amounts to a

redistribution of resource income across the country with the

resource-rich provinces paying the shot for the poorer ones.

Finally,

there's the recent B.C.-Ottawa agreement on energy. It turns the

administration of oil and gas production incentives in this province

over to Ottawa. In the Alberta-Ottawa Agreement, Alberta administers

the incentives. Alberta does the job in Alberta. Ottawa does the job of

administering oil and gas incentives in B.C.

So I can only

conclude that we have a joint responsibility for resource development

in this province, not an exclusive provincial responsibility, at least

insofar as energy is concerned.

[ Page 6679 ]

This

matter of resources, Mr. Speaker, is a difficult one. A resource

essentially is not a resource unless it has value. It doesn't have

value unless there's a market for it, unless it can be sold. Most

resources that we have are sold preponderantly outside the province,

and usually abroad. That involves interprovincial trade and

international trade. That is governed under the BNA Act, and I assume

under our continuing constitution, by the trade and commerce clause,

and the trade and commerce clause is federal. So while we may control

supply in the initial sense in the province, certainly trade in the

sense of quantities moving, pricing and so on is federal. Resource

development is like a coin: there are two sides to it, the supply and

the demand, the production and the marketing. The marketing side, the

demand side, is substantially governed by federal law, and I assume

this will continue to be the situation for a long time. So resource

development, no matter how we like to express it, no matter how much we

like to think of it as being purely a provincial prerogative, is really

a shared responsibility. It's federal and provincial. Certainly we're

going to hear more about resource development and the sharing of the

profits, the values of resource development, between our two levels of

government.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and in an attempt to

sum up, I'll say I'm an individualist from a political philosophy point

of view, and I'm certainly not a socialist. I'm for decentralization as

opposed to centralization of political power in this country. I'm for

less power at the centre — namely Ottawa — and I'm for the provinces

passing on more of their power, their substantial power, to the people.

I'm all for the provinces administering more of the people programs —

especially people programs like health, education and human resources —

a power, incidentally, which they had under the British North America

Act, but which has been exploited because of the financial competence

or ability of Ottawa. And I'm all for involving our citizens as much as

possible in our constitution-building and constitution-amending process.

This

is why I, personally, would like to see us use the referendum process

on occasion. This is why I'd also like to see us pass a resolution in

this chamber relating to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — a

resolution which confirms that this province endorses the new charter,

as it's evolving, but also a resolution — or a separate resolution at a

later date — which insists that individuals can own property and that

the right of individual Canadians, male or female, whoever they may be

and wherever they may reside, to own property — and if their property

is taken away from them, for them to be properly compensated — be part

of the highest law of the land, namely in our charter. This is the

right thing to do at this time.

I personally think that our

legislatures are remiss — and this is not addressing my remarks purely

to this Legislature, but across the country. They should also, in

parallel with the national government, be passing at least a resolution

confirming that this is our charter, this is the charter we endorse,

this is the charter we agree to work with and esteem. We'll try to

improve it as time goes by, but it's sacred as far as we're concerned.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see you back in your chair hale, tanned and

hearty. We are very pleased to have you back, and I think all of us

have probably mixed feelings about returning in the pre-Christmas

season.

When you sit on this side of the House and you

listen to that inept throne speech.... I think the opposition realizes

how important it is for them to be here and to do their duty as members

of the loyal opposition, to point out how absolutely incompetent the

Social Credit government is — increasingly so — and to use, hopefully,

our opportunity and our rights as members of the opposition here to

deal with some positive things, we hope, Mr. Speaker, which will point

out to the people of British Columbia that it is time to turn to a

party that seems to have a grasp on some of the economic problems which

we are all facing today.

If we judge by the last speech

which we just heard, it's quite clear that the emphasis from that

member is entirely on the Charter of Rights. We are all very pleased

it's reached the stage it has, although there are some problems still

existing. I think the people of British Columbia expect to hear a

little more from the Social Credit members in debating the economy of

this province at this particular time.

Just before I get

onto that, I would like to digress for one brief moment and relate

something that I don't think was too appropriate to be said today in

this House. I as a member of the opposition have resented the remarks

by a member of this House today who usually is not a member who insults

the opposition, and that is the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet), who seemed to leave an impression in his speech.... And I

think more than an impression, he almost stated. Mr. Speaker, that the

opposition encourages violence. I consider that a highly insulting

thing for any member of this House to accuse another political party of

encouraging.

I would like to point out to that member, who

is no longer in his seat, that the implication that any suggestions of

violence that the Social Credit members face means that the NDP must

have been behind it.... We can follow that analogy through to the days

when the NDP were in government, and those of us who experienced

personally some forms of violence at no time walked into this House and

accused Social Credit of being responsible for it. I, myself, can

remember standing on the steps of the Legislature having cans thrown

right directly at me by a group of people who came here to demonstrate.

At no time would I have walked back into the Legislature and said that

the Social Credit Party had provoked that violence. Therefore, I

consider those remarks really not appropriate, and I am very surprised

they were made. I am sorry the member is not here, because I would like

to make it quite clear that we on this side hope that we don't have to

listen to that kind of condemnation, which I consider most unfair.

Mr.

Speaker, to go into the actual debate before us, we are debating the

economy. We are debating the failure of the Social Credit government to

deal adequately with it. When one looks through the throne speech, when

one listens to the speeches we've heard to date from the members of the

government, it certainly doesn't give us much encouragement for the

very serious, critical times that we live in today.

I would

like to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, the words of a member of this

Legislature, who spoke, I believe, today — or yesterday, I'm not quite

sure. His words were: "It is not the time for irresponsible spending

that would plunge this province hopelessly into debt, as has happened

once before. The people have good memories. Mr. Speaker, and they're

not interested in the pie-in-the-sky promises that would make their

personal tax burden unbearable." Well, I think we on this side of the

House completely agree with those words. They happen to have come, mind

you, from a member of the government, the member for Kamloops (Mr.

Richmond).

[ Page 6680 ]

The

member for Kamloops just referred to the quote that he made, which I

would have to agree with. I would have to agree with him from the exact

opposite angle, though. That member, when he says we need a government

which is financially responsible and which won't make our tax burdens

unbearable, must be referring to the great need to get rid of Social

Credit and return the NDP. Let me give the member for Kamloops a short

financial history of his own government since they assumed office and

within the last year.

In the very last session the Social

Credit government sought and received approval for $625 million in tax

increases. These included a 2 percent hike in sales taxes and increases

in gasoline taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, medicare premiums,

hospital fees, nursing-home fees, ICBC rates and ferry rates. Since I'm

reading this, there has been an added increase in the last two, Mr.

Speaker. Need we talk about school property tax and the effects of the

Social Credit policy of dumping more and more of the taxes on the local

taxpayer, and the increase in corporate tax...?

MR. LEA: None of them.

MRS. DAILLY:

No. Isn't that interesting? I wonder why. He left that out, I think. I

don't think he referred in his speech to the corporation tax and what

the Social Credit government had done with that compared with the

average working person — no increase. In addition Social Credit secured

passage of legislation allowing them — and I hope the member for

Kamloops can hear this, Mr. Speaker — to borrow an additional $2.5

billion. Yet this is the government of members who go out on the

campaign trails, wherever they be and whenever they start, and say: "We

do not believe in debt. We believe in a balanced budget." They fail, of

course, to mention that there has been an additional borrowing of $2.5

billion. When added to the debt outstanding at the beginning of the

year, Social Credit will have the taxpayers owing a staggering $10.5

billion. This amounts to approximately $3,900 per man, woman and child.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? This is nearly three times the

amount since they took office from us in 1975. That member stands up

there and says: "Oh, we can't return the NDP, because with them the

taxes will go up." The record speaks for itself: the debt has gone up

over three times since the Social Credit became government, with

increased taxes and increased borrowing power. At the same time, on top

of all this extra money that they're bringing in, apparently through

taxes, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) says he can't make

ends meet. Well, I'd say there is something incompetent — would you

not, Mr. Speaker? — about that government on the other side of the

floor. I'm sure that the new member for Kamloops, perhaps after hearing

these facts on the true record of his government, when he has a chance

to vote on our amendment will support it.

I do find that it

is rather appalling that a government can still go on with the tired

old talk about the NDP record when, as the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

said, they became government in 1975, and yet they are doing such a

poor job that all they can do is talk about the NDP record.

Then,

Mr. Speaker, we have members like the member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie), who continues to talk about non-government intervention.

You'd think that by now all the Social Credit members who keep talking

about that would have learned their lesson by looking to see what is

happening in the United States under Reagan, who has followed

Friedman's policy of non-government intervention. Every government that

follows that — the Thatcher government, the Reagan government and, of

course, the provincial Social Credit Party of British Columbia — is

creating stagnation, because they believe that no matter what's

happening out there, government has nothing to do about it.

course the biggest area where we see this weakness in the Social Credit

philosophy is housing. It was interesting that the member for Kamloops

(Mr. Richmond) or someone else — I don't mean to pick on him today —

said: "Why don't we hear anything positive from the NDP?" Our member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) gave an excellent speech yesterday in

which he outlined some very positive areas of housing for this

province. I think it's rather sad that the members over there, after

listening to a speech like that, could really get up and say that the

NDP offers nothing positive. I intend to repeat those areas of positive

policies in housing, which our housing critic from North Island listed

yesterday, but I'm going to leave that because I want to end on a

positive, high note.

I intend to continue with some of my

criticism of some of the things that are happening, first, with the

Social Credit government's policies. I noticed the member for Central

Fraser Valley was praising the housing policy enunciated in the throne

speech. If I may quote, he actually said that everybody should be

encouraged by his government's initiatives:

I'm

excited by the special emphasis that will be placed in the area of

rent-to-own. How many times have you heard someone say. "I cannot

afford to buy, I must rent"? How many times have you heard it said

paying rent does nothing towards building equity in a home? For the

first time in the history of our province, and possibly Canada, a

government with this imaginative approach will remove that concern of

never owning a home or building equity in a home....

really sounds great when you read that speech and you think to

yourself: that sounds like this government have finally come to their

senses and they're going to do something about helping everyone own a

home. Let's just break down and analyze very briefly this new

rent-to-buy policy which the member for Central Fraser Valley has

endorsed. I think we're all aware that it starts off with the

government making available additional Crown land for housing. Mind

you, this is rather laughable, because that Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot), ever since he has been minister, has talked about how many

lots he was going to release from Crown land, and the numbers have

stayed about the same; in fact, we've hardly seen any movement.

However, he has said he'll release them now.

First-time

home-buyers will be able to lease lots for 12 percent of their fair

market value. At any time during the first five years of the lease the

homeowner will be given the option to buy with the guarantee that the

price won't increase more than 6 percent a year. The bottom line is

that the homeowner who has been paying a mere 12 percent rent on his —

we'll say — $50,000 government-owned lot will at the end of five years

be able to buy for about $70,000, after the initial price of $50,000,

the lot for which he has already paid the government some $30,000 in

rent. The previously paid rent will not be applied to the price.

Mr.

Speaker, you'd have to really question that and say to yourself: what

if I had that opportunity? Would I endorse what this government has

brought out as this revolutionary housing policy? Or, when I stop and

think about it, what am I really gaining, and is not the government

gaining something?

[ Page 6681 ]

consider this a farcical scheme. It's going to make money for the

government, but the average person who can put out that kind of money

would probably be better to put it into the bank. I think the program

is sad, because the sound of the program is that it is building up the

hopes of the young people of this province for their first homes, and

yet when you analyze it, when they themselves go to really work on this

program and look at it, they're really going to sit back and say: "I'm

not gaining anything, but the government is."

I cannot

understand why an intelligent member like the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) could endorse this kind of scheme of his own

party. Maybe you didn't have an opportunity to be part of it — I don't

know — but I do hope that you will accept the points I'm making. In all

seriousness, perhaps he will go back and help his Housing minister

devise some housing policies that aren't going to just make money for

the government but are really going to help young people get a home.

I'm really quite serious. I hope the member will be able to disabuse me

of my

interpretation, but that is the way it appears to us at this time.

Speaking

of the Minister of Housing, I found it absolutely appalling.... I

happened to be listening to CBC this morning, and he was again quoted

as saying at some housing symposium he was attending: "There will be no

government intervention in housing, and most of the fault is the

federal government's." You know, that really gives a lot of hope to the

people of British Columbia who are suffering from the housing crisis.

There will be no government intervention, and it's all the federal

government's fault — the same old story.

Even more appalling

was listening to the quotes of his deputy minister, who was on a panel

at the symposium. This deputy minister — and I don't know who it was —

was speaking on behalf of his minister. That is the point I'm trying to

make. He actually said at this symposium on housing and high rents that

there really was no problem in British Columbia when it came to rents.

He said that most people were able to find places to live and most

people could afford to pay the rents. That is what I heard this morning

on CBC, and unless somebody can tell me otherwise, I have to assume

that that was a proper quote.

Mr. Speaker, for the record

and for the edification of the Minister of Housing, I simply must enter

this into the record. For anyone to stand on any platform today and

suggest that there is no rental problem makes you wonder where they

have been. Do they ever leave their offices in the parliament

buildings? Do they ever go out and talk to people in the province? I'm

sure that most of the Social Credit members over there — the few who

are here listening at this time — know that in their own constituencies

there are some serious problems with rents.

Let me give an

example, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quoting from an NDP source. I'm quoting

from the Red Door agency, sponsored by the YWCA — the housing registry

in Vancouver. One of the personnel people there was recently quoted,

and she deals every day with the housing and rental crisis. She says

that her Red Door agency gets about 500 registrations each month — 500

people or families looking for a place to live. They are able to place

about 75 of those 500. That means 425 people have to be turned away

monthly because they cannot be helped by the agency. Actually, they are

trying to discourage anyone from moving unless they are living in such

a deplorable scene that they have to get out, because they have nothing

to offer them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They

say that the acute shortage of rental units is not the only problem

they are dealing with. They are also dealing with discrimination in all

its ugly guises, tenants' lack of information, their inability to pay

current rates, low incomes, low morale, etc. Red Door gets about 200

listings each month — 200 landlords calling in to say they do have a

place to rent. But about half of those landlords will not allow

children, and of that 100, many are offering accommodation in the $800

to $900 a month range.

The recent report that came from the

Social Development ministry of state in Ottawa pointed out the

desperate situation when it comes to incomes versus these high rents.

It says close to half a million low-income renters already pay well

over 30 percent of their income, and it's now expected that with the

rent increases and the other increases that will be inflicted on them,

most low-income people will end up paying 40 percent of their income

for rent. Some of these places that people are going into at even $500

a month — I don't know if any of you have visited some of them; I have,

and they are deplorable — I don't think any of us would want to live in

them ourselves, or have our children or anyone we know living there.

Yet

the Minister of Housing has a deputy, reflecting him and his policy,

who actually said yesterday at a public symposium: "I do not believe

there is a rental problem, and most people can find rents that are

acceptable to their incomes." Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is no

positive, good housing policy coming out of that minister. If he

actually believes there really isn't a problem, that government

shouldn't intervene and that the federal government alone is

responsible, there is no hope for the people who are suffering through

this housing crisis.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have listened

carefully to the few Social Credit members who have spoken and we have

listened to our own members, and I want to end up, I hope, on a more

positive note by repeating again that we do have positive policies. The

NDP is not standing up here just taking on the role of a carping

critic; we are trying to assist this government. We've been trying to

assist them for the last four or five years in this housing situation

and we have received no response at all. This new throne speech doesn't

make us feel as if anyone has been listening to us. Our member for

North Island (Mr. Gablemann) has again done some very excellent work in

his role as housing critic, and he today reiterated to the Minister of

Housing some concrete policies. I'd like to get them in the record

again. Maybe someone sitting over there will get to that Minister of

Housing.

First of all, re-establish the Housing Corporation. We're still one of the few provinces in Canada that doesn't have one.

found something very interesting the other day. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) was quoted as saying, at the time in 1978 that

government sold off the B.C. Housing Corporation to the private market

— one of the worst moves any government could ever make; and they have

shown what's come out of it: no proper housing in this province....

When the Minister of Housing — who was, by the way, Hugh Curtis, the

present Minister of Finance — sold off the Housing Corporation to the

private market, he rationalized his position with the following

statement: "If the housing market tightens up. as it could at any time,

there is still the capacity within the ministry to do what was

originally assigned to Dunhill." There is a cabinet minister holding an

[ Page 6682 ]

important

position in that government.... That Minister of Finance actually said

in 1978 that if the housing situation deteriorated, that government

would have to look at perhaps re-establishing the Housing Corporation.

would like to ask — and I'm sorry he's not here — if he still means

that. If he does, will he please use some influence on his government —

on the Premier and the Minister of Housing — to re-establish the

Housing Corporation. He himself knew that that is absolutely essential,

and yet for some reason or other he got his orders to dismantle it.

my own area in Burnaby I saw the ludicrous situation of land that had

been bought by our Housing minister when we were in government — land

and homes that were built for people on low income to rent — being

turned over to the private market so that developers could come in and

charge whatever they want. The result was that many of those rental

accommodations turned into expensive condominiums and did not sell for

a couple of years, until the housing situation got to the point where

some people, I imagine in desperation, decided to give up most of their

income to move in. That's the kind of stupidity that the housing policy

of the Socreds has created.

The other point we've made is —

and I'm just repeating what our housing critic said yesterday: we want

to have that savings and trust act proclaimed, which the government

members, who were opposition at that time, supported. We want to really

organize land-banking. It was interesting that one of the members

referred to Prince George yesterday. We've been asking for that to be

repeated all over the province, and yet nothing has happened since.

also feel it's absolutely essential, as our housing critic has

enunciated before, that every government must, and has a responsibility

to, intervene and provide social housing. You cannot sit back and just

wait to create rich condominiums so that the developers alone can make

a profit. That's fine. They have a right to. But do they have a right

to make it entirely at the expense of the low-income people who have no

place to live? Yet this government seems to think the whole thrust of

housing is to create tax shelters for the developers. Fine, but what

are you going to do about the people that it doesn't help and who still

don't have housing? The other thing is, where is the encouragement for

co-op housing? There is absolutely nothing coming out of this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I think my time is about up. I

thank the House for their kind attention. I just hope that I have

convinced some of the members on the government side that this motion

we have presented must be supported if we are going to get British

Columbia out of its present economic crisis.

MR. RITCHIE:

I have to go on record as saying that that's the best speech so far

from the opposition — not a good speech, but the best. It's the best

because the back bench has at last been recognized as working. We're

very pleased. As a matter of fact, our back bench members have asked me

to express our appreciation to the member for Burnaby North for that

recognition.

I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I want

to speak on this amendment and explain why I oppose it. I had a few

notes prepared, but after listening to the hon. member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly) I got them mixed up because she gave me so much

more ammunition.

First, it would seem to me that we have a very confused opposition party in

respect to policy, particularly housing policy. It seems to me that that terrible

split in that party — those who are part of the right and those who are part

of the left — is again showing up. In responding to the comments, I think it

would be fair for me to say that I know more about the ideas of the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), as far as he is concerned with housing, than does

the member for Burnaby North. I will quote from the record exactly where the

member for North Island stands as far as housing is concerned. This is how he

replied to the throne speech debate on September 24, 1973. I hope he's listening

and will come into the House.

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building houses. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately.

I'd like to repeat that line. He said:

Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested that air should be owned privately.

Then he went on to say:

Air was given to us by God, or whoever

we believe gave it to us. And so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign

to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural

should be privately owned. I believe that it is going to take us

decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this

society, and I have it too, that we all think we have to own a chunk of

land, and until we own that chunk of land and until we own a house

we've actually not made it.

Madam Member, do you support that position, as far

as housing is concerned? If you do, I have been very badly mistaken. I

don't think you do, nor do I believe that those in the right wing of

your party do, either.

The member for Burnaby North talked about stagnation. If anyone

knows anything about stagnation in a country, I should, because I came

through those depression years back in Britain. I came through those

war years back in Britain. Then I came through the years whenever the

socialist government took over and made all sorts of wild promises to

our troops, who were out fighting the war on our behalf, and what did

they get? They got a stagnated economy. All you have to do is take a

look at Britain today and see the mess it's in. All you have to do is

take a took at the emigration roll and see who left there to come to

this country for opportunity. If you want to see stagnation, you go

over there.

There was another mention. The member talked

about rent-to-own. Yes, I'm proud and excited about that program. I can

only assume by the remarks that you have made, Madam Member, that you

oppose the program of rent-to-own.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed

to the amendment, which really has been based on a lack of planning. I

would like to respond to two speakers in particular in this case. One

is the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who moved this motion to

amend. I tell him that the citizens of this province tried your

planning, and in a very short time they felt the effects of it. What

were the effects? I think it only took about 1,200 days for you to get

the effects out. What were the results? Well, just to name a few: there

was almost total closure of the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. There was

socializing of B.C. industries.

We hear the ranting from

across the floor about Panco. You know, if some of those members keep

shooting off their mouths about Panco, it would do them good to talk to

me about Panco. I know what went on there. I know how that government

went out in those days and told the people who worked for Panco: "If

you don't vote for us, you're going to get fired." Ask the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). It's on the record, Mr. Speaker, on

government stationery: "You'll get fired if you don't put in a socialist

[ Page 6683 ]

government."

Ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He said: "We will buy

it. We don't care what the producers say, we will buy it; and we'll buy

it at any price, because it's not our money. It's the taxpayers' money;

why worry about it?" And they did. And they paid a price, Mr. Speaker,

much greater than was being offered and much greater than the company,

the seller, was prepared to accept from the producers. They went in and

they bought at a price much greater than the seller was prepared to

accept from the producers....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's observe the rules in debate.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the economy, that type of economy, that

type of planning also saw the producers of this province in the turkey

industry lose their freedom. When the member who hasn't been in his

chair for this sitting so far — I'm not sure, possibly....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry to hear that too, and I hope that you will convey that.

That

particular member, Mr. Speaker — on the instructions, I believe, of the

Minister of Agriculture at that time — went before the producers of

this province and told them that the government knew better than they

did themselves what was good for them, and they were signing away their

rights to produce turkey in this province. That wasn't enough, Mr.

Speaker — they went a stage further. Because they had control of the

Pan Ready plant in Coquitlam and because they had control in Panco

Poultry, then they said to the producer: "We don't care what your cost

of production is, you'll take what you get." That's in the record of

the turkey producer board of this province. I know that this is a fact,

because I am the one who fought them tooth and nail, toe to toe. But we

won in the end; the producers won. Any time you want to talk about

Panco Poultry or agriculture in this industry, get your facts right.

The

member from across the floor, Mr. Speaker, who spent part of his time —

I don't know how long — on the beat, shoots across the floor of this

House continually: "How about Panco Poultry?" You don't know what

you're talking about. What were the results? Exodus of British

Columbians. How many were leaving British Columbia? Unbelievable — just

packing up and going. Someone said: "Would you please put out the

lights when you're finished."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for the

outburst; I intended to be very brief, but when I listen to that

razzmatazz from across there, it just gets my Scottish blood up.

want to be more specific here, because things are said in this House

that just make me sick. I said it yesterday, the member quoted me, and

I say it myself: it makes me sick, sick, sick. I refer specifically to

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann); I'm sorry he's not with

us. Mr. Speaker, he talks about poor, starving children in his

constituency. Let's deal with his constituency. I'm quoting that

member; he says in Hansard in 1979: "When I look at the

alcoholism rate in my constituency and when I look at the prescription

rate for Valium in some of my communities...." And he goes on. He

apparently has an alcohol problem in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, again I can quote Hansard , March 13, 1980: "Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that makes me angry, because kids are dying in this province."

I would also like to quote from the Vancouver Sun ,

page A-14, March 14, 1980, when he said the lack of money for the Human

Resources ministry was directly responsible for the beating death of a

three-year-old child in Port Hardy. You know, Mr. Speaker, when I

listen to this sort of politicking and this type of speech-making, it

really disturbs me very deeply.

But let's look at some

figures that I've put together. This is the personal disposable income

for 1980. In one area of that member's constituency, Mount Waddington,

it records the average disposable income as being 28 percent higher

than the average in Canada. It shows that Comox-Strathcona is

approximately 13 percent higher than the average in Canada.

his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he also said that I did not see my

constituents — that I didn't spend time in my constituency. I'd like to

tell him that I do spend a fair deal of time in my constituency, with

my people too. The average annual disposable income in my constituency

is about $2,000 less, according to this record, than it is in his.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear of those troubled people.... We

have the odd one with a problem, there's no question about it, no

matter where you go. I have them in mine. As a matter of fact, only

last week I had occasion to take a very tough stand on behalf of a

husband and wife and three children on welfare who were about to be

turfed out of their home because they couldn't make their rent payments

on time. I took care of that. But I don't use that in my speeches, and

it hurts me to hear this sort of speech being made in this House or

anywhere else, when I know what his background is and what his thoughts

are.

Who was it, Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago who was

joked about, and the story went that he made his political speeches

from a manure spreader? I would much rather have some politician make a

speech from a manure spreader than have someone use the backs of poor

children or senior citizens or handicapped people. That disturbs me

immensely. That's not what those people want. They want help. They

don't want to be used as political footballs, not at all. But that's

what's happening over there — not all of your members, but this one in

particular. That disturbs me immensely.

Mr. Speaker, I'm

sure that I've said it many times in this House, and I'll say it again

and I'll keep on saying it. I left a country that came down to a state

of affairs that this opposition party would like to have in our

province and in our country, as their Waffle Manifesto states. Believe

me, I will work towards preventing that.

As I go ahead and

do my research, I wonder it is that this member has such a bitter

attitude. Why is it that he will use young people, senior citizens,

handicapped? Why would he even talk about children dying, when he must

know that in his constituency he has one of the highest rates of

disposable personal income in all of Canada? Maybe the problem is not

government, but rather the problem is that they have alcoholism, as

he's already stated. I would venture to say that they have another

problem, and that's their member. He's not doing his job right.

I searched into the background of this particular member, Mr. Speaker,

I see that he too was born and raised in the Old Country. I can't say

exactly when he emigrated, but he was born in Britain and I give him

credit for that. Some of us left Britain because we wanted the

opportunities that this

[ Page 6684 ]

country

offered to us, and we were prepared to work for them. But then, others

came to perpetuate the mess that they had created in Britain. I suspect

that that member, Mr. Speaker, as I study his speeches.... I'm not

speaking only of the speech here today. I'm thinking of speeches that

have gone on and on and on in this House. There isn't any speech that

irritates me more than to hear that member stand up here and use our

children, our handicapped, our senior citizens and any vehicle that he

can get ruthlessly for political gains. Disgusting! I hope that you

people will talk to him about it if he's not listening to this. I think

it's absolutely disgusting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. Perhaps a passing remark from time to time about a

member in this House may even be tolerated, even though it has a

tendency to be disorderly. But to make an entire debate on the

performance of another member in this House would certainly be out of

order, particularly on this amendment. I'm hoping that the member will

soon relate his remarks to economic policies, economic stagnation, the

strengthening of the economy and those measures provided for in the

amendment. Please proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker. I certainly will, because it was economics that brought me

to this great land, and it's economics that are going to keep me here.

It's economics that will make me continue to speak out against the

rhetoric that we're hearing from people like that member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly). Only I and people like me know exactly what I'm

saying and how I feel here today. I had no intentions of speaking,

because I had my opportunity on Tuesday, but I couldn't hold back.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

Would you care to repeat that remark that you made, Mr. Member? Mr.

Speaker, I certainly hope that that member will take what I have said

seriously. I hope, too, that the people of North Island will correctly

judge his political motives at the next provincial election. I'm

definitely opposed to your amendment to this resolution.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would just like to read into the record the amendment we were

discussing so I can be sure that what I have to say is in accordance

with your ruling and the amendment. It appears that some of my

opposition on the other side of the House feel that this Legislature

should be used for personal attacks, to run by an election that was

held in 1975, to read over and over the garbage written in their

speeches that have been handed to them as they come into the House. I

feel that we should stick to the amendment and what we are here for.

Our

job as elected legislators is to bring policies to this government — to

bring suggestions and to help improve on and decide what we are going

on to.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I take exception to what the

member said. He said the speeches are handed to members when they enter

this House, insinuating that the speeches are made. That is not true.

It's false and I want a withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The matter raised by the member is not a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL:

They hand them to them before they get in the House. I would like to

withdraw one point. No one could write the speeches that the hon.

member for Dewdney gives.

I would like to read to the House

what the amendment says: "This House regrets that the speech of His

Honour fails to recognize that the economic policies of the government

have resulted in economic stagnation and further fails to provide

proposals for strengthening the economy of the province as to provide

full employment opportunities for all our people."

I feel

that in the short time I have to talk I cannot deal with all the

problems. But I would like to bring to the attention of this House some

of the problems that are facing the people in my riding and some of the

proposals that this government should have made and problems this

government has failed miserably to attack. They have failed to bring in

any type of long-range programs that are going to solve the major

problem facing each one of us as an MLA when we answer our mail and our

phone calls day after day. It is the complete lack of affordable

housing. A complete lack of it. The NDP came into power after 20 years

of Social Credit rule — 20 years of inaction in land banking and

inaction in providing low-cost housing. In 1972, we had exactly the

same situation we have today: a complete shortage of affordable rental

housing in this province.

When the government came into

power at that time they set up the B.C. Housing Corporation. For those

who have been involved in housing and construction, one of the most

important segments of a proper housing program is a proper land banking

program to provide land at affordable prices so that builders, owners

and the construction people can build on it. What did they do in my

riding? The NDP bought 300 or 400 acres to provide affordable land, and

what has this government done since they have come back to power? What

have they done? They have embarked on a systematic policy of selling

each and every piece of that land to various private developers who are

sitting on it.

Right now in my riding lots are selling for

$70,000, $80,000 or $90,000, and who can afford it? But what did this

government do? One hundred and fifty acres of prime land for housing

which had been purchased.... The Dunhill Housing Corporation had

started to lay out the plans to bring in affordable housing. They sold

it to a private developer who is sitting on it now for $2.5 million.

Would you like to read the record of that company, Happy Valley Timber

Ltd., who bought the property? They have not done one thing with that

property as far as making it available for affordable housing.

Right

now we have builders coming weekly to my office asking what this

government is going to do and what the NDP is going to do to bring this

kind of land onto the market.

I'd like to read into the

record a letter from a group of professional builders who are not and

have not been in the past great supporters of the NDP. They are not the

organized trade union movement; these are professional independent

builders, the small contractors, the person building a house and

providing shelter for the rest of us in society. They are so

frustrated, hurt and destroyed because of the inaction of this

government that they are taking action now and are standing up and

bringing to the attention of this government the problem that exists

out in the rest of the province.

I will read into the record

a double-registered letter which was sent to the Rt. Hon. W. Bennett,

Premier of the Province of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C. The letter starts:

[ Page 6685 ]

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

would herewith like to ask you if you perhaps could introduce

legislation as a personal favour to me, and in return perhaps I could

favour you with my personal vote in the next provincial election. I

should appreciate to see legislation passed whereby land zoned for

residential, industrial and commercial use — not agricultural land —

which at present are not occupied by buildings with a value of over

$25,000, are taxed by the province at a rate of $200,000 per acre. Let

owners of such land have one year's grace to start construction of such

buildings and from two to three years grace to complete construction.

"The

reason for this unusual request is this: I cannot at the present buy an

ordinary building lot for much under $50,000, and when I put an

ordinary house on top of such high-priced land — for example, a 1,300

square foot home, which costs approximately $65,000 to $70,000 to

construct — the final price of a lot plus structure will be

approximately $115,000 to $120,000.

"Such a

high-priced residential house is next to impossible to sell to the

ordinary working man at the present for the simple reason that he just

does not have, nor earn, that kind of money to be eligible for

mortgages. If I cannot build and sell houses at, for example, a final

price of $70,000 to $80,000, I will become unemployed and go on

welfare. At the same time, I will be dragging many thousands of people

along with me, because I will no longer be buying any building

materials or employing people like the bankers, the realtors, the

lawyers, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the

drywallers, the roofers, the floor-layers, the cabinet-makers, the

insulators, the excavators, the bricklayers, the stucco people and the

landscapers.

"You must also realize that when

I stop building because land prices are too high and when I make all

these people unemployed, those people cannot pay any taxes to either

the federal or provincial governments. When no revenues are coming to

the government, you and the bureaucracy cannot get your wages any more,

and that is bad.

"I feel if unoccupied

building lots are taxed, as I propose in this letter, we will most

likely see a lot of building sites being put on the market all of a

sudden, at around $20,000 for an average lot. That means that I can

start building and selling houses again. Furthermore, this kind of

proposal will also mean that rental property and residential housing

will once again come within the economic means of the average man.

am taking the liberty of forwarding copies of this letter to opposition

leader David Barrett, as well as to other people who may be interested

in the economic welfare of this province."

I say, Mr.

Speaker, these are builders; these are the people who are working day

after day to produce homes and rental property in this province, and

these are the people who are suffering because of the inaction of this

government, the lack of any land-banking policies, the lack of any

development of affordable property so that they can work. Mr. Speaker,

I want to tell you that I will be voting for this amendment because of

this type of inaction.

What did Mr. Balther J. Jensen get in

answer from the Premier? He wrote a letter, and he represents a large

body of people, and what did he get in answer? From the Premier, dated

October 28, 1981.

"Dear Mr. Jensen:

"This

will acknowledge and thank you for your letter of October 23rd, in

which as a house-builder you outlined your proposals regarding taxes

levied on unoccupied building lots. I can understand the concern which

prompted on to write and wish you to know that I have forwarded a copy

of your letter to my colleague the Honourable James Chabot, Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing, under the jurisdiction of whose portfolio the

matter comes. I am quite sure that Mr. Chabot will welcome the

opportunity to respond to your suggestion, and you may expect to hear

from him in the near future.

"Thank you again for writing and sharing your ideas with me.

Yours sincerely,

William R. Bennett"

I met with these builders, and I've met with a number of them since the

last session, and they are still waiting for an answer from this government.

They are still waiting for an answer from the Minister of Housing. In complete

frustration, because of no answers from this government, this group over the

name of Mr. Balther J. Jensen, professional builder, has sent the following

letter to the Premier. I would like to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker,

because I feel that what they expressed in this letter expresses the opinion

of many people in this province.

"Hon. W. Bennett.

Premier, Province of British Columbia,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"In response and acknowledgement of your letter dated

October 28, 1981, in which you felt sure your Minister of Housing, the Hon.

James Chabot, would respond to my letter of October 23, which has not been the

case, I should appreciate it if you would bring the matter re taxation of vacant

land to the attention of the Legislature in this sitting, in person.

"In the opposite case I feel it would be appropriate

and in the public interest if you and your cabinet resign and call an election

forthwith, since our economy is now in such a state that drastic measures and

legislation would be in good order and save the economy.

"In closing, I am taking the liberty of forwarding

copies of this letter to opposition leader, David Barrett, as well as some other

people who may have an interest in the economic welfare of this province."

I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, through you to the back-bench

members, that there is a very drastic change out in the economy in what is happening,

not only to the poor people, but to the middle income people, to all those who

have been working, who have held jobs, and nothing is coming from this government

to relieve the problems that they are facing. Unless this government takes some

action to provide land that people can build houses on, that builders can work,

it is going to get worse and worse and worse.

[ Page 6686 ]

Another

problem which has faced my riding since my election in 1979 — and each

year in the throne speech I bring it to the attention of this

government — is the dire problem of the mobile-home owners. Since 1979,

Mr. Speaker, there have been nine mobile-home parks closed in my riding

alone.

MR. BRUMMET: You need a new MLA.

MR. MITCHELL:

Now there is a very snide remark from the member for North Peace River,

and I bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker. He's not even in his own

seat. Nine parks have been closed down and nine groups of people have

been thrown out into the street, and we have the member for North Peace

River making these snide remarks, as if this is a big joke. I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, what the people out there say about people with their

snide remarks. I'll tell you what the people in the mobile-home

industry and the mobile-home associations say about these snide, cheap

shots that they make when there are people who have been denied a place

to live.

A place for their home is something that every

Canadian must have. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all humility,

that you should talk to a family. You should talk to a war widow who

has just received a notice, someone who has been retired on a small

pension, who has invested everything she has for shelter in a mobile

home. Granted, it was only $20,000, which was her total investment for

shelter. Because that land was worth more to build townhouses, she was

given 119 days' notice to get out — 119 days to move. The mobile home

that she bought, when it was set up in a park.... Because it was built

before 1974, it was worth $20,000 for shelter, but when that park was

closed down she could not move that house. She could not move her home,

and she lost $20,000, because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you cannot

move a home that is built prior to 1974 into other parks, because of

the CSA ratings. Other parks that have been developed will not take an

older home, because they are only being developed because they are

dealers who must, or want to, sell one of their new units. When we have

the member for North Peace River make snide, cheap remarks, Mr.

Speaker, you should ask him to go out and talk to these people, to

watch what's happened.

I've called on this government

consistently to bring in a program of providing mobile-home parks that

will have a permanent zoning, so people like my friend who was denied a

place to live and lost $20,000, when they move into a mobile-home park

— when they invest all the money they have for shelter — it will be

protected. I know that I have asked this government to take the

leadership in building mobile-home parks.

The Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) told me: "Well, you go to your regional

boards, you go to your municipalities, and attempt to rezone land."

The

Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) brought in a program of assisted mobile-home park

development for which they offered 15 percent money to municipalities

and regional boards to develop parks. So I took their advice, Mr.

Speaker. I went and appeared before the Capital Regional Board of

Victoria, and I took the message that I was given by the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Municipalities, and I

pleaded for somebody to give some leadership to providing something

that was affordable for people to live in. I'll tell you the answer I

got from Mr. Bob Wright, who is an alderma