1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1483 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of Justice. Mr. Lauk –– 1483

Goldstream River dam. Mr. King –– 1483

Environmental impact of Stikine-lskut project. Mr. Passarell –– 1484

Environmental impact of Liard project. Mr. Passarell –– 1484

Kemano II project. Mr. Lea –– 1484

PCB contamination. Mr. Hanson –– 1485

Radioactive wastes. Mr. Hall –– 1485

Uranium mining. Mr. Hall –– 1485

Administration of private nursing homes. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 1486

Budget debate.

Mr. Levi –– 1486

Mr. Hyndman –– 1491

Mr. Nicolson –– 1494

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1497

Ms. Brown –– 1501

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1504

Presenting reports

Rules, orders and regulations pursuant to the Health Act, February 1979 to November 1979.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1507

Ministerial statement

Radiation from video display terminals.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1507

Presenting reports

Milk Board annual report as at December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1507

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: Today in the gallery we have a famous first

for this area: the Canadian Inter-collegiate Athletic Union basketball

champions, the University of Victoria Vikettes. It is a first in many

ways. Not only is it the first time that this university in my riding

has won a national championship in basketball, but it's the first time

that both the men and the women have won a national championship. Some

of the players overlap both teams, as you'll see.

I'm pleased to introduce these ladies, Mr. Speaker, and I'll ask

them to stand, one at a time: Janine Prince, guard; Jamie MacKie,

forward; Tracie McAra, guard; Sue Shaw, forward; Luanne Hebb, forward;

Jane Favali, forward; Karen Packalen, forward; Sandy Lewis, forward;

Carol Turney-Loos — outstanding woman player in Canada and member of

the Olympic team — guard; and Kathy Shields — whose husband is the

coach of the winning men's team — coach of this group. I'd ask the

House to make them all welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to

wish everyone in the House a particularly happy St. Patrick's Day. I

will just quote very briefly the words of a great Irish bard of years

ago, who observed:

Up the long ladder and down the short rope,

A green Irish costume cannot hide a dope. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Ah, to be sure, Mr. Speaker, after the last

remarks it would seem most appropriate to introduce that famous visitor

from the Emerald Isle who is with us today on the floor of the House,

Leprechaun O'Vander Zalm.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks

of my colleague. Actually, the remarks of the member from

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) were given with a bit of a Welsh accent,

so I'll accept them as they are. But I think today everyone should want

to be a little bit Irish. Every nation has its traditions,

superstitions, mythology and folklore, but most are for evil and are

negative. However, the Irish have their fairies and their leprechauns,

who are for good and are positive. So I think we ought to be grateful

to the Irish for being very positive, and I would like the House to

join me in bidding well to all Irish British Columbians on St.

Patrick's Day.

MR. LAUK: In the gallery today are two distinguished officers

of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation: the president, Mr. Al

Blakey, and one of the directors, Mr. Jim Bowman. I ask the House to

make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the precincts of the House today are

members from the Comox-Strathcona Regional District. This morning I had

the pleasure of holding meetings with them, together with the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). They are advocating

an additional road and bypass for their area. I'm always very pleased

to receive their delegation and their representations. I ask the House

to make them welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today in the gallery are Mr.

John Reynolds of radio station CJOR, a very good and close friend of

mine, and Mr. Fraser McColl from Oak Bay. I ask the House to make them

very welcome.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have a younger brother of

one of the legislative interns with us this year. I ask the House to

welcome Stephen Smith from North Vancouver– Capilano.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like the House to bid welcome to Mr. and

Mrs. Al Wilson from Oliver in the great constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen. Mr. Wilson is a turkey producer and a member of

the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Attorney-General. In answer

to a previous question the Attorney-General indicated that he had

retained the services of private counsel Mr. John Hall to look into the

Vogel allegations. It's previously on public record that the

Attorney-General appointed Messrs. Anthony Pantages and John Rowen to

look into other allegations. With respect to the Vogel allegations, the

Ritchie case, the Eckardt commission, campaign funds and the Lettergate

affair, can the Attorney-General indicate if there are any other

private counsel advising the Attorney-General on any of those matters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that I caught all of the lengthy list, but the only counsel I have retained is Mr. John Hall.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General indicated previously that

Messrs. Leonard Dudley and Anthony Pantages were retained to provide

legal advice with respect to the campaign funds concerning the Social

Credit Party. Was that not a correct piece of information?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, all counsel retained to

advise ministers of the Crown are retained through the

Attorney-General's ministry, but those counsel were not retained to

advise me.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General indicate to the House, with respect to Mr. John Hall, his terms of reference and his fees?

GOLDSTREAM RIVER DAM

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the dog got the minister's tongue.

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Noranda Mines has

applied for a water licence to construct a dam on the Goldstream River,

north of Revelstoke. Has the minister intervened to ensure that public

hearings will be held before a decision on the water licence is made?

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

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

[ Page 1484 ]

minister advise the House whether the fish and wildlife branch of his ministry has requested a public hearing?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not to me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, they would hardly request a public

hearing of the minister; rather, that would be directed to the water

controller. Is the minister aware whether the fish and wildlife branch

of his ministry has requested of the water controller that public

hearings be conducted incident to the water licence application?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question, the matters have not been brought to my attention, either by

the commissioner of water rights or the director responsible for the

fish and wildlife branch. But I will take the question as notice and

find out if such things are already in place.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

OF STIKINE-ISKUT PROJECT

MR. PASSARELL: In its proposed Stikine-Iskut project, B.C.

Hydro reports the following damage is likely to occur. The migration of

the salmon will be drastically affected and the last wild herd of

mountain goats will be relocated. The question is: can the Minister of

Environment report what government action has been taken with respect

to these serious environmental questions?

HON. MR. ROGERS: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, we have had

no proposal from Hydro.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

OF LIARD PROJECT

MR. PASSARELL: I have another question. In its proposed Liard

project, B.C. Hydro reports the following damage is likely to occur.

The migration of the grayling, the major food supply of the Kaska band,

would be drastically affected. Can the minister tell me what government

action has been taken with respect to these serious environmental

concerns on the Liard project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could give me some

assistance, because it's my understanding that matters in question

period are to be matters that are urgent and pressing, and I think some

matter that has not been brought forward to government and has not been

proposed is neither urgent nor pressing.

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Environment that's both urgent and pressing. Has the province reached

agreement — or is there a near agreement — as to who will develop the

proposed Kemano II project? Will it be B.C. Hydro or Alcan who develop

Kemano II?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would like, perhaps, to ask the member to direct the question to the appropriate minister responsible.

MR. LEA: As the Minister of Environment, is the Minister of

Environment aware of any province agreement as to who will develop

Kemano II? Surely the Minister of Environment is involved, and I would

like to know from his point of view whether to his knowledge the

province has reached an agreement or is near an agreement as to who

will develop Kemano II — Alcan or B.C. Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: Only that portion of the question which asks

what has been reached is in order. That which talks about the future

and the policy of the government is not in order.

MR. LEA: I'd like to know: has there been an agreement reached, or is there a near agreement?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's the same answer that I

gave the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). To the best of my knowledge,

no one has applied for Kemano II.

MR. LEA: Okay. I have a simpler question: is the minister aware that water rights is under his ministry?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, please.

MR. LEA: In view of the interest of the national fishery, as

well as hydroelectric power and other environmental concerns, has the

minister, through the government, discussed with the federal government

and the federal Minister of Environment whether there is a need for a

full-scale federal-provincial public inquiry into the Kemano II project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I had an opportunity to discuss this matter

with the federal Minister of Fisheries. However, due to the fact that

the government in Ottawa collapsed and there has subsequently been an

election and the new minister has only recently been put in place, I

have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with his replacement.

MR. LEA: Has the minister made up his mind yet as to when he will discuss this matter with the new federal minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we have

some agreement on pairing, I'll be able to leave this House and go to

Ottawa to have those discussions.

MR. LEA: I would almost be tempted to ask, Mr. Speaker,

whether the minister has heard of the Kemano II project. Has the

minister come to any conclusion as to whether or not the Kemano II

project should go ahead under B.C. Hydro or Alcan? Have his ministry

and his office made any conclusion as to what should happen there?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, once again, that responsibility

does not come under my ministry. It is not the decision of my ministry

to make any determination as to who should operate it, if anyone should

operate it at all.

MR. HOWARD: I would ask the Minister of Environment if he

could advise me and the House when he will be able to answer the letter

I wrote him over two months ago asking for the involvement of his

ministry in this matter.

[ Page 1485 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. The second member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: I'll defer the floor.

MR. LEA: Is the controller of water rights still under the Ministry of Environment?

Interjections.

PCB CONTAMINATION

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Environment, if I could get his attention. On February 14 it was

brought to the minister's attention that there were three locations in

the province where PCB, a cancer-causing chemical, had been spilled,

and there was enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Shortly

thereafter, on February 18, the minister indicated that no inquiry was

required. Fortunately, ministry officials within his own branch

conducted the investigations on their own. The levels are now known as

being at 200 parts per million, which is a serious health hazard.

My question to the minister is: what action has the minister taken

at this time on the other two locations that were brought to his

attention, to determine the level of contamination?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I guess it's my day, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the request was for a public inquiry into these spills, and I

said at the time that officials of the ministry would look after the

matter. I advised that member in writing of the investigations that

were taking place, and I trust the member has a copy of that letter.

There are persons within my ministry, in the pollution control branch,

investigating all PCB spills. The latest specific one is the one that

took place in Kitsault last week, on which a press release was issued

on Friday. But when we're talking about things of the magnitude of two

tablespoons or less, I find some difficulty in being able to stop

people in the ministry and dispatch them just on request from members

of the public.

MR. HANSON: A clarification, Mr. Speaker. The letter I

received from the minister was three weeks after his account. We are

not talking about....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You must have a question, hon. member. This is not a debate.

MR. HANSON: I have a question directed to the Minister of

Health. In view of the latest evidence at Kitsault, at 200 parts per

million, and 8 parts per million a quarter of a mile away, would the

minister advise us if he is going to take any action to safeguard the

health of the workers at Kitsault and have them properly tested?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the doubts expressed by Dr.

David Bates that the commission of which he was head would be unable to

fulfil its promise to the Surrey residents that it would study

radioactive wastes on property owned by CRF Holdings in Surrey, can the

Minister of Environment advise what other action the government is

prepared to take on the problem of radioactive wastes in Surrey?

The minister appears reluctant to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It questions future actions of the ministry, but I'll take the question as notice.

MR. HALL: I would have thought a new minister might have wanted to take advantage of question period to tell somebody what he is doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

URANIUM MINING

MR. HALL: We'll turn to a more experienced minister, Mr.

Speaker. To the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations: in view of the

provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act, and in view of superior

court decisions such as the Pronto Uranium case in Ontario and the

Denison Mines case which held that the federal peace, order and good

government clause extends to the production and use of uranium, can the

minister advise what discussions, if any, have been held with the

federal government to ensure their cooperation regarding the ban on

uranium?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this a question which is perhaps introducing past history for the point of argumentation? If it is....

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're also looking at uranium mining in

Saskatchewan, Mr. Member. But I'd like to assure you that we'll be

having the most fulsome discussion with the federal government.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could repeat

his answer. The applause prevented his answer reaching this side of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if a question is not heard,

perhaps the House would be wise to allow the question to be repeated.

Otherwise it cannot be answered. However, if an answer is given, it is

recorded in the Blues, and I think that in order to avoid further

interruption of the House, we should refer to the Blues for those

answers. I would suggest that as a guideline.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, it's the process of question

period — and clearly set out in the memorandum of Mr. Speaker Smith

that was kindly circulated to the House the other day by the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — that supplementaries

are allowed on questions. It's very difficult for opposition members to

ask supplementaries on answers that cannot be heard. It is a question

that is of concern to us that ministers drop their voices deliberately

and avoid giving clear answers to questions.

[ Page 1486 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this on the same point of order or is this a debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's on the same point of order. Just a

correction, Mr. Speaker, for the poor little member over there. I

didn't circulate any material. I don't know what he's talking about.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to give two answers to questions asked of me in question period a week or two ago.

Leave granted.

ADMINISTRATION OF

PRIVATE NURSING HOMES

HON. MR. MAIR: Last March 3, the hon. member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), asked me a question regarding the death of an

elderly gentleman at James Bay Lodge in Victoria. There were, of

course, two very unfortunate deaths at this facility last year. As a

result of inquiries into these matters and the resulting coroner's

inquest, the following is the action taken by the government.

The local representative of the Provincial Adult Care Facilities

Licensing Board conducted an in-depth review of the staffing levels of

the James Bay Lodge. The board required assurance of a licensee of

James Bay Lodge that staffing inadequacies would not take place in the

future, and that the person in charge of this facility be delegated

full authority to dispense funds to provide proper staffing levels at

all times. Representatives from James Bay Lodge, including the person

in charge, the president and vice-president of Beacon Hill Lodges, have

been before the board to give their assurances that staffing levels are

currently, and shall remain, in accordance with the adult care

regulations.

As a matter of further interest, I would like to remind the House

that the verdict in Mr. Pascoe's case was "death by undetermined

causes," while Mrs. Lock was found to have committed suicide while

apparently in full possession of her faculties. I have also requested

that a review team be established to do an in-depth study of the

operation and care being given in long term care facilities throughout

the province. Included in this study would be a review of staffing

levels to ensure that all residents are receiving adequate and

appropriate care. I expect that this review team would be led by a lay

representative, probably from the business community, and will include

a facility administrator and nutritionist and a nursing consultant.

Recommendations of this task force may well be reflected in future

government action.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, last March 5 I was asked a question by the

hon. member for New Westminster regarding Como Lake Private Hospital. I

would like to advise the member that the information which he gave the

House about the situation at Como Lake Private Hospital is sadly out of

date. The member's question was phrased as follows: "We were informed

that at Como Lake Private Hospital there are no personal toilet

articles, and only four commode chairs for 70 bedridden patients. Has

this facility passed inspection under the Community Care Facilities

Licensing Act?"

The issue of personal toilet articles was investigated and rectified

in April of last year. On the question of commode chairs, I am informed

that there are eight, not four. The supply of wheelchairs, bedpans and

urinals is adequate for patients' needs, according to reports from

ministry staff who have visited the facility. I must question the

reference to "70 bedridden patients" at this facility. Mr. Speaker,

although 51 of these patients are in the extended-care category, which,

of course, is the top level of long-term care, the majority of the

patients at Como Lake are dressed and out of bed for part or most of

the day. Although the facility has caused some concern in the past,

there have been frequent and detailed inspection visits by staff, and

they have generally been satisfied with the improvements made. Indeed,

the comments and recommendations of the inspecting staff have been

attended to. I can assure the House that we will continue to assist the

management to make improvements at this facility. It is scheduled for

inspection again next month.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, because we've had the weekend, for the

benefit of the members and to remind them that we are into the

amendment, I would just like to read the amendment. Also I can stick to

the rules, and they'll know what I am talking about.

The amendment to the budget speech is that the motion "that Mr.

Speaker, now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of

Supply" be amended by adding the following:

"...but this House regrets that in the opinion of this

House the Hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our

citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of

living, or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a

strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary

industry and also that no provision has been offered to protect our

citizens against rising interest rates."

Mr. Speaker, during the general debate we had hoped that the members

across the way would remove themselves from the role of being analysts

in terms of speech-making and stick to the issues that needed to be

debated. Instead of discussions about the budget, the economy, the

question of cost of living and unemployment, what we really got from

them might best be described as B.S. I don't want you, Mr. Speaker, to

get upset because of the term B.S. I want to talk about B meaning

braggadocio, which is what we get over there — you know, the kind of

boasting that is going on over there. Some of it is the salaciousness —

the empty boasting. Of course, that's what we had from the member for

South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

I think that in debating the amendment it is important for the

members to set the debate in terms of the context of the province and

certainly in terms of the last election. The important thing about the

last election was that the NDP got some 600,000 votes and the

government got 635,000 votes. That result can best be characterized as

a repudiation of the kind of economic policies that government pursued

for three and a half years. That particular policy related to

overtaxation, large deficits, what they did with ICBC, what they did

with the ferries, and not addressing themselves to some of the more

specific issues relating to the needs of housing.

[ Page 1487 ]

Now we've heard a speech from the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), which has been coming across

this floor now for something like four years. If one goes back into Hansard ,

you find that he actually repeats the same speech every year, usually

at the top of his lungs with his hands flying — and, as the Leader of

the Opposition pointed out, he is much more liable to take off now that

there is no tax on windmills. He simply wants to constantly repeat the

same kinds of arguments that he advanced in 1976, '77, '78 and '79.

He is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, Mr.

Speaker. He is the man responsible for an industrial strategy, for an

economic strategy, and we have yet to learn from him what is actually

going to happen. Two years ago he got up in the House and started to

talk about a blueprint for the economy. Of course, in that blueprint

one would have hoped he would have talked about the questions of high

interest rates, inflation and the need to do something about housing.

But no, all he said was: "We really don't have a blueprint. We have

some ideas, none of them etched in stone, and we are still kind of

casting around." That, in fact, is what we've got from the government —

a whole series of castings-around, looking for some kind of central

theme for the economy.

It's got to be remembered — and I think the government has to

remember this — that the election in 1979 must have said something to

them; but they're not listening. The people who voted for them in 1975

stayed with them. They had expected to get a larger majority and to

have far more seats than they've got. In fact that didn't happen, and

they have to analyze why. People are simply not satisfied with the way

the government runs the province. That is a fair comment. That is why

we have, at the moment, such a small number of votes in the centre that

everybody is trying to chase after. We have a polarization.

Part of the polarization is based on the economic philosophy of this

side of the House versus that side of the House. That is what it is all

about. It is not about the idea that somehow the Premier is trying to

buttress his Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in

terms of a blueprint, so that he can run out every 15 minutes and make

another announcement about a $200 million mortgage scheme. Then he

talks about a bridge and then he talks about B.C. Place. What does all

this fit into? What does it mean in terms of immediate development of

jobs in the next three or four years — or in the next year? It doesn't

mean anything; it's not based on anything specific. There has been no

lead time given to it. But that is what we have — this kind of ad

hockery.

Today the province is in the midst of a very severe housing crisis. The lead

article in the front of the Vancouver Province

this morning dealt with the serious shortage of housing that exists in

the city of Vancouver — and in the rest of the province too; we can't

just talk about the city of Vancouver. Part of it is a direct result of

the rent control removal which has taken place since this government

has come in. The other part of it is that they have not cared to

address in any meaningful way the problem of how to assist people who

are running into very serious trouble in terms of meeting mortgage

payments. They made the first tentative moves, in terms of the $200

million mortgage plan, to assist people.

The one thing we are sure of in terms of the government — because they are

constantly telling us; we have only to look in the budget speech — is that

there is an adequate amount of money to take that $200 million mortgage scheme

to at least $500 million. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

has said that some 8,500 jobs will come out of the $200 million mortgage scheme.

That's fine; if that develops then there are 8,500 more jobs.

If they have the money sitting in the treasury, one has to look with

some horror at the last two pages of the budget speech that was

presented last week, in which there is a discussion at some length

about how much money is going to be left over at the end of the fiscal

year 1980-81. Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty horrifying prospect that we

are going to have all of that money unspent when we are in the midst of

a very severe housing crisis, a housing shortage, and the whole

question of the shortfall that people will have in their income because

of mortgage payments. Yet this government is quite prepared to say, as

they do on page 61 of the budget speech, that the forecast balance for

March 31, 1981, is going to be $1,188,500,000.

That is an incredible situation, faced with the current economic

situation. They are prepared to plan that way, to make no infusion of

capital into the housing market, into mortgage assistance; they simply

have no plan at all. When are they going to learn from what took place

last May? You cannot continue, if you are serious about the development

of the province, to advance the same kind of programs that you advanced

before. Those kinds of programs really deal with the idea that you will

save up large surpluses which you will spend the following year,

unexpended in the current year. They really represent an overtaxation,

and do not meet immediate problems which exist in the province.

You know, it is interesting that we heard from the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, and we also heard from some of

the backbenchers. Of course, all they are really doing is using the

notes of some of the ministers about the state of the economy in 1975

and 1976, and how terrible it was that we had the NDP here and that

things were very difficult here.

The other day I was looking at some options that we might have in

terms of what took place in respect to high interest rates, the cost of

living, and the whole generation of employment. In 1976 — and perhaps

we have no better authority now — the Conference Board in Canada

started to do a quarterly provincial forecast. They would look at all

of the provincial governments, and they would give some kind of

forecast. They're now into their fifth year of operation. It's

interesting that in their July 1976 quarterly report they said that

British Columbia's economic performance in 1975 was similar to that of

Canada as a whole, as the real domestic product increased by 0.2

percent from its level in 1974. First of all, he puts it in the context

that even in British Columbia — and listen to all the things these

people have said — the situation that prevailed in the rest of Canada

prevailed in this province. It goes on to say that they looked forward

in 1976 to improved levels of activity in the construction industry,

which would largely reflect a turnaround in the housing market in

British Columbia which occurred during the second half of 1975.

Even in 1974 and '75 the previous government was doing something

about housing. When the present government came in they decided that

there was no role at all for the government in housing, that it was

going to be left to the free enterprise system. Well, it has been left

to the system for the

[ Page 1488 ]

past four years, and now we have a severe housing

shortage. Coupled with that, we have this government moving towards

assisting the free enterprise system by taking off rent controls. Now

we have people around this province who, because their rents are in

excess of $300 — or $350 a month if it's a family — are faced with $100

or $150 rent increases. They are no longer covered by the rentalsman.

We are asking the government over there what they are going to do about

this. We have some indication that the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who is responsible for the

administration of the rentalsman's office and the Residential Tenancy

Act, is going to look into putting some housing not presently under the

regulations in there in terms of tenant complaints, but nothing to do

at all with the question of some kind of rent control.

I would like to hear some of the members across there get up in

debate and justify the fact that no housing over $300 a month is now

covered by rent control and that they agree with that kind of process,

and that somehow a miracle is going to happen out there and the free

enterprise system is going to create some housing. All the economic

surveys we have seen indicate that we are going to have an exceedingly

soft housing market in this province in 1980, that we're going to have

a soft lumber market because of the export problem in the United

States, where they are not building any houses. So we are going to have

a whole combination of problems, where people who are paying $400 and

$500 a month for their mortgages now have to renew them at high rates

of 4 percent to 5 percent more than they were paying, which means they

have to find $150 to $200 a month more just to meet the mortgage. Some

of those people are not going to be employed, particularly if they

happen to work in the wood industry where there are some layoffs. So

there is a whole combination of events coming together which make for a

continuing serious problem of how people are going to simply get by on

a day-to-day basis.

The major criticism that comes across from the members on the other

side has been: "Make us some proposal. Make some suggestions." They got

suggestions from our critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). They

got suggestions on improving the energy conservation problem, enlarging

on what the government was taking in terms of its first tentative steps

towards conservation. They were applauded, and I applaud them too.

Because they have the money — the money is in the bank; it's available

— now is the time to broaden the program, with the objective of selling

the idea of conservation and creating employment. Then we're asking

them to do something about housing and something about mortgages.

Members, particularly those whose ridings are on southern Vancouver

Island and on the lower mainland, are receiving a large volume of

letters from people complaining about the fact that they are unemployed

and that they are in the inescapable position of not being able to meet

their mortgage payments. This is the time for that government to show

some kind of leadership in terms of looking at the economy.

The other day we heard from the backbencher on the other side, the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who was critical of the

government for not going far enough, in terms of its taxation policy,

in returning more money to the consumer. We had this kind of analysis

done four or five years ago by the C. D. Howe Institute, which, in a

direct criticism of that government in 1976-77, said that at that time

what they should have been doing was cutting personal income tax and

looking at small business tax and at the sales tax; but that they were

going in the opposite direction. They didn't get into the sales tax

business until there was an agreement with the federal government to

pick up part of the costs. There are some options they could follow in

terms of the immediate problem they have today, but they're not really

prepared to do it.

Now suddenly, despite the throne speech and the budget speech, the

Premier, who apparently was up in Kamloops on the weekend, was talking

in a very serious way about the problems of inflation. He went up to

Kamloops and he just discovered it — there's an inflation problem. But

there is nothing in the budget that really deals with it. It doesn't

deal with inflation; it doesn't deal with higher interest rates.

Now what are the ministers concerned going to do in terms of the

economy? They lie back and say: "Well, that's something the federal

government has to do." Well, it's not something the federal government

has to do. If you're the provincial government and you're projecting

such large non-expenditures over the next year…. You have to just look

at the back page of your budget speech. Are they really telling us

they're not prepared to do this? That seems to be the situation — that

they're simply not prepared to move on it.

It's not as though they had a great deal of support for this kind of

attitude out there. The budget that came down — the largest budget in

the history of the province — was not all that well received, because

here was a large budget with government involvement, demonstrating that

government was getting bigger and not smaller. This is the government

that campaigned on the idea that they would make government smaller and

more efficient. Well, what are the facts? In 1977 the public service

had some 38,000 people in it, and now we find that in 1979 it had

46,000 people. This is the government that said it was going to reduce

the size of the public service and make it more responsive and more

efficient. So what have we got? We've got an almost 20 percent increase

in the public service by the people who said they were not going to

make government any bigger than it is.

We have it said within the budget, Mr. Speaker, that the Crown

corporations are going to need nearly $1.2 billion in financing.

They're going to go out to the market or use pension funds and Canada

Assistance Plan funds to raise this money. We've heard a lot of

speeches from people over there who say: "You can't spend a dollar if

you don't have a dollar, so our attitude towards governing is that we

will not get into debt. We are not prepared to leave any debt for the

next generation." I've never heard such an idiotic statement in my

life, but they constantly say that.

No, we have no future debt in this province, except over $7.5

billion in debt because of Crown corporations, which was around $4

billion some four years ago. And there is no doubt that by the end of

their term, at the rate they're going in terms of the debt structure

they are developing, this province is going to have some $10 billion

worth of debt before the next election. That is the rate at which they

have taken the government financing; they push some of it into the

Crown corporations and then turn around and say: "Aren't we wonderful?

The government is operating at a lower cost than it was previously." We

know that that's not the case at all. We know that if you take certain

services from the government and put them into a Crown corporation,

they have to be funded. Most of them have to get money which is coming

from outside the government, and then they have to go to the money

market.

[ Page 1489 ]

With all the discussions we've

had regarding the new budget, we have had no real attempt by the

government to tell us exactly on what it bases its plans for the

economic future of this province. We have had no reports from

them. As far as we know, they have not done any analysis that they are

prepared to show either the people in this House or the rest of the

public.

For instance, in terms of capital financing, three years ago, in

April 1977, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as they were called then, embarked on

having three studies done. One was a capital market study. Then the

Minister of Economic Development wanted to know about the bond market

and what the debt-equity situation was in the province. That's $200,000

of reports. Most of it was done by J. Henry Schroeder, and until this

day we have never seen any of those reports. We have no idea on what

they base their economic planning or how they plan where they're going

to raise money for this huge amount they need for Crown corporations.

That is part of their total inability to come to this House and tell us

what they're doing. In the same way we're attempting in this amendment

to get them to address these questions: What are they doing about high

interest rates? Where are they going? What kind of discussions are they

having? What plans do they have? We've had nothing from them.

For the first time, we had a background paper to the budget. I

certainly say to the Minister of Finance that it's a first, it's

worthwhile and it needs to be continued. One only has to look at page 3

of this background paper, which is "Medium-Term Economic Outlook and

Fiscal Analysis." That's the first time. It's here. It's got some

interesting material.

On page 3, the first chart, Canadian and U.S. Interest Rates, 1975

and 1980, is a rather graphic chart telling us what the problem is in

terms of where we're at. If one looks at the severe trough in terms of

where the interest rates were down and then started to climb, we only

have to look at 1977 on, and up we go.

Yes, look at it. Don't just hold it up. What is it? I can't even

read it. See the minister sitting there, Mr. Speaker, on an important

document. Has anybody taken a picture of him? There he is; he's the one

standing next to the blue paper.

So there, in that particular graph, they start to plot what is

happening in terms of interest rates. It's something that was available

to everybody, where you can calculate what is going to happen on the

basis of what's going on in the United States and Canada. The

tremendous rise over the past two years of the interest rates....

And then we also have to look at the provincial budgetary process, in

which there were huge taxes, huge surpluses, at the same time as their

interest rates were going up. Surely we have to say to the economic

geniuses across the way, Mr. Speaker: when are you going to do

something about the problem that exists today — high interest rates and

the housing shortage and the unemployment situation? Surely all of

those things come together. We must say to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development: is it not possible for some funding to be

made available so that more houses can be built, so that more lumber

can be used?

Yes, we have the ministers pointing to the grand plan, but the grand

plan, my friend, is this, because that's what was presented. That's

what you're debating, not something we've never seen. We know what's

going to happen because we've been told, in here, what are the worst

possible things that can happen. The worst possible thing is that we're

going to have some underexpenditures of over $1 billion.

Now we would hope that in this debate, now that the minister has a

report fresh off the presses, he'll stand up, participate in the debate

and tell us exactly how he is going to do something about high interest

rates, what he's going to do about unemployment and what he's going to

do about the whole question of housing. Those are three basic

questions. They are on everybody's mind today. Everybody you talk to in

the ridings and on the streets is discussing whether, by the time they

have to renew their mortgage, the mortgage rates will be higher or

lower. Somehow that government has got to give an indication that

they're prepared to give relief to people in the way that they're

attempting to do on the $200 million mortgage plan — by looking at a

greater expenditure. Because they've been in government long enough now

to have learned some of the mechanisms of our economic system, the

multiplier effect of the infusions of money into the economy. If $200

million will generate 8,000 jobs, then $500 million will generate

20,000 jobs plus the spin-off in terms of the lumber industry and all

of these other companies that operate around that kind of industry,

most of which are small businesses.

We've had no indication from them. We've looked at the speech; we've

simply seen that it's a continuing repetition of what they've been

doing for the last four years. If that's what they've been doing for

the last four years and now.... Because in May of last year we had

such a close election, where virtually half the people in the province

said: "We reject the NDP policy" or "We reject the Social Credit

policy." There is a very severe polarization. It's around the issue of

how you are going to manage the economy. We know, because they've been

there for four years, that their methods of dealing with the economy

have been repudiated.

What are they planning to do? Do they have the money? I say, yes,

they do, Mr. Speaker. It's going to take a great deal of guts on their

part to do this, to depart from the way they've been behaving over the

past four years. It's not easy to change. After all, when they got into

the $200 million mortgage assistance program they went from being free

enterprisers to near-socialists. I'm sure that that must have upset the

member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), because he made a

speech before about all the horror stories out of socialism. Yet the

socialist mechanism of mortgage assistance — and that's what it is, a

socialist mechanism, the kind of thing that they do in various

socialist countries around the world- is worthwhile, a good idea.

That's the way you can help people.

But it has to be greater because of the emergent situation in the

province not only because of unemployment but because of that constant

serious erosion of people's paycheques in terms of what kinds of plans

they might have had for next year, based on mortgage payments and

mortgage renewals of 11 percent and 12 percent, and not on 15 percent

and 16 percent, because that's what's happening. That's a cost-of

living problem; that's an inflation problem. And what we've got from

the government is an extremely large budget. They're the people who

have argued for years that large budgets — that is, government budgets

— are inflationary. They are inflationary unless you're prepared to use

them in a way that they're going to assist most people, and there is no

indication that, apart from the $200 million mortgage fund, which is

only going to start entering the market once the

[ Page 1490 ]

houses have been built, you have anything else in terms of assisting people in the kinds of problems that they have today.

We have from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) an indication that there won't be just $1 million available for

seniors' housing; he says it's $4.5 million. Well, he knows; we don't.

It's not in the budget but presumably it comes under that $14 million

which is not well described in his own budget. If it's $4 million or $5

million, fine. But with all of the unexpended money, surely that $4

million or $5 million can become $40 million or $50 million — in terms

of the mortgage money, the mortgage assistance. What you're really

being asked to do is pay the difference between the 11 percent or 12

percent cost of mortgage money today and what they're going to have to

renew at — 14, 15 and 16 percent. Tragically, if mortgages in the

United States go to 20 percent — and it looks like there is a lot of

indication that way — then the government is going to be faced with a

number of problems all at once in terms of people who are in housing,

people who are finding their incomes eroded or people who are

unemployed. That's what the government has to put together in terms of

a plan.

This is an emergency situation; it's something that they have known

about. It may be that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will stand up and tell us what's in his

blue book that he keeps waving about. But whatever it is, up till last

Friday he didn't tell us anything. All he did was to go back in history

and talk about all the things they were going to do but didn't do, and

all the things that were very difficult in 1975 and '76 — which is

contrary to the facts. Nevertheless he's prepared to deal with them

because he's the minister who likes to deal with "true facts." All

right, it's properly now on his shoulders, not on the shoulders of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Mr. Speaker, it's now up to the

ministers who are responsible for economic development, housing and

forestry — because within the forestry sector it's possible to create

employment — not, mind you, at the rate they indicate on page 61, where

all they're going to spend in terms of the extra money is $19 million,

and we'll have some $127 million unexpended. Surely, because of the

crisis that exists, the $127 million should be spent.

We've constantly heard from this government that they have big

surpluses because of the rainy day. Well, I say to them that the rainy

day is here, and it's pouring on the heads of a lot of people who can't

meet their bills. The unique part about it is that most of these people

are working, and yet they're having great problems meeting mortgages.

We don't have a Conservative government in Ottawa that was offering

a mortgage deduction plan. This government took a step in the right

direction in looking to assist people in terms of mortgage assistance.

It was a great philosophical departure from where they usually go,

which is to leave it to the free enterprise system. Well, we have

absolute proof that in the mortgage market the free enterprise system

does not work in the interests of the average householder at all. So

the government, realizing this — also looking, possibly, to attract

some part of that middle ground of voters who are floating

around.... Regardless of that, the plan itself is basically good;

the breadth of the plan is really what's at issue here.

So what we're asking the government to look at in terms of the

budget speech, because of emergent situations which were not included

in the planning for the budget, are the questions of high interest, of

the mortgage rates and the whole question of unemployment. Those are

the problems that face us; that's what's not addressed in the budget

speech; and that's why we've moved the amendment. I have to go back to

the whole problem that exists within the budget. We hope that when we

can get the minister into his estimates, we'll be able to get him to

explain to us what pages 60 and 61 of the budget speech really mean. Do

they really mean that when you have an item which says "Forest and

Range Resource Fund allocation, $146.6 million; forecast expenditure,

$19.3 million; and forecast balance March 31, 1981, $127.3

million...."? I mean, Mr. Speaker, that if you go through all of

these items, there will be what is equal to almost 22 percent of the

total budget unexpended — over $1 billion will be unexpended. We have,

for instance, the whole question of the $200 million mortgage

assistance in the budget. We don't know where it's at at the moment. We

hope to be able to ask the minister these kinds of questions. They

have, within the same area, an item called "other assets," which is

$200 million at the end of the year; they're going to finish up with

some $200 million unexpended.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, that has to say something of this type of

budgeting and the kind of indifference that is exhibited by that group

over there. They're not prepared to spend more of the money they have.

Actually it will be in the bank, in the treasury, in B.C. Hydro bonds

or whatever, but it will not be in the economy in such a way that we

are going to have a direct benefit from it, and there are many people

out there who need to benefit from it.

We have a situation, for instance, in the rental market. We have

about 350,000 people who rent homes in this province, and nearly 25

percent of them are in no way covered by any form of control. They are

not covered because the amount of rent that they pay is beyond that

kind of control. There are people who have entered new buildings, new

houses, since 1974; they are not subject to controls. There are

problems with condominiums — not the rented ones but the others; they

are not covered by the Residential Tenancy Act. There are a whole range

of people who are not covered, who have no protection at a time when

they very seriously need it, and we have no indication at all from the

government that it is prepared to make any moves in respect to

assisting those people.

It's not like it was four or five years ago when people were getting

increases of $20 and $30 on their rent. Everyone in this House is

getting letters from people who are saying: "I rented a house for $350,

and now I have been told that I've got to come up with another $150."

That is the kind of thing that is going on out there. It is easy for us

to characterize it as rent gouging, but that's not what I'm prepared to

characterize it as. I'm prepared to characterize it in such a way that

here we have an open system which is not subject to any control and is

supposed — according to the free-enterprise supporters — to find its

own level on the basis of the demand.

Because there have been no additions to the housing stock, we now

have a situation where we have too many people taking too few houses.

We have that classical situation where people are caught in the squeeze

because the system broke down. Well, the government are the economic

directors in this province; they have to find some mechanism. I would

urge all of them to participate in this debate.

It is on the basis of what we are talking about in this amendment that we go even further in saying that we cannot

[ Page 1491 ]

support the budget speech, and I urge people to support this amendment.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to lead the reply

of the government to the amendment that was moved on Friday,

suggesting, as it does, that on the grounds of inflation, unemployment

and the alleged lack of an economic strategy, the House should vote "no

confidence" in the budget.

I think, Mr. Speaker, looking at the wording of the amendment, that

"economic strategy" seems to be what's behind the thinking of the mover

and the seconder. Most of my remarks will attempt to compare the

economic strategy, as we can glean it from that group on your left,

together with the economic strategy of the government.

But on the way to that, because inflation and unemployment have been

mentioned in the amendment, I think the facts are worthy of a look.

It's always helpful to get back to the facts, so let's just take a look

at inflation. Let's think back to 1975, the last almost full year in

which the mover of this amendment was the Minister of Finance in this

province, and let's look at what the rate of inflation was doing in

British Columbia in 1975 compared to the rate of inflation in Canada.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that just five years ago, when the

mover of the amendment was Minister of Finance in this province, B.C.'s

rate of inflation was significantly higher than Canada's rate of

inflation. We were more inflated out here than the national average.

That was the record with the mover of that amendment — under socialism

— as the Minister of Finance. And what is the fact today? The fact

today is that the rate of inflation in British Columbia is

significantly below the national average — not just today, Mr. Speaker,

but for the last three years.

If you want to talk about the record of inflation and compare the

two governments, the fact of life is that the mover of this amendment,

as Minister of Finance of this province in 1975, presided over a

provincial rate of inflation higher than the national average. The

present government, for the last three years, has maintained an average

rate lower than the national average.

You know, it is very interesting, if you go back to that budget

speech of 1975. These are the words of the mover of the amendment, Mr.

Speaker. He was then the Minister of Finance, and he addressed himself

to the problem of B.C.'s rate of inflation, running as it was above the

national average. This is what he had to say. This is the mover of the

amendment, the first member for Vancouver East, and he said this: "The

problems of unemployment and inflation are not unique in British

Columbia or Canada; they are international problems." He went on: "Mr.

Speaker, I should point out that the means for dealing most effectively

with unemployment and inflation in Canada are in the hands of the

federal government. It alone has the necessary fiscal and monetary

leverage to have a significant impact on the economy." He said this.

The Minister of Finance in 1975, the man who moved that amendment — way

back then, just five years ago — the Leader of the Opposition said

these very words: "Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the means for

dealing most effectively with unemployment and inflation in Canada are

in the hands of the federal government. It alone, Mr. Speaker, has the

necessary fiscal and monetary leverage to have a significant impact on

the economy." How things change!

HON. MR. BENNETT: When was he right?

MR. HYNDMAN: That's the question.

So much for inflation. The fact of life is that we can look at the

positive steps this government has taken to make the lower rate of

inflation in this province a reality: not just a balanced budget, but a

step beyond — a careful program of debt reduction. The importance of

that is that in paying your debt and pouring that money back into the

supply of loanable funds in this province, you're doing what you can to

bring down that rate of interest. The low-interest mortgage program is

an example. The reduction of the sales tax is the most important thing

this government could do to keep down our rate of inflation.

We have a Premier who understands where inflation comes from. He has

been unrelenting in his efforts to have representation for this

province at the board level of the Bank of Canada, and may he continue

to do that.

For unemployment the figures and the record are the same. The man

who moved this amendment was Minister of Finance in 1975 and presided

over a B.C. economy in which the rate of unemployment was above the

national average. B.C.'s rate was worse than the average for Canada.

Now what's happened five years later? Well, just a couple of days ago the Vancouver Province

said it pretty well: "Vancouver and B.C. Jobless Rates Fall. The

Canadian employment picture is looking a little rosier than last year,

Statistics Canada reported Tuesday, with the brightest spots in

Vancouver and the rest of B.C." Now listen to this: "B.C. leads the

way in the decline in jobless totals, dropping from 8 percent in

January to 7.3 percent last month, and the trend, according to

Statistics Canada, is likely to continue."

Way back in 1975, when the mover of this amendment was Minister of

Finance, and B.C.'s rate of unemployment was worse than the national

average, whose fault was that? Well, in the words of the mover of the

amendment, it was all the federal government's fault. We've just heard

those words. Now five years later, even though the record is much

improved in this province, somehow the fault is here.

It really all comes down to a question of economic strategy, I

think. That's the operative phrase in the amendment. It's one of those

new buzzwords of the NDP. If you call a thing a strategy it sounds

pretty terrific and businesslike, and wonderful things happen.

I think, in fairness, if we're going to talk about economic strategy

we should try to divine what that group on your left, Mr. Speaker,

would present as their strategy and compare it with what the government

has provided. That's helpful because the other night in the throne

speech debate the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) made a very

proper and worthwhile suggestion. He suggested that in particular the

young people in this province need a dream, something to look forward

to. We on the government side concur with that. I think it's fair to

say that by nature Socreds are tremendous optimists about this province

and where we can go. I give the member for Coquitlam-Moody great credit

for recognizing how important it is for government to lead

psychologically and to provide some leadership, some inspiration and

that dream our young people can look forward to.

If you look around the benches and at the speeches of those to your

left, Mr. Speaker, and you ask what sort of broad goal that group has

in terms of the end result of their strategy, what you find is not very

exciting. The former

[ Page 1492 ]

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, one of the key

spokesmen of that group on your left on economic matters, last August

spoke to the annual convention of the Young New Democrats. This was the

headline coming from that speech: "B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells

Convention." Can you believe that? A former minister of the Crown,

responsible for economic development and then mines and minerals, one

of the silk-stocking representatives of the NDP and one of their

business spokesmen, predicted a depression for this province. Here's

what the Vancouver Sun had to say, reporting it:

"British Columbia faces a major depression in the

early 1980s, NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday. 'Continuing oil price

increases and massive public and private debts will send unemployment

soaring and land values plummeting,' Lauk told the annual convention of

B.C. Young New Democrats at the Britannia Community Centre. The former

Mines minister in the previous NDP government claimed a recession,

sparked by higher energy costs, will boost unemployment to more than 14

percent."

It's about half that right now in this province, Mr. Speaker.

"Lauk

said the recession will turn into a depression when unemployment forces

homeowners to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks and

mortgage companies. 'Once there is a decline in land values, it will be

a depression, not a recession.'"

Now this is very important, Mr.

Speaker. He went on:

"While disclaiming any skills as an investment

counsellor, Lauk said people who are now buying gold will be in a good

position in a recession, while investment in land and buildings will

not be safe. 'People who are buying stocks and bonds are insane,' he

said."

Mr. Speaker, that is the economic dream of the first member for

Vancouver Centre for all those people who want to invest in this

province — all those good people who bought BCRIC shares. In his words,

"people who are buying stocks and bonds are insane." Well, it's not so

surprising. One of the first statements the mover of this amendment

made when he became Premier for a short time was to predict that the

boom era in British Columbia was going to end. The Vancouver Sun ,

October 6, 1972, had the headline: "Boom Era is Going to End." That was

the opening dream of the new Premier then for the young people in this

province. Of course, that was continued in his famous Nova Scotia

speech, where the first member for Vancouver East, the mover of this

amendment, said B.C. was in trouble and he was glad. That's the kind of

economic strategy and economic dream that group on your left has for

this province: a depression mentality. It goes hand in hand with the

great idea of that group to trade off British Columbia's resources in

the name of a glorious socialist plan.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Just so that there is no misunderstanding once again, let's look at

this part of the economic strategy of that group to your left. The

mover of this amendment has said over and over that British Columbia

should share all the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the

ownership all the oil and gas in this country. As part of the economic

strategy of that group on your left, looking forward to a depression,

trade off the resources to Ottawa.

But it's no surprise, because the mover of that amendment was one of

the signatories of the Waffle Manifesto. Here is what it says in one

sentence: "Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national

planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of

production." Let's not hear that the mover of this amendment didn't

mean to sign the Waffle Manifesto. There is the manifesto; there is the

statement on the trade-off.

But, Mr. Speaker, that part of the strategy is just a little

confused, because to his credit the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

occasionally doesn't agree with these things. Here is what he had to

say about the Waffle plan for nationalization in a report from Canadian

Press in Ottawa:

"Frank Howard, a candidate for the leadership of the

New Democratic Party, has scathingly rejected proposals from the

party's so-called Waffle group for public ownership of Canada's

resource industries. The MP for British Columbia's Skeena riding said

across-the-board nationalization is a balloon-like concept that has

been exploded many times over the past. 'Surely one of the fundamentals

of intelligent people is that we should learn from history and be

guided accordingly. Even the most elastic imagination should

recognize....'"

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention

to the order paper and motion thereon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, my point very simply is that in

considering the question of economic strategy we should try to divine

the economic strategy being advocated by that group on your left. In

very large

part it talks about public ownership of Canada's oil and gas

resources.

The then federal member for Skeena continued:

"'Even the most elastic imagination should recognize that

nationalization is no remedy to our economic sickness.' Howard called on all

clear-thinking people in the NDP to reject the academic and professional theories

of the Waffle group which, because they are theoretical, feed upon themselves

for support and substantiation."

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the hon. member should be

well aware that he has on the order paper in his name a motion to

debate the relative merits of the Waffle Manifesto, and is thereby

prohibited from raising it in this debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, the second member for

Vancouver South said "clear-headed NDP members." Of course, there is

no such thing; it's a contradiction in terms.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. It is the kind of thing that really destroys the good name of this House.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order raised by the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I would be quite prepared to let the

member for Vancouver South carry on with his inanities.

[ Page 1493 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That again is not a valid point of order. The

point has been made, and I ask now the member for Vancouver South to

continue in the debate on the amendment.

MR. HYNDMAN: I know it pains the member. The motion on the

order paper simply calls on members of this House to reject something

called "the manifesto"; it does not call for a debate on the merits. I

am finishing a quotation from Canadian Press, which I'd like to do, Mr.

Speaker, with your indulgence.

The federal member for Skeena continued:

"'The cost of putting into effect the Waffle program would

be unbelievably staggering,' he said. 'The immediate cash requirements, just

to buy out foreign interests, would be about $60 billion. Money would have to

be diverted from education, health programs, pensions and all other social benefits.

Any such commitment would destroy Canada completely and thoroughly, just as

any endorsement of these Waffle proposals will destroy the NDP.'"

Well, that's part of the strategy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did the Minister of Finance sign it?

MR. HYNDMAN: The Minister of Finance signed it — the mover of that amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And endorsed it?

MR. HYNDMAN: He endorsed it.

We begin to see the outline of this grand economic strategy, Mr.

Speaker: a depression mentality, a trade-off of our resources to

Ottawa, and then the great third plank. The great third plank of this

wonderful strategy is: no more natural gas export for British Columbia.

Now, what does that mean for British Columbia — the old "leave it in

the ground" philosophy? Well, as one looks at the fiscal accounts of

this province you'd have to gauge that this year the sale of natural

gas, in terms of export from B.C., represents revenues of something

like $250 million to $300 million to this province. That's about 2

points on the sales tax, a load that the people of this province, the

individual workers, would otherwise have to carry.

That is, of course, part of the grand strategy of that group on your

left, because that "leave it in the ground" philosophy — scare away the

investment — means that the people, individually, are the ones who've

got to pick up the tax load and carry it on their shoulders. The

figures tell us that; it's very, very interesting. If you sit down and

say to yourself, I want to compare, with the present government, how

much of the tax load the people carried compared to 1975, the

remarkable fact is that under the present government, which has

encouraged responsible investment, responsible financial returns from

the development of our natural resources, the total of the tax load in

B.C. borne by people has fallen sharply.

These are very interesting figures. In 1974-75, the last fiscal year

when the mover of this amendment was Minister of Finance, add up, first

of all, the people taxes collected in this province. You add up the

personal income tax, you add up the social services tax, you add up the

fuel tax on individuals, succession duties and gift taxes. Those are

the people-collected taxes, Mr. Speaker, and you then compare them with

what this province gleaned from corporation taxes and resource

royalties and revenues. The result you get is that of the total

collection of revenue, the people, individually, paid more than 61

percent of the total. Sixty-one percent of the tax collections in this

province fell on individual shoulders in the last year in which the

mover of that amendment was Minister of Finance.

This fiscal year, by contrast, under this government, the percentage

of the total tax load in B.C. paid by the people, by individuals, has

fallen to 50 percent. That's a very sharp reduction, and that's part of

an economic strategy this government believes in. We don't leave all

our resources in the ground and we don't chase investment away, because

those resources prudently managed, and that investment, are the source

of a big sharing of the tax load in this province. If that group on

your left has their way, and they trade off our resource rights, and

they ban the exports of natural gas, and they leave the minerals in the

ground, the only people left to pay the load, Mr. Speaker, are you and

I and all British Columbians as individual citizens. That's the

economic strategy of the group on the left; that means higher taxes,

more inflation and a far higher cost of living.

So now let's just take a look at the record and the amendment, in

terms of inflation. The mover of the amendment presided over an

inflation record in this province worse than the national average. At

the time he said it was all Ottawa's problem, and now with B.C.'s

inflation rate below the national average he suggests no confidence in

the government. That's a motion of no confidence in himself, Mr.

Speaker.

In terms of unemployment, the record is the same. When he was the

Minister of Finance, the mover of this amendment presided over an

unemployment rate higher than the national average, and to defend

himself, once again he blamed it all on Ottawa. Now, as the mover of

this amendment, he doesn't blame it all on Ottawa, and he moves no

confidence in a record far better than his. What does that say of his

record, Mr. Speaker?

But in terms of economic strategy let's just compare the components.

That group on your left sees a depression coming for British Columbia.

The rainy day is here, as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi) just said this afternoon. And if you want a very good example,

Mr. Speaker, of the different economic strategies of the groups on your

left and on your right, read the economic forecast tabled by the

government with the budget. There are some good times and good days

ahead for British Columbia; that's our view. But the great economic

strategy of that group on your left says the rainy day is here and a

depression is coming. Within that framework of rain and depression,

they want to trade away our jurisdiction over oil and gas and tell

people who want to invest in this province that to buy stocks and bonds

is insane. That group is prepared to shut down the export of natural

gas from this province and thereby increase the tax load on people.

That's the kind of economic strategy they would advance.

By contrast, Mr. Speaker, our strategy is quite simple: first, a

better record of inflation fighting than the national average; second,

a better record in fighting unemployment than the national average;

third, record job production in this province — 170,000 new jobs since

this government took office; and, most important, a positive and

optimistic economic strategy — a strategy that says, "There are

excellent

[ Page 1494 ]

times ahead for this province," a strategy that says, "We want

people to invest in this province, and we want individual British

Columbians to buy stocks and bonds, and to grow with all of us," and a

strategy that says, "That portion of the tax load carried by our people

must be kept as low as possible, and we do that by the prudent

financial management of our resources and keeping resource developers

in this province paying responsible rates of royalty and return to our

people." We've got to keep the jurisdiction of our own resources here

at home.

In concluding my remarks, may I simply say that if you follow the

economic strategy of that group on your left, you would have in this

province unprecedented unemployment, unprecedented rises in inflation,

a loss of jurisdiction over most of our valuable resources, a virtual

shutting down of the province and a prediction of rain and depression

and gloom and doom. That's what the amendment would contemplate, and

for that reason it should be rejected.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment,

and in doing so, I would anticipate that that member who has just

completed his speech will return to his caucus offices once again

wrapped in cotton batting and sheltered from the harsh realities of the

real world. You would wonder at how a back-bench member could get up

and try to paint such a rosy picture of the very serious situation

which has developed in this province and in this country. In no small

measure is this problem really a reflection of the philosophies and the

actions — or inactions — which have been undertaken by this present

government since 1975.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time in one decade, Social Credit has

managed to put housing out of the reach of ordinary people. Not only is

it out of the reach of ordinary people, but the reality is that housing

is out of reach of even the upper middle class in this province — if

such a class system exists. In terms of earnings which are required in

order to qualify for the purchase of a house.... I was talking to a

couple of residents of Victoria just yesterday who had been out looking

for homes in the Gordon Head area. Standard three-bedroom bungalows

were going for over a hundred thousand dollars, and some of them were

even as much as $120,000. Mr. Speaker, I ask you how any family is

going to aspire to.... That's not the Cadillac housing, that's the

Chevy compact housing that is being put right out of reach.

Mr. Speaker, in the early part of the decade just past, rental

housing had a vacancy rate of 4.1 percent, and there was nothing much

being done about it in 1971. Nothing was done for a few years prior to

that. Nothing was really on the drawing boards, and it dropped to 1.9

percent in 1972, before a new government had any chance to get on with

it, to address the problem. It started to address itself to that

problem in 1973. By 1975 it had a great number of housing starts

underway, particularly in the rental field, in attached dwellings and

in multiple-housing starts, and was able to turn it around. So, when

the government changed hands in 1976, programs that were well underway

once again brought rental vacancy rates back to acceptable levels — 2.7

percent by 1977, when those programs had reached their full effect, and

this continued into 1978.

Then this government said: "Oh, well, that's fine. Everything is

solved." Apparently they didn't know how it got solved. They shut

everything down. They started selling off social housing units which

were intended for the working poor and people of lower than average

incomes. During the first half of the decade immigration brought in

population at rates of around 3 percent; during the second part of this

decade those rates dropped off to 1.5 percent. But this government

could not manage to keep a level of housing activity which would meet

even that reduced demand, a demand which had really been cut in half

because of other policies of this government — policies of creating

unemployment, of turning down the economy of this province — which for

the first time discouraged people from moving from the east to this

province.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I am getting an interjection from

the north. If he would refer to page 32 of one of his government's

publications, Lands, Parks and Housing Review, volumes 1 and 2,

December 1979, he would see that this level has continued right through

into 1979. These are some of the latest levels which, I think, we can

bring to the attention of that member. I suppose he doesn't read these

things. He is kept in cotton batting; he's sheltered from the harsh

realities of political life. All those backbenchers are given nice

little speeches prepared by the research staff of the caucus, and they

read all of their speeches verbatim — like dutiful servants of their

caucus. One or two, of course, might come up with a dissenting opinion,

but that is mostly limited to people who are no longer in the cabinet,

and have given up hope of ever getting back into the cabinet.

The comments that one can find by reading the housing statistics of

Central Mortgage and Housing in their year-end reports and summaries

paint the very same picture, that in terms of housing starts — the

number of units under construction at any one time — the level of

activity back in 1975-76 in the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and

Victoria was about 13,000, and the level of activity has been reduced

progressively under this government to about 5,000. The other rather

interesting aspect of these statistics is that the emphasis on dwelling

units which are suitable for rentals — dwelling units which are

affordable, in terms of townhouses and attached condominiums — has

dropped off at an even greater rate, so that while starts on single

detached houses are, perhaps, going along at the same level or slightly

lower than average, the dropoff in terms of rental housing units is

almost non-existent. Some of the most recent projections for Victoria

are that currently there are, I think, 384 units presently under

construction, and they will maybe come on stream in some few months'

time. That is all that is on stream to fulfil a need.

Mr. Speaker, right now we have not reached the spring season, when

the various motels, motor hotels and such like, which convert over to

furnished suites for the winter season, will be giving notice to their

tenants that they will be going to their summer rates. Many people who

are being presently housed in Victoria and in Vancouver in this type of

accommodation are going to find that they have no place to live. As was

pointed out this morning in the Vancouver Province , they are

predicting that people will be living in their cars and in tents this

summer in Vancouver. The same gloomy picture is also painted for

Victoria.

I say that this is a waste. We also have a correction. I think the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) pointed out that

the mayor of Vancouver was incorrect when he said that only $1 had been

allocated for housing.

[ Page 1495 ]

He said that was only the amount in the special appropriations fund

and that in fact a total of something like $5.6 million was

appropriated for all the forms of social housing.

Mr. Speaker, in 1975 there was a budget of $12 million for senior

citizens' housing being sponsored by non-profit societies alone, more

than twice what is being provided and proposed now for all forms of

social housing, both for seniors and for families. Back in 1975 there

were approved and under construction by non-profit societies 1,308

apartment units and 280 special-care units, a total of almost 1,600

units.

Under another

section of the National Housing Act, which this

government didn't want to get on with, there were approximately another

700 units — 477 units under construction at that time and another 256

in the planning stages. Also approved and under construction were 1,137

cooperative units with 522 more units being planned. What did the

government do with those 522 units, Mr. Speaker? They first of all

decided to try to sell them as AHOP projects. Then I think they turned

around and decided that maybe they should sell them as rental units.

They switched from one foot to another.

Mr. Speaker, there were people ready to go into a cooperative. For

instance, in Simon Fraser, an extension of the Norman Bethune co-op, I

think there were some 200-odd units designated for that. They shut that

down. Family rental housing at that time: 1,900 units under

construction. So there was a fantastic number at that time, and the job

was just beginning to become manageable.

That's what this group were handed. I don't have any particular

desire to fight the 1975 election over again because I know what the

result was. We lost. But I would suggest that the government might be

well advised to re-examine some of those programs which were working

which did take us from zero vacancy rates, which we inherited when we

formed the government, to vacancy rates of upwards of 3 percent in this

province and created a healthy climate.

People today are facing notices of rent increases from $350 up to

$500. They're facing notices of rent increases from $400 up to $600 per

month in decontrolled areas. This is absolutely intolerable.

Another time-bomb which this government set ticking back in 1976 was

in going along totally and completely with the AHOP building program.

Those AHOP loans are up for renegotiation, and people who found

themselves being housed for perhaps $289 per month are now facing, if

they want to keep up those mortgages under the current rates of

interest, payments of upwards of $600 and $700 per month. With the

increase in interest rates and the taking away of the subsidies they

enjoyed for three years, people are having to face increases, if they

are going to hold on to their homes, which more than double the monthly

cost of those homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, this government hardly devoted a line in this

budget to the housing problem. It is one of the real problems of today.

How well I remember how it was such a topical thing. Well, it isn't

going to go away. If this government starts today, it will take two

years before there is any relief or impact or even a turnaround of this

disastrous circumstance and directionless drifting of this government,

where they have said: "We'll leave it all to the private sector."

What is the answer of the private sector? We have the B.C. Rental

Housing Council or some spokesgroup for the apartment owners asking

for an abolition of rent controls, and yet we do not have a supply and

demand situation. There is no supply, and if rent controls were removed

it would just be an absolute demand. What government should have been

considering all along was keeping an adequate supply and having plans

to provide that supply. They simply haven't been forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, here's a statement of November 1979 from Central

Mortgage and Housing. It says: "Provincial demographics indicate

increasing demand for housing until 1985." But has housing been

featured in this budget? They say there's a dramatic drop in new,

privately initiated rental stock, which is apparently not sufficiently

viable under today's market conditions. So if the market is not going

to supply this under-supplied rental stock, who is going to do it but

government? And what are governments for, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, when the private sector did not adequately supply the

needs for electricity in this province back in 1963, the government of

the day took it over. They brought in a rural electrification program,

and they brought in policies that did meet the needs of the people of

the province. If the private sector is not fulfilling some aspects of

the rental housing market.... I'm sure they're supplying the luxury

penthouse sector very well, doing a good job, and they should continue

to do so. If they are not meeting the needs of people who cannot afford

that kind of housing, then governments must act.

I've heard nothing from this government for five years in terms of

what they feel Central Mortgage and Housing should be doing as an

institution, what the federal minister should be doing, what the

federal government should be doing. Do they have any programs, any

policies, any basis on which to cooperate with senior governments? If

they do, I certainly don't see them.

In December 1979 — one of the latest publications from Central

Mortgage and Housing — they're talking about preliminary information

for metropolitan Vancouver. It said there were 1,178 units started in

December, down from the 1, 262 starts of the year earlier. Of course,

the year earlier was a recent all-time low in terms of starts. That was

1978. The single-detached sector remained strong, but the multiple

sector remained correspondingly weak, down 45 percent to 375 units from

the previous year's 676 units. In metropolitan Victoria it was the same

story. The multiple sector remained weak all year, down 57 percent from

1978, but there's hardly a murmur in this budget in terms of meeting

one of the greatest problems that people can face in their daily

budget, and that is the simple cost of shelter.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that even some MLAs from rural ridings or

people who have to commute from Vancouver and take rental accommodation

in the city of Victoria aren't aware of the scarcity of rental

accommodation right here in the capital city. I might almost disavow

myself of voting on this motion because I might have a pecuniary

interest. I think a good many of us might have to do that, except I

know that under the strict

interpretation of the rules that will not

quite be the case.

Mr. Speaker, we went from record levels of activity to record levels

of disinterest under this government, and it is time to turn it around.

We can't wait until the next election; the people can't wait until the

next election. This government has to act, and I certainly would

support positive measures that would bring this about.

It's also interesting to look at what Central Mortgage and Housing says about the government's action in bringing in

[ Page 1496 ]

the $200 million mortgage program. It says that what it did was to

change and level off the housing activity for the year. What they

anticipated was going to be a slow period for the early part of the

year with some increase in activity at the end of the year has simply

ended up displacing that later activity to earlier in the year. Without

some follow-up action, that particular action, laudable as it appeared

at the time it was brought in, with no plan, no rhyme or reason, done

apparently on the spur of the moment, certainly will have no lasting

effect.

Mr. Speaker, we're facing interest rates in housing. We're also

facing interest-rate increases to the point where in the United States,

I understand, and I am sure it will soon follow in Canada, many

retailers are now refusing to take charge cards, because they have to

pay current interest rates on borrowed money in the interim between

sending in their claims and getting rebates. I think that problem will

probably appear here, if it hasn't already, it will appear within about

a month or two. The whole concept of credit purchases is something that

government simply hasn't considered. Quite frankly, if the temptation

to use a credit card were taken away, I personally might welcome it.

But there are problems to which this government simply is not

addressing itself.

What kind of employment strategy have we had? In spite of the fact,

for instance, that the local union.... A hopeful aspirant to become

the Member of Parliament, Mr. Lyle Kristiansen, lost the particular

election in which the incident occurred, but won subsequently. In spite

of my own, you might say, pleadings or suggestions, government decided

to allow one of the largest American firms in the lumber industry,

Louisiana Pacific, to take over Salmo Forest Products, rather than

perhaps direct B.C. Cellulose to take it over and repatriate that

company to the province of British Columbia. Louisiana Pacific is part

of a company that was so large and threatening in the United States

that it was forced to split up — Georgia Pacific — and it has a design

on the southeast corner of the province. I understand that having

established a foothold at Salmo Forest Products, they are currently

submitting a bid for Crowsnest Industries, which is up for sale. That

company has been well known in the United States for being extremely

competitive and for very rapidly buying up smaller companies.

We have, in the area, a company owned by Atco, and another owned by

a family, Hearn Lumber. We have a couple of other family concerns,

Hadikin Brothers and the Kalesnikoff brothers. Over in the Creston area

there is Wynndel Box, which is actually a sawmill, and Huscroft,

another sawmill. If one goes over into the East Kootenays there are

others besides Crowsnest Industries which are potential candidates for

the voracious appetite of an outside company.

It is rather interesting that while the union asked the government,

through the Minister of Forests, to purchase the company through B.C.

Cellulose, and while Lyle Kristiansen, now the Member of Parliament,

and I, as the member of the Legislature, requested and pointed out that

our first choice would be for the government to acquire this through

B.C. Cellulose — and that would have been a very popular move in the

Salmo area — the government chose to approve the transfer of all

cutting rights in this company from one foreign concern to another.

That is the first company to have a total shutdown. We are told that

it is a shutdown in order to install more parts on a trimmer. I hope

that that's the truth, but it certainly creates a great deal of

uneasiness. It creates a very scary climate in a community where just a

little over a year ago we saw this government shut down another mine.

Mr. Speaker, we see what the government's attitude is towards

employment in many areas. It isn't towards maximizing employment. At

the Salmo Forest Products mill, the planing is not done in Canada. The

lumber is shipped out in a rough-sawn form and planed at Ione,

Washington, creating jobs there. I think that it is time that this

government introduce a strategy for increased employment, particularly

in the forest industry. When companies are bidding in a timber sale —

maybe under the small enterprise program of the government — in terms

of awarding that contract, I think the guidelines should look at how

many man-days of employment are going to be created, not simply at what

is going to be the highest short-term return to the Crown.

If we're going to simply saw a log into rough lumber and then allow

the finishing to be done across the border, I think we should very

seriously consider the bid of someone who would take that product to a

very high degree of manufacturing with a very labour-intensive process,

and as long as that person is operating at a profit and showing

reasonable returns to the Crown, there should be a weighting of

consideration given to that kind of bid.

In earlier parliaments I presented information which claimed that

more employment could be found in certain small sawmill operations in

treating a given number of cunits of lumber of a certain species. It

was not denied by the minister at the time, nor did his deputy appear

to prod him with any rebuttal material. I take it as being accepted

information. Yet we see nothing in terms of this tremendous opportunity

here in this province to start planning towards maximizing employment

as one of the goals of our forest policy and maximizing employment in

terms of the manner in which the resource is distributed in this

province. In fact, it was one of the focal points of our mineral policy.

There are many things that could be done, such as when we encouraged

Afton Mines to go into secondary manufacturing and the refining of

copper concentrates rather than shipping them out, as was allowed prior

to 1972.

Because of all this new mining activity, I think that there are

areas of employment.... For instance, has the government given any

thought to giving assistance to assayers to start up business? There

are many opportunities which seem to slip by the minister who is

interjecting.

One other thing, of course, is that in spite of whatever this

government seems to put forward in terms of budgetary proposals, they

never stick to their budgets anyway. They massively under spend on

certain things like aid for the handicapped, and they over spend in

terms of sending the minister to China. He must have a condominium in

Peking, judging by the rate at which we're having to finance some of

his junkets.

I think that this government has been drifting, particularly in the

area of housing policy and in terms of investment in this province.

Capital investment has been directed into areas that do not leave

permanent jobs. We've been mainlining on capital-intensive projects

that produce some temporary euphoria in terms of economic activity but

produce no permanent and lasting jobs. I can only quote one of the

union executives involved in the construction of the Pend-d'Oreille

Dam. He said: "It distresses me to know that when we leave this

project, in spite of the fact that we have enjoyed good

[ Page 1497 ]

employment here, we will leave behind us about 11 jobs at this particular project."

In order that we can turn this province around, we've got to start

looking at the manner in which we deploy the capital we are borrowing

at a fantastic rate.

If the back-bench members at least would consider the plight of

people in terms of housing, and if they would realize that it's not

just the people who are looking for housing; it's people who presently

have mortgages and are going to face new interest rates when those term

mortgages expire. We are talking about a very sizeable portion of our

population. In terms of all the people affected, in one way or another,

it is an extremely high proportion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I've

suggested earlier, it even affects members of this House in terms of

some of these inflationary effects, and there is nothing in here which

is going to do anything about it.

If the government should be so fortunate as to bring about some

alleviation of the unemployment problem and to create a more buoyant

economy, the housing problem will be even more acute. If it hasn't got

their attention right now.... If the government should, by some

fluke, happen to turn the economy around, the housing problem is going

to be even greater than it is today, so for this reason I hope that

some of those back-bench members will give it some consideration and

think in terms of supporting this very important amendment, one which

comes at a cross-roads for the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you,

as Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker for your patience since this

Legislature has opened, because it has been two weeks, going on three

now, of non-debate. We've seen it again here during the debate on the

budget. The opposition are not prepared to stand in this Legislature

and make any concrete proposals or legitimately debate the budget, so

they bring in this absolutely ridiculous amendment that certainly I

intend to speak against and I intend to vote against. I'm sure that

every member on this side of the House will follow suit, because I

think we've had enough of this ridiculousness.

MR. COCKE: Then sit down.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll sit down when I'm finished. I'll say

more in five minutes than you'd say if you stood up here all week,

because you've got nothing to talk about. You had nothing to do when

you were government, you did nothing when you were government, and

you're not even good now that you're back in opposition. You were

better before you were government, my friend. You're the worst

opposition of any legislature in Canada.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't speak up and show your ignorance. Just remain

quiet and we'll all think about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if we would address the

Chair and keep our interjections to a minimum, the debate will proceed in a

nice, orderly, quiet manner.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If that group over there were really concerned, as

they say they are, about the province, they would make it possible for cabinet

ministers to get out and travel to Ottawa and do some negotiations, and carry

on the business of the province. But no, they are not interested. They make

out they are but they're not interested, and they sit in here.... If they

were a good opposition I wouldn't mind staying here listening to them, but they

tie the hands of the government when they will not pair and allow ministers

to get out and do the business of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't mind staying here if there was

worthwhile debate coming from the opposition benches, but it's

absolutely ridiculous. They were not prepared to debate the throne

speech and they didn't; there wasn't one constructive suggestion. As a

matter of fact, there wasn't even a constructive suggestion during the

entire throne speech debate. I'm sure that if the people who voted for

them, and voted them into opposition.... A government needs good

opposition, and that is the healthy democracy that we have here in

British Columbia — a good strong opposition.

Well, I'm afraid we don't have a good strong opposition, and if the

public who voted them into opposition, the people of this province,

were here to see that they do not even attend the House.... The

mover of this motion and the seconder of this motion have not been in

for one word of debate since they brought in the motion — and they

brought in the motion. I'll tell you, it makes me feel ill to see the

type of opposition we have in this House, and they haven't even read

the budget speech. The ex-minister of nuclear energy, the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), stood up in this Legislature and said we

should bring in some incentives for the mining industry to process

their metals here. There are bold new initiatives in this budget that

the hon. Minister of Finance just brought down, and he didn't even read

the budget. But that isn't what bothers me as much as the fact that if

it were not for the media in this province, there would be absolutely

no opposition. Ninety-nine percent of the research that they have done

has been researching the media. They have done absolutely no research

on their own, and they stood in this Legislature last year and cried

big tears that we weren't giving them enough money for research. So

because the economy was good and we had the money, we funded all their

research team. What have they done with them? They must be sitting up

in the back room playing canasta or something, because they're

certainly not doing any research.

I want to say just one more word about research. Regarding the

member from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — who used to be from

Vancouver South and has now carpetbagged into Coquitlam-Moody — I was

holding up a document when he was speaking, and he said: "I hope it's a

new document." Mr. Speaker, this document is over a year old, and the

reason they don't know about because it talks about ten years in

British Columbia — Charting the Growth . Every member of this Legislature

received a copy, but I know what they did with all their copies. They

had it banned because it tells the facts about how the economy of this

province dipped in the three years they were government, and how, in

the last four years, it has shown a steady growth. It's all in this

booklet.

MR. BARBER: Give us the title.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The title, again, is Ten Years in British Columbia: Charting the Growth , put out by the Ministry of Economic Development.

Well, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business De-

[ Page 1498 ]

velopment is going to put out another booklet this year, and it's

going to include the '79 figures. And I am happy to report in this

Legislature that every single statistic, every single position and

every chart of economic development is up again in the year 1979. And

they have the audacity, when it comes to the economy, to stand in this

House and try to feed the people of this province the stuff you put on

mushrooms. It's clear that the economy is growing and the economy is

strong.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the person who made this motion on Friday

morning, the person who is now the leader of Her Majesty's official

opposition, and who five years ago was the Premier of this province.

MR. REE: A defeated candidate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's a social worker, and he led that

party when they were government. But that's not the point I'm trying to

make. The point I want to make is that the member who introduced this

motion was, at one time, guess what?

MR. REE: A defeated candidate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. Guess what he was at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He was also the Minister of Finance for

the province, and it was during those two and a half short years that

he was Minister of Finance — the member who introduced the motion on

Friday morning — that the ship of financial state in the province of

British Columbia went on the rocks. We were on the brink of financial

disaster in this province, make no mistake about it. The facts speak

clearly for themselves. And that's the member, Mr. Speaker, who

introduces a motion, saying that the hon. Minister of Finance has

failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of

continuous increases in the cost of living.

Now I want to talk about that for a moment, because the cost of

living, when that member over there who introduced this motion was

Minister of Finance, went to the highest rate in all of Canada. Last

year, under this administration, and after four years of solid planning

and financial management, what was the figure? Lowest of any province

in Canada. That's why I say this motion is ridiculous, particularly

coming from the member that it came from.

What happened in the province while that member said that we failed

to mobilize and get the economy rolling? Investment by the private

sector in the province of British Columbia, during the two and a half

years that he was Minister of Finance, came to an absolute grinding

halt. And he talks about unemployment. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and

anybody with half a brain knows, you have to have investment by the

private sector, or there are going to be no plants for people to work

in. That's what government is all about. That's the responsibility of

government: to create a climate and an atmosphere. As I've said in this

House many times — I said it when I was in opposition — liquid cash is

very nervous money and it will go to a secure base. There was no secure

base in British Columbia. That's why it went elsewhere, that's why

talent went elsewhere, and that's why people went elsewhere.

I want to talk about that in a moment, but I just want to paint the

picture that here we have an ex-Minister of Finance, who brought the

province to financial disaster, bringing in a ridiculous motion like

this. Also, the party he led when they were government left the

province with one of the highest unemployment rates of any province in

Canada, Mr. Speaker. In the latest figures I have, we are second only

to the province of Alberta in having the lowest rate of unemployment,

and they stand over there and gibber and gab about unemployment and

employment and inflation. If they would just read the facts, they would

go and hide their heads in shame, because the facts speak a lot louder

than some of the speeches, certainly, that they're making.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Send them some copies.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've sent them copies, but their research

people hide them on them because their research people don't want them

to know the facts. If their research people knew the facts, it would

make the job of research much more difficult than it is now. So they

just go around saying that the sky is falling in and it's all gloom and

doom in British Columbia, when it's a province that is known throughout

the free world as having the best economy, the best financial picture,

of any jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you for just a moment about

inflation, because there has been a lot of talk about inflation during

this budget. I want to say a few words about inflation, because what

have they said? They've said that this government has done absolutely

nothing to come to grips with inflation, even though the city of

Vancouver has the lowest CPI rate of any city of 12 in Canada, which

really, in essence, tells you that the province of British Columbia has

the lowest inflation rate of any province in Canada. Now that is fact,

but they continue to say we've done nothing about inflation.

Well, I just happen to have the Consumer Price Index for February —

and this relates to Vancouver, as I said, because that's where they

check. The 1971 figure of 100 increased 0.9 percent — from 198 in January

1980 to 199.7 in February 1980. I want you to pay particular attention

to this: "As a result the 12-month rise between February 1979 and

February 1980 was 7.6 percent" — Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? —"a

rate increase lower than that recorded for any other surveyed city in

Canada." And that means that this government is doing a good job of

holding down inflation.

Now I want you to pay particular attention to this next statement,

Mr. Speaker, because it says: "A contributing factor to Vancouver's low

12-month rate of increase was the reduction in the general sales tax

from 5 to 4 percent, which occurred in April of 1979." Did they reduce

the sales tax? Did the federal government reduce the sales tax? Did any

other jurisdiction in North America reduce any taxes last year? The

answer, my friends, is no. This is the government that reduced taxes,

and that's one of the prime reasons inflation in our great province is

lower than in any other province in Canada. So far as I'm concerned,

Mr. Speaker, the motion is an absolute farce. We had to dig ourselves

out of the depths of financial disaster in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a moment about the seconder of

the motion, the member for Coquitlam-Moody. No, it's the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — he moves around so much that I

have a great deal of difficulty keeping up. Now here we have a second

social

[ Page 1499 ]

worker in the opposition over there who is a one-time Minister of

Human Resources seconding the motion, and this again to me is

completely ridiculous. For him to stand in this House and say anything

about economics is completely ridiculous, because I remember that not

too long ago, when they were government, he was the fellow who went

around with a shovel and shovelled money out of the back of a truck.

There was a $100 million overrun in one year that he called "a clerical

error." When he was Minister of Human Resources, the social services

budget — and I want you to listen to this — in this province went from

$190.9 million to $384.4 million in three years, over a 100 percent

increase at a time when people were fleeing the province. Today people

are coming back to the province in ever-increasing numbers; they're

flocking here because this is the province of opportunity. Mr. Speaker,

it always creates social problems when you have a growing economy and

when you have people flocking to the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, he took the spending of the Human Resources ministry

from a per-capita levy of $83 to $158, almost a 100 percent increase in

three years. But that group over there seem to take greatly to standing

up and making a lot of noise about how we haven't had any economic

blueprint. I've told them about our economic blueprint, our thrusts and

the definite positive results that we've had from that blueprint in

four years. It's unmistakable; the facts speak for themselves. We have

unmistakably improved the economy.

MR. LEA: File it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Prince Rupert wants me to

file something. I tell you, the more information you give them, the

more goes in the wastepaper basket. I sent them a little booklet a

while ago entitled Action for Industry — programs to encourage

industrial development in British Columbia, programs to help our

manufacturing sector in British Columbia, positive programs, programs

that we negotiated as part of our strategy with the federal government.

I sent it to them. I sent one to every member. They didn't read it.

The problem is that they don't get a chance to read it because their

research staff, as soon as anything positive comes from a cabinet

minister, say: "Oh, my gosh, I can't let them see that, because they

might possibly read it. Then all this garbage I'm handing them from our

research out of the media would confuse them." So all of the positive

things we talk to them about and all of the positive booklets.... I

sent them a booklet the other day.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) stood in this House and

said: "Are you ever going to extend the program of assistance to

manufacturers in the lower mainland?" I tell you, the ink was hardly

dry on the budget when I had the program on every member's desk — to

extend that program to the lower mainland. That is a pure British

Columbia program. The feds won't participate in the lower mainland, but

because the economy of our province is strong and we have the capital,

this government and this government alone has extended a pure British

Columbia government program to include the lower mainland — assistance

to small manufacturing industries. I sent it to them and didn't hear a

word. I never heard anything further. They have a lot of members over

there from that area, but I didn't hear anybody saying: "Great stuff.

Good."

Mr. Speaker, the reason I bring this up is that the person who moved this motion

and the seconder make this motion all the more ridiculous. The seconder once

said, referring to the government of which he was a part: "The government

never had a blueprint for office. It lacked one when it took office and failed

to develop one subsequently. Our basic interests and ideas were right, but the

needed refinement of them never occurred." Now listen to what he said about

his own government: "Effective management was lacking." What he should

have said is that effective leadership was lacking as well. As a matter of fact,

if he had told the truth, he would have said there was never any leadership

when they were government.

Here is the social worker duo over there, trying to stand up and

criticize this government and saying we have made no plan. They also

stand up and say: "Oh, but we were only government for three short

years." That's why they are no good as opposition, because before they

were ever government they could criticize everything, but now they've

had their opportunity. That's why they are so quiet. They blew the

chance when they were there. They were government once now. They can't

act like they used to when they were in opposition and make all kinds

of airy-fairy ideas, because they had their opportunity. What happened?

They had no leadership, they had no management, and they blew it — the

same as every other socialist regime in the world that ever tried to

run an economy blew it.

Mr. Speaker, you don't hear them talk too much lately about their philosophy,

about socialism. They are trying to say: "We are a new type of socialism."

I don't care what colour you put on it. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked in

Canada. It hasn't worked in any area in the world, and it never will work. They

are socialists no matter what kind of a great front they put on. They're socialists

and a lot of them are Waffle Manifesto socialists.

Mr. Speaker, I promised myself that I wouldn't get excited.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you didn't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I really haven't.

I listen to those socialists over there trying to hide behind some

new paint or varnish or whatever you want to call it and saying: "Oh,

we're the new breed. " I tell you, you can count them. Some of them may

be a little further to the right than others, but the leaders over

there are rank socialists, and their leader signed the Waffle Manifesto.

They want to talk about inflation, Mr. Speaker. My heavens! You want

to go and look at the record of Britain under a socialist labour

government. I just read today that it is anticipated that in 1980 Great

Britain will still have the world record for inflation — something that

started with that great socialist government.

They want to talk about employment. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that under a socialist Britain.... What were their workers paid?

Were they paid the highest, like they are in free-enterprise British

Columbia? Higher than any province in Canada or practically any state

in the union? No. Britain happens to be part of the great European

Economic Community. When Henry Ford was looking to build a new engine

plant, he looked at Spain, Italy, France and a lot of other members of

the European community. But where did

[ Page 1500 ]

he go? He went to England, because the wage rates in England, under

a socialist government, were lower than any other country in the

European Economic Community.

I'll tell you one other reason he went to England. You hear those

guys up there condemning the great multinational corporations, the big,

bad guys, General Motors and Ford and ITT. What did the socialist

leader of the day do? He gave Ford more kickbacks than any other

country in the European community — which are mainly free-enterprise

countries — would do. They said: "Oh, the socialists wouldn't do this."

They wouldn't do it until they get to be power, and then they'd do

anything, because they have no real philosophy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the House again the

stupidity of this motion, saying that we haven't come to grips with

solving the economic problems. What else was said? A fellow by the name

of Wally Ross — he'll be well known to my friends opposite — what does he

say? He said that Dave Barrett himself was a kindred soul — he should

have said "not much of a leader." He was unwilling to dampen his

colleagues' enthusiasm in any way, and the result was predictably that

the NDP government had no overall blueprint. Yet all of a sudden, we're

supposed to tell them our blueprint.... I'll tell you, we've got

it, and it's functioning, and we will revise it as time and necessity

warrant. But they had no blueprint. The proof of a blueprint and the

proof of a plan is what happens, and it has happened in the province of

British Columbia under Social Credit government. You know, you can talk

all you want to about blueprints. Certainly we have a blueprint. But

they didn't even know where they were going, and they stand up and say

that we've had no blueprint.

What else did this fellow Wally Ross say? "This lack of advanced

planning contributed significantly to the absence of sound management."

But oh, they love to stand up in the House and talk about what we

should do, what we haven't done. As I say, Mr. Speaker, they can

condemn us for saying.... But they were government. I want to

repeat it: they were government. Now they've got lots of advice....

I remember the first year, 1976, when we brought down our first

budget, after they had brought everything to a grinding halt, curtailed

expenditures, cut off social welfare after they had that $100 million

overrun, stopped road construction. Everything that they could possibly

bring to a halt they brought to a halt.

AN HON. MEMBER: A panic freeze.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A panic freeze. That's after the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) took over the ship, don't forget. The

ex-social worker had deserted; he was swimming for shore as fast as he

could go, and he left it in the hands of the member for Nanaimo. A

complete grinding halt. Then they called that snap election so that the

people of British Columbia wouldn't know the true financial facts. Oh,

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker.... Oh, they're great now. And in

the first year: "Oh, you're not spending enough on this; you're not

spending enough on that. This program isn't big enough; that program

isn't big enough. Why don't you spend more?" You know, six months

before, the word got out: "Stop hiring civil servants. Stop road

construction. Stop giving away money, stop this program, stop that

program." Six months later, when we're government, they're saying:

"Spend more; you guys can run the economy." They have faith in us

because they know we're going to spend more because the economy is good.

I just want to read one more sentence and then I'll get on, Mr.

Speaker. What I'm really trying to do is point out to the members on

this side of the House and the members on that side of the House how

absolutely stupid and ridiculous this motion is, particularly by those

two social workers.

I just want to finish with one more little statement. This guy,

Wally Ross, says it was "like a house of casual pleasure run by the

girls." I won't condemn them any more, Mr. Speaker, because, you know,

they are more to be pitied than censured. Poor government and poor

opposition — you know, I really feel sorry for them. I don't know where

they are going to go from here. Oh, yes I do; they're going to go out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you a thing or two, my

friend. When you were government, people were fleeing this province.

They were stumbling over each other. In my riding it wasn't safe to be

on the road. The road to Alberta was so full of traffic it wasn't safe

because of people deserting this province, people leaving this

province. I wouldn't laugh about it, my friend, because it was because

of your socialist policies in this great province of ours. That's why

they were leaving.

I remember that during the election campaign Gary Lauk tried to talk to me

about a few things. I wanted to give him the facts. I wanted to give him a few

facts on how British Columbia grows with Canada in interprovincial migration.

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts, and they are in this little b