1980 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4261 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 4261

Mr. Levi –– 4264

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4268

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4270

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4274

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There doesn't seem

to be a surfeit of guests in the gallery this morning, Mr. Speaker. To

the three who are coming in, then, we bid them extreme welcome, sir.

But I'm standing up really, Mr. Speaker, to convey the very, very best

wishes of the government and, I'm sure, of all members of the

Legislative Assembly to the Canadian ski team who have produced the

best result in World Cup history. I think they certainly should receive

the applause and congratulations of every member in the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen who just walked into the gallery are

members of the Western Agricultural Conference, who have been meeting

with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development: Mr. David Sands,

the chairman of the group, Mr. John DePape, Mr. Tom Low and Mr. Weir

Muir, the treasurer of the group, a very capable gentleman. I ask the

House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. DAVIS:

The motion before the House today accuses the government of lack of

leadership. This would be surprising if it didn't come from the

official opposition. The official opposition, of course, believes in

more government rather than less government. It believes in governing

for the good of the governed rather than the other way round, so

naturally it's concerned about leadership at all times and in all

circumstances.

I can't vote for the motion, because like

other members on this side of the House I believe in less government

rather than more. I believe the government exists merely to serve the

needs of the people. It leads only where leadership is absolutely

necessary. In other words, it doesn't lead for the mere joy or

experience of leading. It does that, and only that, which is absolutely

necessary for the public good. It doesn't go around looking for new

industries to take over, or establish new regulatory commissions to

control the rest. Leadership, in that sense, is something which we

don't need here in British Columbia. The present health of our B.C.

economy bears witness to that fact.

The motion also refers

to a lack of public confidence. That's sheer nonsense. British Columbia

is booming as never before. Its public services are of the highest

quality. Employment is at an all-time high. Unemployment, in percentage

terms, is the lowest in the last decade. In housing starts we're

leading the nation. We have less inflation here than in the rest of

Canada. Our provincial budget is in the black. Only one other province,

Alberta, can say that. Proportionately this government is spending more

on health and other people services than any other provincial

administration, certainly more than Ontario, more than Alberta, and

more even than Saskatchewan, which prides itself in that kind of thing.

Perhaps,

Mr. Speaker, I should repeat that: this government is spending more of

its budget on health and other public services than any other

provincial government in Canada.

Our tax rates are down, not

up. Our people have more of their income to spend than other Canadians

do. No wonder people are flocking to British Columbia. Capital is

coming here in large amounts and the good life in this province is

becoming a matter of note the world over. I think, and most British

Columbians think, that our province has it made. They don't often have

this pointed out to them; I think we should attest more to our real

circumstances.

Our resources are both renewable and

non-renewable. Alberta is doing very well economically speaking, but

this province has renewable resources that Alberta does not, and in

great amounts. We have forest resources, fisheries resources, tourism

and water power. We have all these things, and if they are well managed

and well husbanded, we can and will prosper. We can afford and will

have the finest public services anywhere in the world. We are

confident; we should be more confident. We should talk more often about

our natural wealth, our natural advantages and indeed the skills and

abilities of our population and look to our people more to provide the

individual initiative which will continue to make this the finest part

of the world in which to live.

We've got problems

essentially of growth, problems of expansion. We've got a tiny

population in a very substantial and resource-rich province. People are

coming to British Columbia in record numbers. Last year more people

came to British Columbia than ever before. More people moved to British

Columbia than to any other province, including Alberta. On balance,

even Ontario lost people. British Columbia and Alberta — the west — are

growing faster than ever before. But we have problems of shelter, for

example — of housing — naturally because of this great influx of

people. We have to concern ourselves about our scarcest of all

resources — land, residential land, lots for home building, and indeed,

in some parts of the province, agricultural land.

I believe

in the workings of the marketplace — the free interplay of supply and

demand. But we have the world looking our way now. We have people

wanting to come to British Columbia from all over the face of this

globe. We have capital coming here in unprecedented amounts, and it's

bidding up the price of lots, for example; it's bidding up the price of

agricultural land. We have a remarkable situation, one which government

may have to deal with in an effective way. Taxing our people and making

funds available to those in real need to buy land and build houses is

one approach. Limiting the sale of certain qualities of land to

foreigners is another approach which has to be considered under these

circumstances.

As I said before, I believe in the free

workings of the marketplace. But when you have exceptional

circumstances, such as we have in British Columbia, the fact that this

is the finest place in the world, the most secure place in the world,

the most attractive — from a price point of view — part of the world in

which to invest, in which to put your money, in which to bank your

money, in which to leave your money at least for a time — bears some

examination.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: You

can't complain about prosperity, but you have to live with exceptional

prosperity. This is why some action may be required in respect to land.

It's a matter

[ Page 4262 ]

of real concern. It has to be a matter of continuing concern to the members of this Legislature and to this government.

Foreign

capital is coming here to buy up land. Some of it is of the nature of

non-resident, absentee ownership capital. This must concern us because

this is the kind of capital that doesn't necessarily pay close

attention to our day-to-day needs, to our environment, to the ongoing

or long-term needs of British Columbia as a province and of its people.

Energy

is an area of continuing concern, basically because we don't presently

have enough oil on tap to look after our needs — not only in British

Columbia, but in all of Canada. Potentially, we have large amounts of

oil. We have vast oil resources, but we don't have them immediately on

tap. Canada as a nation would be in dire straits if, for example, there

were to be a more serious flare-up in the Middle East. I think one can

characterize the changing U.S. situation and the Canadian situation in

these terms, rather glibly perhaps. With Reagan, they are going for

security of supply; they are going for more activity in the oil and gas

fields — more drilling, more development and more continuing reserves.

this country, currently under the present federal administration, we

are going for Canadian ownership — Canadian ownership and control as

distinct from proving up more immediate supplies. And this does present

us with a problem. Ownership is important; I believe in more Canadian

ownership, but we must have more Canadian ownership and more supply,

certainly security of supply and more adequate supplies of oil in the

next few years if we are to continue to have a relatively stable

economy in this country and a secure future for the people of British

Columbia.

We are, I think, engaged in a sort of "beggar thy

neighbour" approach in Canada. On the oil front, to put it in its

simplest terms, we have chosen — and this is a Canadian policy — to

keep our prices down; to give our energy-using industries, certainly

our oil-using industries, a softer option; to encourage our people to

remain the largest per capita users of energy among the world's

industrialized countries; and at the same time to pay our own producers

half or less than half of that which we pay foreigners to deliver the

same quality of oil to our shores. As a result, we are postponing the

day of Canadian self-sufficiency and we are buying more oil than we

would otherwise buy on world markets. This, in effect, is a "beggar thy

neighbour" approach. It helps to keep world prices up. It works,

certainly to the disadvantage of the poorest of the developing

countries, those who have no oil of their own. It gives Canadian

industry, especially secondary industries in central Canada, what

amounts to a big and often hidden subsidy for energy use. Seeing this,

the manufacturers of other countries are now asking for protection

against what they regard as unfair competition from Canada. We're

distorting international trade and hurting our export industries, if

only because we're favouring our importing industries. We've got too

much government involvement already, and our mismanagement at home is

now messing up our relations abroad.

I said I'm in favour of

more Canadian ownership, but I'm not in favour of Canadian ownership in

the sense of government-owned corporations doing most or all of the job

in the energy sector or any other industrial sector. If PetroCan were

to behave like any other independent corporation in the marketplace it

would be all right, but PetroCan, as presently conceived, is an arm of

the federal government which will be funded out of taxes, will have an

exceptional and unfair advantage over all other corporations in the

energy field, will be able to back in or, in effect, confiscate the

property of others without compensation and will have the first crack

at any discovery anywhere in most of the territories of Canada, in the

north and offshore. Under those circumstances, it is bound to become

bigger and eventually take over most, if not all, of the oil and gas

industries of this country.

What we need is a continuing and healthy private sector in which we have competition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member speaking please take his chair.

Hon.

members, we are in the throne speech debate and each member, in turn,

will have his opportunity to speak. I fail to understand on what basis

some hon. members feel that they can interrupt the proceedings at any

point in time, and I would suggest that you desist.

MR. DAVIS:

I believe in a private sector. I believe in a substantial degree of

Canadian ownership. I think we have to have rules and laws, such as we

have in a number of areas — broadcasting, banking, and so on — in which

a proportion of ownership of equity is guaranteed to Canadians. That

could be brought about, indeed would have to be brought about, over a

period of time. It can't be brought about instantaneously. As a nation,

certainly in terms of national government, we're operating at an

immense deficit. We don't have the money to buy out industry. We don't

have the capital to engage in massive exploration and oil sand

development programs. So we've got to do it progressively and

gradually. We've got to lay out the ground rules towards eventually

accomplishing a substantial degree — say 50 percent and eventually

two-thirds — of Canadian ownership in our strategic industries and

vital resource industries. I think that is a worthwhile target, but

it's a long-term target. It's longterm because to have energy security,

production, efficient output and substantial incomes for Canadians we

need capital. We need foreign capital as well as Canadian capital.

Canadian capital, certainly government capital, is very scarce, so it

has to be a progressive thing. But we should lay out the ground rules.

We should have our targets as to the degree of Canadian ownership that

is ultimately desirable and, indeed, achievable with the right kind of

government and philosophy in this country. But at the same time I don't

believe we should be unthinkingly subsidizing a massive Crown-owned

corporation whose policies are dictated in large measure, if not

entirely, from the political level in Ottawa. I think that approach is

bound to result in very serious problems, not only economic problems

but problems between the national government and our provincial

government. You can't have a national corporation operating in every

corner of the country, taking over resources and developing resources

at its own speed and in their own way without running head on into

provincial jurisdiction, control and husbanding of resources. It's

inevitable that a collision, and a very serious one, will occur if

PetroCan and the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of

PetroCan are to be become the way of life in the oil and gas industries

of this country. We're looking for trouble if we follow that route.

Traditionally the oil and gas industries on this continent have accumulated their savings out of profits. They've been

[ Page 4263 ]

given what are called "depletion allowances" and

this has allowed them, instead of paying taxes, to use the money in

exploration and development. In the United States, where the vast

majority of those companies were owned by Americans, this was

acceptable, because it was an industry which grew, flourished and

produced great reserves and massive supplies of energy for the people

of the United States, and was American-owned and -controlled. In

Canada, this process has resulted increasingly in foreign ownership and

control of wasting resources like oil and gas.

The federal

government has, at long last, decided to cut off this flow of funds for

exploration and development in Canada, and instead make grants

available — eliminate depletion allowances, but make grants available

to companies which engage in exploration for oil and gas. Those grants

are contingent upon the degree of foreign ownership of the company. If

the company has no Canadian ownership it's not going to qualify for

grants, at least in conventional oil and gas development. If half or

more of its stock is owned by Canadians, it'll qualify for grants at a

given level. If it's 75 percent Canadian-owned and -controlled it'll

get an even better deal in terms of grants.

The problem

there, though, is: who administers the grants, and how are they

administered? It's fine in the short run, perhaps, certainly for small

Canadian companies with no capital of their own; they can substantially

develop new resources on the basis of grants. But as they grow, their

requirements for grant money will grow. And Ottawa certainly doesn't

have much money. Ottawa is currently spending $120 for every $100 it

takes in. In private-sector terms, it's been bankrupt for half a dozen

years. It's in trouble. It doesn't have the money. Furthermore, the

marketplace isn't all, that attractive, because the wellhead price —

the price which the Canadian developer can get, assuming now they're 50

percent or 75 percent Canadian-owned — is half the world price. It's

inching up, but it's still not enough to cover, the cost of development

in the arctic, outlying areas and offshore areas of this country. It's

certainly not enough to develop the tar sands.

So government

regulation of price has to go. Certainly prices have to rise. But the

regime that Ottawa is moving towards is not a marketplace regime; it's

a regime which looks at each project — each development — in turn and

treats it as a utility, looks at its costs, gives it a price that

covers costs plus some rate of return that will attract more capital.

other words, our oil and gas industries over time will become regulated

utilities with a guaranteed rate of return. First, they get public

money grants with which to develop. Secondly, they become regulated

utilities.

The problem with regulated utilities is that they

can always pass on their costs. Those which are inefficient can still

survive. They will get a higher price because their costs are higher.

Those which are efficient, those which happen on a large oil pool in a

convenient place, and whose costs are low, will get, a low price. There

will be no real reward for risk, because there will be no risk in what

has traditionally been one of the most — if not the most — risky

industries that we know. Risk has forced the development of large

corporations, because large corporations could spread the risk.

We're going to see in the long run, under present federal policy, on

the one hand a massive PetroCan in business. PetroCan, incidentally, has

not yet found any oil on its own. In the remainder of the oil and gas sectors

we'll find companies — the majority Canadian-owned, admittedly — operating

as utilities whose rates of return on capital are guaranteed and whose efficiency

will certainly be questionable, certainly other than such as to give us relatively

low-priced energy in this country.

I'm

approach to Canadian ownership and control, which if I'm talking only

about ownership and control I endorse. But I'm also concerned about the

end result. We need the skills. We need the know-how. We need the

technology which can be supplied from outside the country. We need a

private market. We need risk-takers. We need competition. Hopefully,

more reasonable policies will follow — ones which would both sponsor

the private sector and insist in the long term on a greater measure of

Canadian ownership and control — policies which I personally can

endorse and which, I hope, most members who really believe in a

substantial private sector as well as Canadian ownership would endorse

also.

I'm concerned about developments here in British

Columbia in that context. I don't want to see B.C. Hydro in all areas

of energy development. B.C. Hydro is going to get bigger; it's bound to

be bigger. It will be developing our major remaining hydroelectric

resources. It will probably be developing some of our major coal

resources for the production of electricity. It could eventually be in

nuclear power or other sources of electricity. Collectively they will

amount to the production of a third, perhaps in the year 2020 half, of

all the energy we use in this province. That's enough. Why should Hydro

also be in the business of distributing natural gas? I don't believe it

should be in the gas business. We should at least have another Crown

corporation marketing natural gas; or, better still, turn that aspect

of its operations over to the private sector. Turn it over to BCRIC;

turn it over to an operation which would have to be, of course, a

regulated utility, subject to the scrutiny of the Utilities Commission

as to rates, but not part of one gigantic complex which is supposed to

be, and never can be, all wise as far as our needs are concerned.

I'm

concerned not only in the natural gas area but about small hydro. There

was a conference in Vancouver recently on small hydro developments, and

I was interested to learn about the current policy in the United

States. It's not only state law in most individual states, but also

federal law in the U.S.A., that the output of small and medium-size

hydro developments can be sold to — indeed must be bought by — the

major power utilities operating in the area. If an industry or a small

community puts up a small hydroelectric development, first it can do so

readily; secondly, it can sell any surplus energy it has to the utility

generally operating in the bigger area surrounding it at a price which

is equal to the rate which that utility charges for that kind of

service. In other words, what's good for the big utility should at

least be good enough for small developers of small sites in the United

States. We need a policy like that here in British Columbia. Presently,

before you can develop a hydro site — before any one of us can, before

a small industry or a small community can — B.C. Hydro has to come in

and look it over; B.C. Hydro has to decide whether it's economical.

B.C. Hydro in effect has to authorize its development, and if it's

developed it becomes a public utility. But before it can be financed,

you have to be able to sell your surplus energy to someone, and that

someone is B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is very coy these days. B.C. Hydro

has excess capacity. It is building large

[ Page 4264 ]

new

projects, each one more expensive than the last — basically, due to

inflation. That I can understand, but B.C. Hydro is insisting that

these developments take precedence, and when they're underway it can

always point to excess capacity and say: "Well, we don't need the

output of any small, new, local hydroelectric development." So we're in

a condition of frustration in this province as far as small

developments are concerned.

Small may be beautiful in some

people's eyes, but it certainly isn't beautiful in the eyes of B.C.

Hydro and it doesn't seem to be beautiful in the eyes of our

policy-makers in this province now. I hope that policy effectively can

be changed to allow for small developments locally, and especially in

the north, especially in areas which can benefit from a small local

development where it's therefore unnecessary to build an expensive

transmission line into the area and where, indeed, the local costs,

because they are low, will result in low-cost energy and will serve to

attract processing, for example, to that area. B.C. Hydro, as all

members know, charges the same rate for the same kind of service all

over the province. If power rates are the same everywhere in the

province, there is no incentive to locate in the north. There is no

incentive to locate close to a resource, whether it be forest

resources, mineral resources or oil and gas; you might as well come to

Vancouver. So I personally feel strongly that we should have a more

flexible policy and that B.C. Hydro shouldn't always be on the inside

track; B.C. Hydro shouldn't be the final arbiter of all hydroelectric

developments in this province.

I think I've made two points,

the first being that this motion is not only contrary to the kinds of

policies which I believe in, but also is nonsense from the point of

view of the prosperity of this province. We have a province which is

flourishing. It's flourishing in large measure because of the

effectiveness of the private sector. I think we have good government. I

believe we have government which is concerned about the growth of

government and government-owned and -operated corporations. We believe

in individual initiative. We know that our province is prosperous, that

more people want to come here, more people want to live here, more

people want to invest their hard-won earnings here. We know also that

we have the finest public service. We're building more hospitals than

ever before in our history. We're certainly building more hospitals

than other provinces; we're not closing them down, as Ontario has been

doing, for example.

Our problems are of prosperity, of

success, of growth, of having it made, so to speak, and we must address

ourselves to them. But we must make sure that the private sector has a

large and indeed growing role to play in this province. I therefore

endorse the Speech from the Throne as it stands. Certainly I can't

agree that there's a lack of confidence in this province, of public

confidence in the province, and indeed in its government. I certainly

can't agree that there's a lack of leadership shown here and now.

MR. LEVI: It's become very popular.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Attorney-General, I am standing up. God, Garde, you've been saying that for 11 years.

is becoming very popular in this House, for the people on that side, to

talk in some kind of good way about the virtues of Crown corporations.

We've heard the previous member, who was formerly a member of the

federal government, talk about some of the problems of Crown

corporations, and then in the next breath he talks about setting up

another Crown corporation which would distribute gas and take Hydro out

of its monopoly situation.

On Friday a young man came to see

me, from the University of Victoria; he was doing some research on

Crown corporations. While we were talking, I said: "Well, you should

look at the federal Crown corporation situation, because at last count

they had 360-odd Crown corporations." He quickly corrected me, and

said: "No, 420." That's 420 Crown corporations operating from Ottawa,

within the federal government, and I would very quickly point out to

you, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't had an NDP government in Ottawa at

all.

We've constantly heard from the people across the way

about either the good points of Crown corporations or the bad points of

Crown corporations. We have a committee of the House which tries to

come to grips with some of the problems that the previous speaker was

talking about in respect to B.C. Hydro. It was agreed by the whole

committee and it's agreed by the whole House and, I think, by the whole

province, that it's too big — far too big. Two years ago we even had

the Premier saying that we've got to do something about B.C. Hydro. But

the reality is that nobody can do anything about it. They can't take

them on; they can't confront them. They are really the economic

dictators of the province. It's partly because nobody is really laying

out an economic plan for the province. That's implicit in the amendment

to the motion which my colleagues moved yesterday, when they said that

this House regrets that the speech from His Honour does not reflect the

lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government. That's

all we're going to confine our remarks to in this amendment — lack of

confidence.

Nobody over there has talked about some of the

areas of our community which reflect this lack of confidence. Nobody

over there, for instance, has decided to talk about the incredible

problem taking place in most of our urban centres, also in some of the

rural centres, in respect to how the young people get into a house.

About

two weeks ago four of my children — who are now past 20 — had a

meeting. They were celebrating the birthday of the youngest one, who is

18. Two are married; two are about to get married. What were they

talking about? The youngest one comes home and tells me.... I don't

know why it was, but all they wound up talking about was housing. They

were talking about condominiums. They were also talking about who they

were going to put the finger on to help them get this. That is a key

problem which young people — for the first time in this province — are

really starting to talk about. Everybody here who has children of

marriageable age is talking about what they are going to do. "Are we

ever going to be able to own a home?"

If, as I think, the

problem is that they will never own a home, then we'd better find some

alternative mechanism to make sure that young people have an

opportunity to have some access to a home or a piece of land, whether

we do it on a rental basis or on a lease basis. We better start looking

at some alternative mechanisms.

We have a situation in the

Vancouver area where there's a massive pushing up of prices on an

almost weekly basis. If you live in certain parts of Vancouver and you

own a home, you can sit back and just watch that home appreciate as much

[ Page 4265 ]

$1,000 a week in terms of the value of that home. What we are slowly

doing in this province is ghettoizing our living accommodation to the

extent that there are many young people who will never be able to get

into it. We have that particularly in the lower mainland area, and

we're getting it more and more now in the Fraser Valley, because that's

where the growth trip is. That's an issue of confidence in terms of

this government.

Yesterday the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) said that we always say something negative. Nobody

said anything negative about the move they made in January 1980, when

they put $200 million into the mortgage market and in fact liberated

some $8 million or $9 million and made it possible to build 5,300

houses. We didn't say it was no good; we said it was an excellent first

move. For the first time in five years this government decided to

inject itself into an area that needed some assistance. It was a good

move. We said that. What we said afterwards was: "What else are you

going to do? That's only 5,300 houses. "

The point is that

the government is going to have to make some commitment about what it's

going to do with this very real problem of how our young people who

will have families are going to have somewhere to live. That's an issue

of confidence. That's what these young people are talking about. They

are the voters. They're the people who are saying that things are not

going well. The previous speaker talked about prosperity. Yes, there is

some prosperity in the province, but it's not equally shared. There's

no prosperity for people on fixed incomes and there's certainly no

prosperity for young people, because even when they do what many people

over there seem to think the young people don't want to do, which is to

work and put together money, they still have nowhere near the

opportunity to put down a down payment to get into a home. What is the

government doing about that?

We had an announcement the other day from the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He announced a Crown land policy. He's not announcing

anything new. That's been on the books for pretty close to six years. The

development of the Essondale land in my riding in Coquitlam was something that

was talked about and planned for in 1975. It could have been done in 1976, 1977

and 1978, and it hasn't even been done yet. That was all planned for. There

was just the question, when the government changed, that the new government

had to make a decision whether or not it was going ahead, and it didn't.

The reason it didn't, as we hear time after time and year after year from

the speakers across the way, is that we have to leave it to the private sector.

What we have in the private sector now is a very sorry situation with respect

to the incredible inflation problem. Much of it in the Vancouver area was brought

about by the terrible increases in housing prices. There is enormous competition

among real estate people, developers and people who are speculating — the average

Joe who has decided, "This is how I can make a bit of a nest-egg for the

future" and pushing up prices.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Well, I appreciate that we have more people coming in, but then there

is the question of what do you do in terms of planning — to know that

you're going to have enough time. We're told by the builders and

developers that even if we started now and put in tremendous resources

we'd be years away from even filling the gap. The great problem is that

there's the other side of the picture.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) indicates two or three years. I can remember two years ago....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

You're being hopeful? You're smoking something which I don't even want

to mention, because that's not even realistic. It takes a year to get

it through the municipalities and planning, get them to the building

state and get the financing — and get the financing when it's going

from 15 to 16 to 17 percent.

There are many, many problems,

but we haven't addressed ourselves to that young group. The government

is fond of saying: "We musn't leave any monumental debts for future

generations." We're sure leaving them one now. Somehow there has to be

some kind of government intervention in respect to the kind of warfare

that's going on in the housing market. Do you mean it's going to be

allowed to continue? The price level that it reaches is going to have a

continuing, almost permanent effect on the housing market in British

Columbia. That's an issue of confidence.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the sad parts about

the whole question of young people getting into housing is the mortgage

rates. What amazes me is that six months ago we had discussions in this

House in which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was unhappy

because he couldn't get Mr. Bouey to come out to a meeting of the

western ministers to discuss the question of interest rates. I would

like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are other issues which the

Minister of Finance can address himself to. After all, the government

is a user of banks. A lot of the money in the government goes through

the banking system. How many times do we sit down with the leading

charter banks of this province and say to them: "Are you fulfilling

your social responsibility in terms of what kind of mortgage money you

make available to people in the community?" We know for a fact that

they're not doing this, because when the government went into its $200

million program in January 1980, it had to go to the credit unions to

facilitate this. There appeared to be no interest from the banks to get

into that, only from the credit unions. I am suggesting to you, Mr.

Speaker, that there again is an issue of confidence.

ought not to talk always about the great future design of the province

which is still being negotiated, particularly in relation to the coal

situation, but some of the immediate problems that face the future

voters. That is the issue of confidence. We can argue this particular

amendment on the basis of confidence, because we can say to you: "Do

young people in this province have confidence in the government?" I say

to you no, they do not. The teachers don't have confidence in you, the

health professionals don't have confidence in you, and people on fixed

incomes are very worried about the situation — they don't have

confidence in you. That's what makes up this motion, because as

everybody moves around the province and talks to people, these are the

people

[ Page 4266 ]

who

are saying: "What is the government doing?" It is quite remarkable that

in the midst of an economy which is good, it is not equitable in terms

of the opportunities of people in the community.

Yesterday

the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), in a brief remark,

made some mention of a former Minister of Human Resources. He was

referring to me, and he said we did nothing for the handicapped. I sat

in my office, and I listened to the speech, and I was a little bit

appalled by his lack of knowledge of what was done for the handicapped

in the province and what has not been done for the handicapped since

the new government came in. But the point is that that member is not

prepared to do his homework: that group of handicapped people form part

of that body that constantly exhibits statements about a lack of

confidence in the government.

The question is, Mr. Speaker,

if we are going to plan the province, and not in a hit-and-miss way,

then we need to have some kind of design from the government, but we

haven't got one.

In respect to the discussions about Crown

corporations, we have had, in the last year, an opportunity to see what

happens in the field of high finance in respect to the movement of

hundreds of millions of dollars. In respect to BCRIC and what it bought

— the question of how it bought will be debated at another time — what

were the mechanisms that were used which led to the creation of

investigations? But the important thing is that if one were to say to

the Premier: "Your glorification about BCRIC is because that is the

free enterprise system...." We point out to him that if you did not

have the leverage, which was the various resource companies that were

bought by the previous government, you would not have gotten into the

game in the first place.

Then, of course, we question the

kind of game that they are in because we are talking again about

confidence in the economy. We don't see any change, either now or in

the future, that will flow from the purchase of the enormously

expensive Kaiser corporation, because what we look for is the whole

question of job generation, and that is not there. We don't find, for

instance, in terms of the government, that it is prepared to talk in a

very meaningful way about what it is doing about job creation for young

people. That exhibits a lack of confidence.

We are

constantly talking about, in this province, the question of employment.

We are faced with the same problem that most western provinces of

Canada are faced. These are the desirable places to live, it has always

been my contention, for a lot of people; this province is the promise

of last resort for many people. They come out here for a number of

reasons, particularly if they come from the eastern part of the country

where they can't get jobs. We've always had that. It's always going to

be that way. We are a naturally attractive province in terms of the

climate; the sun shines first here and it shines last — it's great. But

we have to make provisions, and those that we can make could have been

decided on a long time ago. Sure, we've got to look for some kind of

development. We can't absorb everybody in the province, but what we

need to have is some kind of real plan, which we don't have. We don't

have that kind of plan, and that's why one begins to worry about the

whole question of confidence in the government.

If we could

get from the government over the next three or four months — we will be

able to debate it and we will try and draw it from them — what they

have got in mind for the economy in 1981, 1982 and 1983…. What is the

plan? We all remember very much the glorification of the budget earlier

this year. There was a buoying of confidence out in the community

because we had hit over $7 billion in terms of the budget, and then

within six weeks it all crumbled. The scare was there, the minister

comes in, and we hear that everything is not right.

Suppose

we examine what the problem is there. They had one area, among others,

in which there was a significant shortfall in the export of gas. One

does not have to be a genius to know, if you travelled in the United

States as I did in 1979 and early 1980, particularly in Washington and

Oregon, that the days of purchasing gas from Canada were finished. It

was in their newspapers every day. They couldn't meet the price, and

they had other alternatives that were coming on stream in terms of what

was going on in Mexico.

We had debates in this Legislature about the pricing of gas three or four

years ago when this side of the House criticized that government for failing

to seek the proper kind of pricing at the time when the gas could be sold. Then

we had the unusual situation of seeing the Minister of Energy writing a letter to

the Energy Board saying: "Please, don't go ahead with the increase that

we requested." It makes good sense. After all, you're not going to

sell it down there at a higher price if you can't even sell it at the existing

price. But who was monitoring that field? Do you mean to tell me that when you

put together the financial estimates of this province somebody doesn't say:

"Is BCPC aware of what the market potential is in the United States for

the sale of gas?" From listening to the minister it almost appeared that

it came about overnight. It didn't come about overnight. There was great

discussion going on on the west coast of the United States about the need to

find alternative areas to purchase natural gas, because they simply weren't

going to be able to continue to purchase ours at the price that we were charging.

Consequently, for a number of months now the Ministry of Finance had been thrown

into a tizzy about its revenues. That's an issue of confidence. Nobody out

there and nobody in here knows to this day, unless it's a few members of

the government, just what the revenue situation is with respect to the government.

We don't know. We know what the expectations were in February and March

of this year. They would be something like $1 billion underspent as a result

of the statements made in the supplementary papers that we got from the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but we don't know now. Surely that's an

issue of confidence.

How

can you run a province when you have no basic plan which you're moving

towards, no plan at all? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis), in talking about competition, feels that in the utility area

there should be more opportunity given to smaller companies to compete

with Hydro. It's the issue of competition. There's a great discussion

going on in this country right now about competition with the banks.

We've just opened up in Canada. The Bank Act has now been passed, and

we're going to make it possible for 50 more banks to compete with the

charter banks that were once near-banks.

Now we come to the

issue of competition. If the basic motivation is that you create more

competition in order to make it competitive for.... What are they

competing for? Are they competing for profits, or are they looking at

making it competitive in terms of the people that purchase the service?

There are very little differences in the services given by banks. The

interesting situation is that it is now possible for

[ Page 4267 ]

foreign

banks to come into this country to compete in the banking market and to

take the money out of the country. That's the remarkable situation we

have with the banking industry in this province. The Bank of B.C. is

extremely active in Alberta and other provinces, One might well ask the

question: why isn't it active here? Why isn't that kind of investment

being made in this province?

There is no basic fiscal

investment policy in terms of the government. We had an opportunity

three years ago to start to examine this. It was the previous Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Economic

Development who had a report commissioned — in fact two reports. They

spent well over $250,000 and examined the capital market structure of

this province. The report was delivered. It's never been issued, and

we've never been privy to the kind of information that, presumably, for

the first time in the history of this province, was collected in terms

of the capital market and investment possibilities. We've never had

that, and we should have it. But for some reason the government chose

not to do that.

The government is not, to my knowledge,

exercising any influence in terms of its discussions with the banking

industry about what its social responsibility is. That's an issue of

confidence. After all, this government pushes something like $7 billion

from treasury out into the community. In terms of a multiple of four or

five, you're looking at a considerable amount of money past $25 billion

to $30 billion, most of it going through the banks and generated from

the taxpayer. Surely there's an opportunity there for the government to

sit down with the banking industry and say: "Listen, we are part of the

people that make your plant grow, and yet you have certain social

obligations in respect to interest, in terms of mortgages, in terms of

what small-business needs are." It's not just that the government has

to do it all the time. Do those kinds of discussions go on, or is it

really as has been said many times: "Well, that's really a federal

issue and we can't deal with it." It's not just a federal issue. There

are enough federal issues. They are issues of the region in which you

live, the region in which those banks operate. They are passing through

their system a large amount of taxpayers' money, and obviously the

government can take the leadership in having those discussions.

Those

kinds of discussions did take place several years ago. They took place

under the government of W.A.C. Bennett, who finally said that the only

solution to getting a banking industry was simply to encourage the

development of a bank out here. So we developed the Bank of B.C. When

the previous government was in, there was a whole discussion about the

availability of cash-flow money and bridge financing for small

businesses, along the style of the United States Savings and Trust. So

that government moved toward the development of that: looking at two,

three and four different mechanisms of distributing money and making

money available in the province, not just simply remaining slaves in

respect to the banking industry. That's the kind of discussions the

government has to have. That's an issue of confidence.

goes back to what I was saying in the beginning, that if we want to go

no further in this discussion, in terms of the issue of confidence,

let's take a look at all the young people, whose major discussion every

day when they make plans to get married or to start a family is what

they are going to do about housing, what they are going to do about

accommodation. The ironic

part is that you have people today....

We're

not talking any more about affordable housing for people with low

incomes who need to get into housing like everybody else. We're talking

about affordable housing for people who have two incomes, where people

have incomes of up to $40,000 a year, yet never have the opportunity to

purchase a house or a condominium because of the exorbitant prices and

because of the interest rates.

As the government, they can

sit back and say that it's a federal question. We can't get to talk to

the governor of the Bank of Canada. Or they can take the other

initiative, and sit down with the banking industry. They've sat down

with the credit union. They participated in a program that worked. Now

let's sit down and see whether we can do something with the banking

industry, because they're not suffering at all. In the midst of this

great crisis that we're going through, in terms of the inability of

young people to get housing, the people who are benefiting — along with

the developers and land speculators — are the banks. Banks don't have

any trouble; their assets are going up; their deposits are increasing;

their return on investment is quite dramatic. So when is the government

going to do that? Are they prepared to sit down and talk to them, as

obviously they must have done with the credit union? That's an issue of

confidence.

We can no longer deal with what that government

says are the substantive questions, which really relate to an

intellectualization about the constitution, which we'll discuss in a

different way. It's a complete ignoring of the basic economic problems

people are going through. It's no good saying in this House that the

economy is prosperous when it doesn't touch a large number of people in

this province. At least 25 percent of the people in this province are

not touched by the prosperity of the province, unfortunately.

just pointed out to Mr. Speaker — and I'll do it again for the benefit

of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). What kind of situation are

we in in this province when two people in a family are working and

making $35,000 to $40,000 a year and they can't buy a home? That's a

real problem. We have to start talking about affordable housing for

people referred to as middle- and upper-income. What's going to happen

to the people down below, where a man is working and making, if he's

lucky, $2,000 a month? In order to get into a home, he has to look

realistically at carrying a mortgage of $700, $800 or $900 a month. We

have no expectation.

Those are the real economic questions

that have to be addressed. They're not speculations, as sometimes

happens in terms of whether we need another Crown corporation, or

whether there are very serious problems about the distribution....

There are more substantive problems that affect everybody.

just want to address one more point in respect to this. I don't think

that we give enough attention to the problem of people who are renting.

That's an issue of confidence as well. Every MLA in this House — on

both sides of the House — has had large numbers of letters from people

talking about rent increases, in some cases where rent controls are not

in effect. Let me give you an example. Two years ago in this House, the

former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came in and said: "We

have now decided to start to remove the rent controls on certain levels

of housing." He told us then — and he was endorsed by his colleague who

is now the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — "The housing vacancy

is such that we can now move to deregulate." We warned him then, as we

warned him this year —

[ Page 4268 ]

and

we were not the only people who were warning him — that he had no basis

for making the decision to reduce the rent controls, other than the

pressure that he was getting from certain sectors of the real estate

industry. They simply had to keep their promise to the rental people,

that is the people who did the building, that they would make it easier

for them — because, remember, the government said that they would never

reduce the rent control. We're into a situation now where there is a

very serious problem in respect to rents. Last year, during the debate

on the Residential Tenancy Act amendments, we asked that the government

give consideration to reimposing some level of control, particularly in

the $450 and $500 area; those are the people who are writing to us

about the incredible increases that they're facing.

There

are two areas that we've discussed, both related to the whole question

of housing, of existing accommodation, which the government refuses to

address. It's interesting that at the beginning of the year it wanted

to address the issue of the shortage of housing, and certainly that

contributed to the increase in the housing starts in the province. But

you can't take these particular problems in isolation. If you're going

to do something about looking at improving the housing stock, then you

have to take a look at what's going to happen in respect to rent

controls, so that people aren't forced out of their homes because they

can't pay. It's part of the total package to have a discussion with the

banks about what they are prepared to do in terms of all of the

problems that exist in relation to accommodation.

That's the

kind of thing that people would have confidence in, but they don't,

because they write us and they tell us that the government doesn't seem

to be interested in the provision of housing; it's not interested in

the provision of reasonable mortgage rates. All in all, what we've come

down to again is the government announcing that their answer to the

housing question is to now free up some Crown land. They're basically

dealing with planning that was done four or five years ago. We don't

know what it's going to cost for people to get into those lands. We

know that municipalities today are selling land that they own at market

rate — in my own municipality, where I live — at $65,000 and $70,000.

That's how much is being paid for a lot. People have no expectation

whatsoever of ever being able to purchase that kind of thing.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue of confidence that my colleague moved,

and which was seconded by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke),

in terms of when the government will discuss those issues. It's only

from time to time that we get some discussion about the economy from a

member over there; the rest of them stand up and they go back to

1972-75. They have not one thing to contribute in terms of looking at

the issues that are before us today. They're prepared to put on the

blinkers and say: "Everything is fine." Well, everything is not fine.

If you don't want to keep bringing forward the business of our being

negative, examine one or two of the problems; somebody over there

examine, as I have attempted to examine, the question of housing, the

question of rental accommodation. That's what you're supposed to do.

It's long gone that anybody over there....

The mavericks

have gone from that government or from that party. It used to be that

people would stand up and make proposals, because that was what was

worthwhile to do. We don't get that over there; we just get a

recitation of what the previous government did — which has not been in

government for more than five years — and not one suggestion, except

from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), and that's the

great tragedy. They're the ones who are absolutely bereft of any ideas

at all, any ability to do a critique. They sit there; they're very much

like trained seals: the less they say, the less trouble they get into,

and that's it. That's the issue that you have to face. You don't sit

there as the back bench and not make some suggestions. But we haven't

had it from over there, Mr. Speaker.

So that's why, when we

started up the throne speech, we felt it was crucial to get to the

economic problems and have a discussion about those. That's what I've

attempted to do today, in terms of the government looking at the

banking industry, coupling it with the problems they have with the

provision of housing stock and looking at the problems of rent and rent

controls. Those are basic day-to-day issues that everybody is concerned

about, concerned about whether they own their own homes and have

children who are looking for a home, or whether they live in a

situation where they constantly have to get in touch with the

rentalsman to see whether they can get their rent reduced. Those are

day-to-day issues, and that's what we are concerning ourselves with in

this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't

intend to dwell very long on this irrelevant motion, but I will say

that we've commenced a new parliament and we're off to a worse start. I

hardly spoke in the last session of our Legislature, because it was, by

all odds, the worst in our history. We're entering into a throne speech

debate today — a non-confidence motion in the government — with neither

the mover of that motion nor the seconder present to hear the debate

and with the press, as usual, down to a corporal's guard. I'm glad

there's a sentinel this morning in the press gallery. But all of this

is reflecting that the Legislative Assembly, under these circumstances,

really needn't meet at all, because the members themselves don't make

relevant speeches. The time drags on. The press doesn't bother to

attend the debates. The media ignore it. So, Mr. Speaker, what point is

being served?

The usefulness of a Legislative Assembly is

when people attend this House as elected representatives, to put before

their colleagues and the press in attendance their ideas as to the

future of British Columbia, so that the people can learn about the

ideas and policies of their elected representatives, and on that basis

make wise judgments as to whom they should have serve in government for

the purpose of putting forward programs that will either benefit or

harm the public of this province.

Now the NDP, appearing in

debate, puts forward a non-confidence motion, suggesting there is no

public confidence in the leadership of this government. But they

themselves fail to present arguments to set forward that hypothesis.

Indeed, the mover, the seconder and the Leader of the Opposition don't

even bother to attend their own debates. The press ignores it.

But

I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: if there is a climate in British Columbia

which agrees with the motion that has been put forward by the NDP,

shame on all those who have created that climate, because never has

British Columbia been more prosperous. Never has it been more obvious

to those who will analyze that this is no accident; this prosperity did

not fall from the sky. It came as a direct result of policies and

leadership.

Our prosperity runs against the current in North America, against the current of Canada and of the United States.

[ Page 4269 ]

Capital

investment in this province, economic activity, housing, people moving

here; every indicator suggests precisely the opposite of what the NDP

has said in argument. And I say this: if there are those in the public

who have been encouraged by the media to believe this myth, then shame

on the media and shame on the opposition for not looking at the facts

of the case and for not looking with respect at the prosperity of this

province and recognizing that it is policies and leadership that have

produced this result. Those who would aspire to government in British

Columbia, who now sit in the opposition or who may one day run for

office as MLAs, should study and learn these policies, because they lie

behind the future of this province.

Once before in this

House, Mr. Speaker, almost a decade ago, I saw a myth grow in this

province that somehow the NDP, despite the things that they had said

repeatedly in their speeches in opposition, could govern this province

responsibly. Yes, a climate was created in which it was supposed that

the NDP could assume office, somehow would abandon the policies and all

the things that they said, and would provide responsible leadership for

this province. But the public learned, to their dismay, precisely the

opposite. What the public had to learn, Mr. Speaker, was that the NDP,

when they came to office, put their policies into effect. They put

their ideas into effect, and they brought disaster to this province.

That's

why people were leaving. That's why investment almost disappeared.

That's why after three short years there was no mining industry in

British Columbia, except what was carrying on with the existing mines;

exploration had disappeared. So had exploration in the petroleum

industry in the northeast comer of British Columbia.

I heard this morning in the repartee across the House here — if one could use

that charitable expression, Mr. Speaker — one of the members of the NDP, in

fact the seconder of this motion, condemning corporation after corporation after

corporation. I say to this House and to the public: listen to what they say.

I've been reading the newspapers. I've been listening to the climate,

no doubt inspired in this resonance between the NDP and the media, that somehow

confidence could go from the business community to the NDP and that somehow

they have learned a lesson. I find no evidence of that. I find them saying precisely

the same things they said in 1970. I tell you that if the NDP ever come to power

again, they'll put their same policies into effect and once more will bring

disaster to the economy of British Columbia. I only warn of one thing: if that

ever happens again — and people know that British Columbia made a mistake about

government once and never learned the lesson — instead of having a temporary

reversal in progress, you're going to have an irreversible one. Then indelibly

imprinted upon the minds of those who would work with us to develop the economy

of British Columbia will be the realization that if it could happen a second

time, it could happen a third time.

you move about the world attempting to develop markets, encourage

investment and produce a better future for British Columbia, the one

thing you run into again and again is: will the socialists be back?

That's the great fear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said: "When?" That should

strike terror into the hearts of all of those in British Columbia who

want to see a bright future for themselves and their children. I see

bright smiles from the socialist opposition, but I invite you, and I

invite the media, to stand up and state your policies clearly and

explicitly so the people of this province can understand you and not

put you into office under false impressions and with false beliefs, as

they did in 1972. Stand up and tell us. Don't say your spots have

changed and let the media pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Stand up and describe your spots. Have people pay attention to the

debates in this House so they can know.

MR. KING: Renegade Liberal!

HON. MR. McGEER:

There's no such thing as a western Liberal any more, Mr. Member. You

know the NDP have taken over the Liberal Party, and one doesn't know

whether Broadbent is in Trudeau's lap or whether Trudeau is in

Broadbent's lap. Davis is in both their laps.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We're

going to have later on in this session, if it doesn't die from boredom,

some debate about the constitutional position and the necessity of

keeping resource development close to the provinces. If people didn't

learn between 1972 and 1975 how closely the prosperity of our province

and the west is linked to resource policies, they're apt to discover

again, without the NDP in office but with their equivalent in power in

Ottawa, the consequences to British Columbia and the western provinces

of counter-productive resource policies. This is what we have in Ottawa

today, and it's going to hurt us here in British Columbia. It won't

hurt Quebec or Ontario. It may hurt the Maritimes to some extent,

particularly Newfoundland, but it will hurt the west. To those who want

a unitary state, who want to develop a single clone for all of Canada

and follow a single set of policies from Ottawa, again I say, take

warning, because the economies of the regions of British Columbia,

Alberta, great central Canada and the Maritimes are different

economies, and if they are all to progress, the control of these needs

to be placed close to the people who live in those regions of Canada.

What

happened to the Liberals in western Canada, with two exceptions in the

province of Manitoba? The people of western Canada dismissed them as

government. They dismissed them as government but, Mr. Speaker, the

tragedy is that in dismissing them as government they were unable to

dismiss their policies, because the counterproductive resource policies

imposed upon us by the federal government in their latest budget does

no harm to those areas of the country, like Quebec and Ontario, which

supply the majority of members of that government. It is because one

regional government that it is necessary for us to keep power in this

nation close to the people of the various regions. That is why you need

to have resource development under the control of the provinces.

When

similar policies to what the Liberals are following in Ottawa were

imposed upon British Columbia by the NDP when they were in power in

1972, the public had the opportunity, and I might say the wisdom, Mr.

Speaker, to dismiss that government in order to dismiss the policies.

But the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan

do not have that opportunity when those same

[ Page 4270 ]

counterproductive

policies are introduced by a regional government which holds national

power. So we are going to have a tough time in British Columbia, and

because we now must march counter to the current in North America and

in Canada as a whole, and because we must overcome counterproductive

resource policies introduced by a regional government holding national

power, whose policies we lack the political power to overcome, we must

work doubly hard to overcome. We must work doubly hard in British

Columbia; our policies must be doubly effective. Our leadership has to

be stronger, Mr. Speaker. We aren't going to get that kind of strong

leadership from a lapdog NDP on the national scene, one that nearly

destroyed the economy of British Columbia in three short years on the

provincial scene.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say "Wake up" to the

NDP, "Wake up" to the Legislature, "Wake up" to the media, and "Wake

up" to the people of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN:

I must say that I enjoyed the speech from the good doctor. The lack of

confidence that the public of British Columbia obviously feels in the

government has obviously reached the ears of that member, because he

felt the need to argue with the public against their feeling. He's the

man who, in describing a former Social Credit government, wrote a book

called Politics in Paradise . I wonder when he writes a book about the current Social Credit government whether it, will be entitled Liberals in Limbo or Fools in Fantasyland .

the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is an interesting

section that other

members on this side of the House have made reference to, and I want,

this morning, to do the same. "My government believes," says the throne

speech, "individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life,"

and then those aims are listed.

This morning I want to talk,

first of all, about why it is that British Columbians have no

confidence in this government, a fact that is self-evident to all those

people who spend more time with the public than they do in the

laboratories.

"To enjoy the best possible health" — you can't get a hospital

bed. The "best possible health" in this province — look at the lifespan

of native Indians, the number of native Indian children who don't survive

childhood; look at the increase in occupational disease; look at the lack of

child development therapy and services, in this province, the absence of rural

doctors in community after community, certainly in my riding and I know in other

ridings as well. The government absolutely refuses to find financial assistance

to put doctors in rural communities on a part-time basis. The list of failures

in health care goes on. During this debate other members have made that point

and other members will make the point further.

The

second of the government objectives is a fair system of justice. How

galling! How really incredible from a government that was elected, by

manipulating the voters and boundaries so they could win an election

through gerrymandering.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. GABELMANN:

It's not garbage. You just have to look at Vancouver–Little Mountain,

on both sides — not just the finger side, but the indented side as well.

But,

more importantly than all the cases that have been made in this

Legislature over the last year about injustice in this province, we

have a basic system of injustice when the poor cannot afford lawyers

and cannot afford to go to court. I don't know how many times a week I

get calls and letters from people whose solutions could be found in the

courts but who won't go because they can't afford the chance that they

might not win their case and would be faced with the court costs. They

do not pursue cases they probably would. They can't take the chance.

And this is a province with evenhanded justice, a fair system? Absolute

nonsense! There's no fair system in justice whatsoever in this province

for the majority of our people — certainly not for the poor people and

absolutely not for native Indians.

The third aim of the

government is "personal financial security." Tens of thousands of

British Columbians will never own a home. That's financial security?

There are a hundred thousand or so British Columbians on social

assistance, more than half of them kids. That's financial security?

There are another hundred thousand or more unemployed. That's financial

security? And how many more tens of thousands of British Columbians are

underemployed, not doing the work they have been trained to do? That's

financial security?

Number four is "to live in a healthy

environment." I don't believe it. A government that's going to permit

Amax to do what it's going to do in the Kitsault area; a government

that has done very little, if anything, to deal with the fact that the

drinking water for the whole Campbell River area is being poisoned by

another mine effluent dumping in Buttle Lake; a government that does

not protect the basic salmon resource in this province by protecting

salmon streams and enhancing the fishery; a government that allows

industrial pollution to run rampant in this province, and they talk

about a healthy environment.

They then talk about "equality

of opportunity." How much equality of opportunity do native Indians

have in this province? How much equality of opportunity do women have

in this province? None, and they will get none from that government.

Then

they talk, about what is really probably their basic issue: "to have

the freedom to lawfully pursue their individual lives without undue

interference from either the state or their fellow citizens." Nice

ringing words, but from this government those words apply to those

people who have the right station in life and have the right amount of

money to start life with, not to anyone else. That sentence applies to

real estate agents and land developers, not to ordinary people and

certainly not to women and native Indians in this province.

It's unbelievable that the author of that speech would include such a ringing indictment of five years of Social Credit.

find it a bit disconcerting, having listened to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) being

critical of our attendance in this Legislature when he was speaking a

few minutes ago, when at the present time — just so that it's clear in Hansard , for the record — there is a total of four Social, Credit members in this Legislature.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I draw the Chair's attention to the lack of a quorum in the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all your members, Bill?

[ Page 4271 ]

MR. KING:

They went out looking for the government that called the session. What

did you call the session for if you don't want to attend?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The responsibility of the Chair in the event a lack of

quorum is pointed out is to take a list of the names of members who are

present. All of that is following a division bell. I don't know whether

or not this is the intent of the member but, my attention having been

drawn to the lack of quorum, I must now follow that procedure.

Hon. members, on the count and on names which I have inscribed here, there appears to me a sufficient number. Quorum is present.

MR. GABELMANN:

I want now to turn to the question of housing in British Columbia. It

was mentioned in the throne speech, but only in passing. It is clearly

and unequivocally the major issue in this province, if I read what

people are saying to me. You might persuade me that the issue of health

care ranks up there with it.

I notice the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in and out.

MR. SPEAKER: Would those hon. members who are either coming or leaving please make their remarks whispers as they move.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, the confusion on the government's side is reminiscent of

the way they've governed for five years and probably indicates why

they've called this session: they're in a state of confusion, don't

know whether they're coming or going and don't know why they're here.

Why don't we just have an election and settle this thing?

Mr.

Speaker, in my constituency of North Island people are sleeping in

campers, trailers and cars this winter. In greater Vancouver there are

people who are literally homeless. Agencies involved in attempting to

find shelter for people report they cannot find shelter. People go

weeks without shelter in this province. What does the throne speech say

about housing? Virtually nothing.

There is no need in this

discussion for me to detail the crisis; we all know it exists. It's

been in the papers and on the media and has been the centre of

attention for weeks and months. Only the privileged in this province

can buy a home, and those who are not privileged can now no longer even

find reasonable rental accommodation. Those who are lucky enough to

find it take what they can get; they do not have a choice. That

situation was created by a government that believes in freedom of

choice. What choice do individuals have about where they live in this

province? They have virtually no choice.

There are two

groups I specifically want to talk about in terms of housing. One is

the disadvantaged — those people whose incomes are fixed and for other

reasons have limited financial resources. I also want to talk about

young families — people getting married and having children when they

are in their twenties and thirties. In some cases they are earning good

money — $20,000 or more in some cases — but are absolutely unable to

purchase their own homes. What kind of society is it that Social Credit

promised us? A society of individual freedom and free choice, which

will allow everybody to have the kind of life they want — but not in

the home they want. Isn't it a priority of free enterprisers that

people should be allowed to choose and have freedom about where they

live? Isn't that a basic right in society? Not from that side of the

House it isn't.

What they say about personal choice and

freedom is rhetoric and nothing more. They are the ideologues of our

age. They are caught up in the trappings of their free enterprise

philosophy. We are the pragmatists.

Times have changed. Not

many years ago there were days in this country and this province where

the shoe was on the other foot, where governments of the right were

more pragmatic than parties on the left. I will admit that. A charge

that the CCFers were ideologues caught up in their own ideology and

philosophy, unable to make decisions on a pragmatic basis, might have

been able to stick on some occasions, but the shoe is now on the other

foot. Social Credit is captured by its own philosophy, by its own

ideology, and is therefore unable to act, unable to relate to the

problems that exist, and unable to find solutions, because they don't

look beyond their own ideology or their own framework. In that sense

they are trapped by their ideology. And what a travesty that is. What a

tragedy that is for British Columbians. And now not just for poor

British Columbians, but increasingly for most British Columbians who

can't have that basic right in our society to live in the home of their

own choice. Free enterprise — how wonderful it is!

Five

years ago now, in fact it was December 6, 1975, the Social Credit Party

ran an ad. It said: "Release Crown Land for Low-Cost Service Lots —

Affordable Homes People Can Own." When the current Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) was Minister of Housing, he had a nice, pretty

brochure — almost in NDP colours, too — printed: "Landservicing

Program: How to Qualify," "The Affordable Home: We're Helping it

Happen." A few days ago, we had yet another announcement about Crown

land being made available. They announce it every few years. They'll

announce it in the next election campaign and we'll probably have this

ad repeated. You don't have to change many words: "Bill Bennett's way.

Release Crown lands for low-cost service lots. Affordable homes people

can own." That was in 1975. You've had five years.

In that

same year the United Community Services, through its SPARC committee —

which I happened to be involved with in those years — did a

comprehensive report on the housing problems in the lower mainland area

of greater Vancouver. They talked then about the things that needed to

be done. They talked about the fact that governments had to be

involved. And what did the government do in 1975? It ran ads in the

papers. A couple of years later it printed a pretty brochure. Then in

1980 there was a a little story in theVancouver Province . Dave

Todd would think it was a big story; he wrote it. There were only 486

lots bought since that fanfare announcement. Only 486 lots. That's five

years after the ad and three or four years after the program was

announced. So what should we expect? What should British Columbians

expect about the announcement on Saturday? Not very much. Is it an

election announcement? Nothing's going to happen for at least a year.

In the Province today, I gather that the servicing.... It's

hard to understand quite what that means, but we're starting out with

$31,000 per lot. If housing on those lots comes in under $100,000 or

$110,000 for finished, completed housing, it will be very, very

surprising. It won't be a luxury home at that price these days. But

let's just say it

[ Page 4272 ]

comes

in at a total price of $100,000. Your average young family, with

$20,000 to $25,000 income, manage to scrape up $10,000. They only have

a $90,000 mortgage; if they've managed to scrape up their $10,000,

they've a $90,000 mortgage. That's more than $1,100 per month mortgage

payments, and no taxes have been paid. This program's going to help

British Columbians?

Why do we still have a part-time

Minister of Housing? We have a Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot). What he is mostly interested in is lands, so that he

can make sure his friends and political supporters can get a good deal

with their gravel pits. That's about all he does, too. A part-time

minister. Five years of talk.

I want to talk about seven

things. This is by no means an exclusive list, nor is it a complete

list. It is seven things I think could be done by the government if

they had the will and the determination to act.

First of

all, by declaring that they will create a full-time minister of

housing, they could say to this province and its people that they are

declaring war on the housing crisis in this province, and that they

will take action to ensure that solutions are found. No one expects

that all of the solutions can be provided; no one ever expects that.

But you can signal that you as the government are prepared to attempt

to find some solutions, that you will work with the federal government,

through CMHC, through various agencies that can be created here in

British Columbia, that you will work, that you have declared war. Do

that by declaring that you are going to have a full-time minister of

housing.

What should be the first task of that housing

minister? It should be to re-establish the housing corporation. We need

in this province a housing corporation — such as exists in every other

province of Canada — to coordinate all aspects of housing development

and creation, and to reduce the interminable bureaucracy that

accompanies the whole development of housing. Individuals who are

trying to have a house built for them, or to build their own, find

interminable delays. Procedures are not clear. That occurs for

developers; that occurs for contractors at every level of home-building

in this province. Create a corporation that will have as one of its

tasks the simplification and the opening up of the bureaucracy that

accompanies housing development.

After the housing

corporation is established, go into land-banking, but do it in a

rational way. Do it in the way that Prince George as a municipality has

done it; do it in the way that many prairie cities are doing it and

have done for years — Swift Current, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary. They

go into land-banking programs; they put serviced land on the market in

an orderly fashion, not in this hit-and-miss fashion that the

government proposes every few years in election announcements, in fancy

brochures and in Saturday morning press conferences in Vancouver.

What good is it in Penticton, Port Hardy and Cranbrook that 19,000 lots might

be opened up in greater Vancouver? Has the government considered what impact

on prices this hit-and-miss approach is having in the marketplace? There are

occasions in the housing market when adding a program or adding financial incentive

or throwing land on the market has the single effect of driving up the price

by more than the benefit. That is particularly true when housing programs are

developed on a hit-and-miss program: some of the programs even developed outside

of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing by the Premier when the Housing

minister is in Australia — such as HIP last year, the so-called cheap-money

program. Sure it was good; we said so at the time. The idea was sound.Iit was

our idea, of course; we talked about it in '75 in the savings and trust

legislation. It was a good idea. But it is a bad idea when it's done piecemeal,

when it's done hit and miss. That applies to land-banking as well.

The

fourth thing the government should do, if they have any desire to

alleviate the housing crisis, is to enact the legislation that is on

the books of this province — the Savings and Trust Corporation of

British Columbia Act. Enact that legislation. Put into place, together

with the credit unions of this province, a capital resource at

subsidized rates. Use some provincial revenue for subsidy for housing.

At the same time, some of that money can be made available for small

businesses, many of which are going into bankruptcy as the result of

high interest rates. Lower-interest loans, longer terms, without the

rigorous demands the banking industry sometimes puts on individuals —

the government has much more flexibility. Enact that legislation. How

else in this capital market are people going to buy a house? Who can

afford to? The rich.

You know, the way the housing prices

are going, if an MLA doesn't have a spouse working and if the MLA

doesn't have a cabinet job, that MLA probably will be ineligible for

most housing offered in this city and in most other cities in this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless he's got a turkey farm.

MR. GABELMANN:

That's right. Unless you have some other source of income — your law

practice, your farm, your cabinet job, your spouse's income — even an

MLA in this province will be ineligible for loans to purchase a home in

this province, should that be the case, should they desire to do so.

Doesn't that, if anything, bring home the magnitude of this problem?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) can smile; the Minister of

Labour is also a lawyer. The Minister of Labour has got his practice

sitting there dormant at the moment he can always go back to; the

Minister of Labour has got a cabinet salary. He probably can afford it.

If we can't, if some members in this House can't afford it, think about

the public, because we're pretty well paid. We're pretty well paid, and

there are some of us who can't afford to buy a home. What a tragedy

that is in this province, particularly in light of all the PR about

free enterprise and about individual choice and about how great it is

to live in a non-socialist world.

Number five, Mr. Speaker,

in my list of proposals is that the government get actively involved in

special-needs housing. There have been four areas of special-needs

housing that have been defined by governments: they are co-op, public,

handicapped and seniors' housing. The government in whom I have no

confidence has decided that it does not want to be involved with public

housing or with co-op housing, that it would prefer that be done by

Ottawa. Yet we had a speech from the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) only moments ago who said that the

best governments for western Canada are governments that are regional

or local governments. Yet in one of the most urgent and critical areas

in our society, the provision of public and co-op housing, they say:

"It's better if Ottawa does it." Are they hypocrites, or what? Why

would they say on one hand that they want control of the economy, they

want to be able to run the affairs of British Columbia and of western

Canada from here, from western Canada, then say,

[ Page 4273 ]

in two critical areas of housing: "Give it to Ottawa. We don't want to touch it"?

Cooperatives

are not something that private enterprisers feel very comfortable with,

because they have never believed in cooperation. They believe in

fighting; they believe in competition; they believe in dog-eat-dog and

the devil take the hindmost end — and there are a lot of devils taking

a lot of hind-pieces in this province right now. It's about time you

did in housing — and particularly in public and co-op housing — what

you want to do everywhere else in the resource sector: take control of

it. If Ottawa still wants to do it, let them do it too; work out joint

programs. Do more than provide small pieces of land here and there, a

little bit in Burnaby and not much anywhere else.

Do more

for the handicapped and seniors. I admit that the seniors' program has

its good points; I'm not going to be particularly critical of it. But I

do know of groups in various communities in this province who are

attempting to develop seniors' housing and have been some years in the

bureaucracy without ever getting anywhere near a bulldozer on the site

— in one case particularly, two and a half years and they haven't even

got a site yet, because the government is not interested in putting all

of its effort into this major crisis. So set up a special department of

the Housing Corporation that deals with special-needs housing.

still have some time, Mr. Speaker, and I want to use that to read into

the record excerpts from a statement made by the United Way of the

Lower Mainland, a non-partisan group recognized by all members as a

very important part of our community. They talked in May of this year

about special-needs housing, and I'm going to quote excerpts from that.

They were asking the government to consider these ideas when developing

their policies for special needs.

"Coordinated

policies and more integrated programs involving government, the private

sector and voluntary organizations must be developed if special housing

needs in the lower mainland are to be met. Input received from over 150

organizations show that special housing needs are not limited to the

aged and the physically handicapped."

Those are the two areas the government has accepted responsibility for: aged and physically handicapped. It goes on:

"Single-parent

families, women and families in crisis, single, older people,

transients, those wishing to leave institutional settings, plus

mentally and physically handicapped individuals and their families have

important special housing needs. All have a number of common needs and

face similar barriers to obtaining adequate and affordable housing.

Their problem is made more severe by the accelerating cost of housing,

which is causing difficulties for a large proportion of the population.

"Although

there are a number of provincial and municipal government programs

designed to answer special housing needs, there is no single government

agency responsible for coordinating efforts to produce special-needs

housing. The complex process of developing proposals and navigating the

maze of finance, zoning laws, licensing and contracting is left largely

to individuals and voluntary organizations."

It states the case. It states the problem and the

solution. It's now up to the government to enact that solution as part

of an overall package.

Mr. Speaker, number six on my list of seven is that if the

government does not move immediately to stop the foreign speculation in

our housing market, they will have created the greatest crime in a long

list of crimes that their government has ever created. One of the major

facts fuelling the increasing cost of housing in the lower mainland of

British Columbia in particular is the fact that outside, non-Canadian

money is coming in and taking advantage of our cheap dollar and our

relative stability in comparison to other parts of this world. They are

allowed to outbid and pay more than the listed price for housing and

turn it over again within months. It is housing they don't even see,

because they retain agents in Vancouver to purchase it for them from

their homes in other parts of the world.

There must be a law

enacted at this session of the Legislature. Give this calling of the

Legislature some purpose. We've seen none to date. Bring in a bill that

we can debate and pass which outlaws foreign ownership of our housing

in this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Free

enterprise! They allow foreigners to come in and speculate on our

market, denying British Columbians the right to live in their own home

because the price is driven up. What a bunch they are. I wish some

words were allowable in this place, because I feel like saying them.

Number

seven, Mr. Speaker — in my last few minutes — is that the government

should create, as they have done in socialist, left-wing Alberta, a

community housing program like the government has done there. Those

left-wingers in Alberta have created 32 different government programs

to deal with the housing problem, and you've got none. It is so

left-wing there that they're prepared to create a government agency to

provide community rental accommodation. You guys think it's socialist,

so you won't do it.

What's the government's plan to develop

rental accommodation for young families in this province? I hear the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on the radio

talking about the great MURB program out of Ottawa, the capital cost

allowance. It doesn't provide housing for young families. It doesn't

build three- and four-bedroom rental accommodation. What it does is

provide capital cost write-offs in existing housing or luxury bachelor

housing for rich people. It doesn't provide any housing for ordinary

families. If you want to propose capital cost allowance provisions —

and I'm very dubious about them because all the studies indicate they

don't work — then propose them for the accommodation for those people,

young families, who need it, and not for swinging singles in the West

End in luxury apartments. Have a program. Do something. It takes

socialist Alberta to recognize that the government has a responsibility

to do something. This group is so right-wing it makes Peter Lougheed

look like a social democrat — and that's really saying something.

There

are seven ideas. As I said earlier, they are not exclusive and they're

not complete. They are just a few things that are reasonable to get

started on yesterday. It's late. For many people in this province the

dream of owning a home will never be met. But for future generations,

perhaps the dream of owning their own homes might be realizable if you

start now to enact a variety of programs to deal with this housing

problem. The fact that you haven't makes me support the motion of

non-confidence; the fact that you haven't done that — among many other

things — makes the public of

[ Page 4274 ]

this

province support the non-confidence motion. If you don't believe that

the public of this province are on our side on this motion, call the

election today, and let's find out whose side the public of British

Columbia are on in this non-confidence motion.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I, like many other speakers, would like to welcome the member for

Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) back to this House, and I join many

other speakers in this House who have wished him good health in the

future.

Believe it or not, I'm rising in this great forum

this morning to speak against this frivolous motion which has been

brought forward by the socialist herds on the other side of the street.

They have nothing to offer the province. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, they had nothing to offer the province when they were

government. Now that they're back in opposition, oh, my gracious,

they've sure got all the solutions.

I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, and I want to make this very plain and clear, that the

problems we have of success, the problems we have in dealing with the

growth, and the problems that we have in dealing with this great and

burgeoning economy — certainly that herd on the other side of the

street would never have to deal with them, because there would be no

economy in British Columbia today. There would be no need for housing;

there would be no need for all of the services that we have to supply

people, because people would be continuing to leave this great

province, like they were when that herd over there were government.

You

know, it's very easy for them to stand up here and talk about all the

problems that we're experiencing because we have strong and dynamic

leadership and because people are coming to this great province to seek

opportunities that are not available to them in any state in the union

or indeed in any other province in Canada. That's because we have

strong, dynamic leadership in this province; that's because the people

of this province and the people of other provinces and other

jurisdictions have faith in our leader. That's why they're coming to

invest their money here, and that was not the case when that socialist

herd were over there. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case.

listened with a great deal of interest to that last speaker, who

probably is more socialist than any of the socialists over there. As a

matter of fact, he is just bordering on you know what — I'm not

supposed to mention that. Of all the speakers over there, he's probably

the worst. But he's got all of the answers.

Mr. Speaker, I

remember not too many years ago in this Legislature, when they had a

full-time Minister of Housing. I'll tell you, they created more

problems in housing for the people of British Columbia than we'd known

in the history of this province in 100 years. Yet he stands over there

and says: "A full-time Minister of Housing...." More bureaucracy;

spending more of the taxpayers' money on nothing is going to solve the

housing.... That's a simplistic solution that those socialists over

there always have. No positive suggestions; just harp and harp.

ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to think about this for just a

moment. Name me one socialist country in the world that hasn't had a

housing problem. Oh, they talk about their great theories. I'll tell

you the true result of your theory, my friend. Who built more houses

this year than any other province in Canada, including Alberta? The

great province of British Columbia. I'll tell you those facts speak for

themselves, my friend. You can talk about all your airy-fairy ideas.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and British Columbia has

created more housing starts this year than any other jurisdiction in

North America.

Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker — and I didn't mean to raise my voice....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to announce the coal deal again?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'll tell you, those socialists over there — yack, yack, yack, they're

great at yacking. They've got all the solutions now that they're in

opposition. But I don't think the people of this great province have

such short memories that they're not going to remember their dreadful

record of running this province when they were government for a few

short years.

Now I want to talk about housing, and I want to

get off this subject, because I've got some great things to say about

this great government and what we've done with this great province. But

I watched some of their housing — the state-run housing projects — when

I was in opposition. You know, they created a mobile-home park up in

Squamish — $25,000 for a mobile-home park. I want to tell you that's

the results of some of the great socialist philosophies. They never

create anything positive in their life. Lots of theory.

I've

also had the advantage of looking at a number of socialist housing

projects in other countries, and I want to tell you, you have to force

people to live in them. I looked at one in Melbourne about two weeks

ago. People are jumping out the windows. State housing — "Little boxes

without topses...." You force people into them. They're built by the

government. I want to tell you, you can't name one socialist country in

the world that hasn't had a housing problem, still doesn't have a

housing problem.

You drove the free enterprisers out of the

housing problem. They are the ones who will solve the housing problem.

I want to tell you, the results are in; the proof of the pudding is in

the eating. We've done a great.... We had an announcement, Mr. Speaker,

on Saturday, when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) said he was going to create 19,000 lots on the lower mainland.

Yet they keep yacking over there that we're not doing anything. I want

to tell you, more simplistic solutions.... But I'd like them to stand

up and tell me where their theories and where socialism has really

worked anywhere in the world. It looks great on paper, it's a great

theory, but it sure in heaven's name hasn't worked anywhere in the

world, and it didn't work for you people in British Columbia.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, just one other thing about the last speaker. He was

talking about banning Albertans coming in here and investing money in

this great province, banning Albertans from buying houses in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: He didn't say that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That's exactly what you said. You said: "Ban anybody coming in here to

buy houses." So you want to ban the Albertans from coming in here and

investing in housing. You would, as a fellow Canadian, deprive them of

the opportunity to live in the California of Canada. That's exactly

what you're saying. You're saying:

[ Page 4275 ]

"Albertans,

look, you've worked out there in the ice and snow for all of your

life...." All of the prairie farmers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba,

who have spent their life opening up this country on the prairie — put

up with mud and snow and ice and everything else — you would ban from

coming here to live. If you followed out your policy that's exactly

what you would do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you again,

I want to remind everybody in this great Legislature and all those in

the public galleries, I want to remind everybody that we have had more

housing starts in British Columbia this year than in any other

jurisdiction in Canada. I think that is a clear result of some of the

policies which we have.

But I also want to remind you, Mr.

Speaker, when I'm talking about housing, one of the reasons we have a

housing problem is that, as I've said before, people are coming to

British Columbia because they have faith in this government, they have

faith in its future prosperity. The biggest cloud that we have hanging

over the future of British Columbia — and I want to tell you, as I

travel in the investment world, as I travel in that great world which

is becoming smaller every day when we talk about international trade —

the biggest cloud, the biggest problem we have hanging over the future

and faith in the future of this province is that those socialist hordes

might someday have something to say about running this province again.

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have worked long and hard the last

five years to restore confidence in this province of British Columbia

in the international marketplace. We have done it in a few short years

because of the dynamic policies of this government. Now the

international marketplace looks at us. They say we know how to run a

government, have the right policies and good leadership. That's why

they're doing business with us, and that is why they're investing here.

This frivolous amendment to this motion does not.... I

guess they didn't read the actual throne speech because of all the very

positive things it says in there — the accomplishments of this

government and the faith in the future. They're talking about a lack of

leadership. I don't know how they can say that when we have, under the

leadership that we have under this government, actually brought this

province from the brink of economic disaster created by the socialists

in the few short years they were government. Under the leadership that

we have we have turned the province around, in a very difficult world

situation, to become one of the leaders — not only in Canada, but all

over North America, my friends. As a matter of fact, we are the envy of

practically every nation in the world when it comes to having a strong

and growing economy. I think you're being frivolous, and you can laugh

until the cows come home. The people out there recognize….

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You're just a newcomer, my friend, to this Legislature. You weren't

here in those bad old days when you could watch your own government,

that you're now a part of, dragging this province down to the depths of

despair so that there was no faith in the future. You weren't here, but

if you had seen what happened, then you wouldn't even be sitting over

there with those birds now. You'd have more sense.

They've

said over there that the province is a shambles — a jurisdiction that

is the envy of the world. People are coming here from other

jurisdictions and provinces asking us: "How did you do it? What

policies did you have? How did you improve your economy? How did you

create that faith in the future that you have in this province?" People

are coming here to find out how we did it.

They're saying

the province is a shambles. I want to tell you I wouldn't give Bill

Bennett's little finger for your leader's whole body and his brains

too. You compare that. Here's a guy who.... All of a sudden a leopard

is going to change his stripes. Oh, he's going to change his stripes. I

read an

article in the paper the other day — new image; the leader

bides his time in B.C. But when the question comes, "What would you do

differently?" "Oh, I'd do the same old thing." Once a socialist, always

a socialist. I'll tell you, if they're not socialist, Mr. Speaker, I

defy them to stand up in this Legislature and say they've changed their

stripes. Stand up in this Legislature and tell us you're no longer

socialists. I defy you to do that. No, you're going to try and get this

old soft sell, and if you ever get back in government you'd carry on

the same old socialist policies. Now that we've built up this economy,

now that the kitty is full and investment is flowing in here, oh, what

great things you would do. Oh, yes, you'd spend all the taxpayers'

money. What great ideas you would have. Oh, Johnny come lately. Now

that we've put the economy back together, now that we have the province

on the move again, you'd just love to get your finger in that cookie

jar again, wouldn't you, so that you could tear it down. You are

socialist, you always will be socialist, you were socialist, and none

of this biding my time, changing the stripes on the leopard. I'll tell

you you're a socialist herd over there and you're wandering in the

wilderness. You have no leadership. You find a green field and you go

over and mince a little bit and bite it off — something that somebody

else has created. You and your government never created one solid new

idea, but you bought it up from the free enterprise system and said:

"Oh, look what we did." What new did you do? Absolutely nothing. You

haven't come up with one solid idea, like any other socialist country.

It's great to take over what the free enterprise system has created,

but what did you create? Absolutely nothing.

I've repeated

this in this House before and I'll repeat it again. They were

government at a time when the economy of the world was strong, when

there had never been higher demand or higher prices for minerals, when

there had never been a higher demand or higher prices for lumber. In

1973 the world energy situation gave them a great opportunity to do

something, but instead of that they were driving mining companies out

of the province. They were driving investment in the forest industry

out of the province and they were driving the petroleum industry out of

the province at a time when there was great need, high prices and great

demand. Make no mistake about that. That is the truth. You couldn't

even run the province when things were good, and you think I'm going to

forget that. You had the opportunity and you failed. You didn't have

leadership, and you haven't got leadership now.

If you think the old leopard is going to change his stripes, you'll never convince me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Spots.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that they will convince anybody.

[ Page 4276 ]

You

know, Mr. Speaker, it has not been easy during the last five years to

restore confidence at home and abroad in this great province of ours.

Some of the greatest problems that this government has encountered are

in trying to undo some of the damage that was done in those few short

years that the socialists were in government.

MR. LEA: The Marguerite .

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, we can have all of the smart remarks from the member for Prince

Rupert and all of the yacking, but the public will never know, the

people of Canada will never know, nobody will know, the long hours and

the decisions that we had to make to try and undo the damage that was

done to this province during the three short years of socialism. Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you that even today we are still wrestling with

a number of those problems. As I said when we first formed the

government, it will take not one year, not two years, and not five

years, but in some cases it will take up to 20 years to undo the damage

that was done to this province while that socialist herd over there was

running this province.

We have, in the last five years, under a very dynamic leader, done more during very difficult times....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll name them, my friend. You want some facts; let me give you some facts. I'm very happy you mentioned that.

"November 1980, British Columbia economy — greater investment in the economy

of British Columbia, both percentage-wise and dollar-wise, than any province

in Canada in 1980." You yack away over there because you don't like

the facts and figures, do you, Mr. Member? You don't like the facts and

figures; you like to yack away and confuse the issue. Not only has the investment

in the last year been greater in numbers, greater in percentage increase than

in any other year, but I have a list here of billions of dollars worth of projects

which are on the drawing board.

want to tell you, if those birds were in power those projects would not

go ahead, make no mistake about it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that if that group of socialist hordes over there ever form the

government again, investment in British Columbia would dry up the same

as it did while they were government, and the capital investment that

created the much-needed jobs for our young people would not come to the

province of British Columbia, and make no mistake about that. You can't

deny that, my friend.

It's happened in every socialist

regime in the world. They talk about their socialism. I defy them to

name me one country in the world where their theory has worked for the

good of the people. It's created hardship, shortage of housing, no

jobs. Name me one jurisdiction where socialism has worked. That's why

all over the world, my friend, they're throwing the socialists out.

Make no mistake about that. The people have had enough of this

socialist philosophy. It didn't work then, it hasn't worked now, and

it'll never work in the future. It just creates havoc.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll tell you something about what the socialists did in Britain. Do you want to hear it?

Your

great shining example! Under socialism in Britain, the workers were

paid the lowest of any country in the European Economic Community.

That's what happened when the great socialists were in Great Britain.

Explain that, my friend. Why do you think Henry Ford built his plant in

England instead of in one of the other European common market

countries? Because the great socialist leader of Britain at that time

offered him one of the biggest subsidies that was offered in any

country in the European community. Oh, yeah. Great theorists, my

friend, except when it gets down to doing something. They're greater

subsidizers of big industry than a free enterpriser would ever dare to

be.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Speaker,

that socialist herd over there is telling us that there's a lack of

leadership in the province of British Columbia. I ask them this

question: if there's a lack of leadership in British Columbia, how come

British Columbia is leading in practically every aspect of both social

and economic development, every province in Canada, including the great

province of Alberta, and indeed is bucking the national trend? Oh, you

prefer to forget that.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, why are you so unpopular?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think we happen to be very popular, and that's a myth that you've built up my friend.

MR. LEGGATT: Why don't you call an election?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, sit there and yack about calling an election. That's all you can

do, bottom line. Get down and yack about something. Why don't you stand

up and tell us what you'd do. I haven't heard one positive suggestion

from you socialist hordes over there as to what you'd do when you'd

become government. You don't have to tell me; I know what you'd do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd ruin the province again.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member, but if he would take his

seat for just a moment, I would like to remind all hon. members that

orderly debate requires that temperate language be used and also that

interruptions not take place. I would ask the members please to observe

their own standing orders.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have

literally thousands and thousands of statistics here to back up my

statement that indeed the economy of British Columbia is bucking the

national trend. We have a growth rate this year almost double that of

the national trend. There were 65,000 new jobs created in the 12 months

prior to October. I'm not talking about the unemployment rate, which is

lower than the national average, and which I do think happens to be

something great, because we have thousands and thousands of people

coming here to seek jobs and yet we're still able to keep our

unemployment rate down. I'm not talking about the

[ Page 4277 ]

unemployment

rate. I'm talking very positively about the number of jobs that have

been created in British Columbia, created not by a socialist government

and not even by a free-enterprise government, but created by the

private sector because we have laid the ground rules down and they are

coming to this province to invest. No, they won't talk about that, Mr.

Speaker. They won't tell you that British Columbia moved from second to

first place, dislodging Ontario with the highest per capita income in

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No,

it wasn't. I want to tell you, my friend, I'm talking about the working

people. Since 1976 the per capita income of the working people in

British Columbia is higher than that of Ontario and is now in first

place. The working people are benefiting from the policies of this

government and the leadership we have in this party. Mr. Speaker, make

no mistake about it, even the labour union leaders know that the

policies of this government have been good for the working people of

this province. The working people and the labour union leaders

recognize that today there is relative peace in the labour scene in

British Columbia. Take and compare that with the record of those

socialist herds when they were government, when we had greater labour

strife in this province than there had been in the previous 20, 30 or,

yes, 40 years in the history in this province. The labour union leaders

recognize that it is no good to have all the benefits....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you fellows shut up while I'm speaking.

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to make a little note of

this: the labour union leaders recognize that there is no sense in

getting high pay and benefits galore for the labourers in this province

when, indeed, there would be no jobs. That's a fact of life, and make

no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The working people of this province

finally recognize that it's Social Credit policies — the policies of

this government under the leadership of our Premier — that have created

stability in the economy and assures them of a job down the road. You

can talk about all your airy-fairy programs and all your airy-fairy

socialism, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's been the policies

of this government that have brought stability to the working people in

this province.

No longer are they worrying whether their mill is going to close down or have a strike.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, you can always nit-pick. That's exactly what you're doing. You can nit-pick all you want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Tell that to the 1,200 people in Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those 1,200 people found jobs elsewhere, when you

stood up in this Legislature and said there were going to be hundreds and hundreds

out of work. You did a disservice to this Legislature and you did a disservice

to those labourers in Ocean Falls when you stood up here and tried to create

panic. We solved that problem. We put those people to work in other areas of

the province, and you as a member for that area should hang your head in shame.

We worked for the labour union. We worked for the people in that area and we've

solved that problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You stood up in this Legislature and tried to create havoc. That's

typical of you and your whole socialist gang over there. We worked with

the problem. We worked with the labour union leaders and the management

in Ocean Falls, and we solved that problem.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: I now

require that the hon. member who has the floor of the House will

observe the standing orders of the House or else cease and desist from

his speech. I would ask that hon. members not interrupt; otherwise we

will have to follow the procedures as provided for in the standing

orders. The member will address the Chair and continue his speech on

that condition.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and I apologize for allowing that socialist member over there

to get me excited, but I did just want to give him the facts.

do feel that this government has worked long and hard to build a good

life for the people in British Columbia, a life where the labourers in

this province have faith in the future, know that they are going to

have a job. People from other provinces are coming to British Columbia

to seek opportunities that are not available to them in the province in

which they were brought up. That, Mr. Speaker, has not been an easy

job. For the information of the Legislature.... This is not me speaking

but an independent columnist. I can tell you all about the economy, but

you'd just say that's more government propaganda.

This is from a Vancouver Sun

article which quotes a federal economist — not a British Columbia

economist, not anybody in my ministry. What do they think about the

economy of British Columbia? "British Columbia's economy is much

stronger than the rest of the country, and it is expected to stay that

way." He says, and it was mentioned several times yesterday, that

indeed we have some problems with inflation. But that is not only a

British Columbia problem; indeed that is not only a Canadian problem

but a worldwide problem. I would like to remind this Legislature that

it is a far greater problem in socialist jurisdictions than anywhere

else, and I would also like to remind this House that when that

leaderless socialist group over there — they were leaderless then and

they are leaderless now — was the government, inflation in British

Columbia was exceeding the national average by quite a few points. Yet

they have the gall to stand in this Legislature and talk about

inflation. I shudder to think what would have happened if they had

stayed in government — we probably would have had an inflation rate

[ Page 4278 ]

British Columbia double the national average. But today, because of the

policies of this great government, inflation is now running below the

national average, below that of practically all of the socialist

jurisdictions in the world, and indeed below that of most other

countries in the world.

It's great for them to stand in this

Legislature and yack about inflation. It's a problem. We recognized it

as a problem when we formed the government, and we did something about

it. That is why today inflation in British Columbia is running below

the national average. We did something about it. If you're so blind,

why don't you call around to my office someday, and I'll give you a few

facts of life. If you can't see, my friend....

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But would you tell that guy from Prince Rupert to quit heckling me.

Talk

about leadership! There is no comparison between their leader.... He

had three years, and he ran the province into the ground, took the

party out of office, because nobody had any faith in him. They expect

that the social welfare worker has a great deal of experience now. They

think that he can be Premier again. The social-welfare worker has

changed his spots. He hasn't changed his spots, and he hasn't changed

his philosophy. I defy you to stand in this Legislature and tell me

you're not socialists any more. I defy your would-be Premier to stand

in this Legislature and tell me what he'd do. He's a great actor. But

I'll tell you, you need more than acting on this side; you need action

and you need decisions. Compare leadership!

I've said

something about job-creation in this province. I'm not saying this, and

my department isn't saying this; this is an Ottawa economist: "There

have been 65,000 new jobs created in B.C. between October 1979 and last

month." That's a 5 percent increase, and that is good in any man's

language. "As a