1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6747 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Use Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 6747

Presenting Petitions

Ms. Brown: social service policy –– 6747

Oral Questions

Kinsella appointment. Mrs. Dailly –– 6747

Assisted rental program. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6747

Mr. Barber

Homemaker service. Mr. Cocke –– 6748

Pharmacare deductible increase. Ms. Brown –– 6748

Premier's office hirings. Mr. Barrett –– 6748

Government travel restrictions. Mr. Lauk –– 6749

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 6750

Mr. Lauk –– 6751

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6754

Mr. Barnes –– 6757

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 6762

Division –– 6769

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act,

Part 11, 26th annual report,

March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Pension (Public Service) Act, 46th annual report, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Pension (Teachers) Act, 40th annual report, December 31, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, 5th annual report, March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6769

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Jim Term, mayor of

Coquitlam, chairman of the UBCM, vice-chairman of the GVRD and chairman

of the GVRD planning committee. Please bid him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LAND USE ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Land Use Act.

Bill

9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The petition reads as follows:

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

"The

petition of the undersigned, Anne Snowman, Kara Rollings and Alfred

Rose and 814 concerned citizens of the lower Vancouver Island, humbly

showeth that the actions of the Minister of Human Resources in

reclassifying the single parents of small children denies these parents

the freedom of choice to raise their own children at home.

"Therefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable

House may be pleased to support the 817 concerned citizens of lower Vancouver

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

Human Resources. As in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray."

It is dated the 1st day of December 1981, and it is duly signed.

Oral Questions

KINSELLA APPOINTMENT

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier assure

the House that prior to hiring Mr. Kinsella, the Premier checked Mr.

Kinsella's activities with the Ontario Conservative Party and is

satisfied'that Mr. Kinsella was not involved in any dirty trick

campaigns in Ontario?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker,

I can assure the House that, for the duties Mr. Kinsella was to

undertake within this province, I did the appropriate checks and

received the highest possible commendation and recommendation. I was

not making a political search; I was making an administrative search

and, as such, Mr. Kinsella came very highly recommended by those who

had an opportunity to work with him and recognized those capabilities

that he had exhibited in an administrative way.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a supplementary for the Premier. According to his remarks today

and yesterday, the background of Mr. Kinsella has been almost entirely

dealing with a political party — completely partisan work. In view of

that, when the Premier checked his background, would he tell us why he

hired Mr. Kinsella as a deputy on a supposedly non-partisan basis?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't preclude anyone from working in an

administrative capacity who has those capabilities because at one time

in their life they worked for a political party. If the member for

Burnaby North is seeking employment after the next election, I won't

hold her political involvement against her.

ASSISTED RENTAL PROGRAM

HON. MR. CHABOT:

In answer to a question taken on notice, on November 26 the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked the following question:

The British Columbia Housing Management Commission currently

provides some 856 units of affordable housing through a program called ARP,

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

has been instructed by the government that this program is to be phased out,

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

and that. In fact. several of those leases have now been phased out all together,

the practical consequence of which include poor persons and seniors who are

residents in this accommodation being now required to pay a commercial rent

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

can't pay it.

He's

wrong on both counts, Mr. Speaker. There have never been any

instructions issued by my ministry or the government to increase the

rents, or a change in the policy of the BCHMC lease of some of the ARP

units. I want to say that he's created a lot of fear and apprehension

in the minds of those people that are occupying those units. I want to

ensure

[ Page 6748 ]

those

people who are so concerned today that there will be no change in the

payment of rent in the units that they are occupying, and that there

will continue to be a subsidy from this government or through BCHMC

making up the difference between market rent and 25 percent of their

income. There has been no deviation from that policy and there won't be.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate the minister's answer, but unfortunately it's at odds with

information provided to us as recently as yesterday morning by a senior

employee of the B.C. Housing Management Commission who told our

research officer that not only is that the new policy, but in fact two

such leases have already expired and not been renewed. I therefore ask

the minister whether he will go back and obtain for this House a list

of all of the leases that were entered into under the ARP program.

Secondly, will he table that list in the House? I cannot do it on the

order paper because it would not get back in as the House is going to

adjourn. Thirdly, in providing that information to the House, could he

also indicate in the instance of each of those leases what the expiry

date is and, if those leases have expired, what the status of them is?

Again,

Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by the commission that two such

leases have already expired and will not be renewed. Therefore this

information is at odds with what the minister asks. I ask in return:

will you give us a list of all the ARP leases? Will you give us a

statement of their expiry dates? In regard to any whose expiry dates

have passed, will you give us an undertaking that if they have passed

and not been renewed, as we are informed, by the commission...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Will you apologize to the people you scared?

MR. BARBER: Perhaps the minister will have to apologize if his information is wrong.

And will you do so at the earliest opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, questions in question period are not to contain

statements, however brief, according to the guidelines, and are not to

be argumentative. On those two counts perhaps I should have interrupted

the hon. member, and you'll forgive me if I didn't.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that any tenants occupying these ARP

units leased by BCHMC will not face an increase in their rent beyond 25

percent of their income.

HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister

told the House and the people of B.C. that everything was fine in the

homemaker service. Can the minister explain why 4,800 people have

signed a petition calling for restoration of the homemaker service? Has

the minister therefore decided to restore that service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, the homemaker

service continues in the province, and the homemaker service has increased each

year. In the last fiscal year, the homemaker service increased by approximately

44 percent in dollars. The number of patients who are being cared for has increased

each year. The reductions, which have occurred in specific areas, followed very

careful scrutiny and examination by those responsible for delivering the service

in order that other persons who require such homemaker service would have the

opportunity of receiving it.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm impressed by the member's comments that 4,800 people have

signed a petition. Perhaps he could provide me with their names, and I

could find out why they see there is a problem.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, that's no problem. The petition is not addressed to this

House but to that minister, and I'd ask that one of the Pages deliver

it to the minister.

PHARMACARE DEDUCTIBLE INCREASE

MS. BROWN:

I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can

the minister confirm that it is the intention of her ministry to

increase the deductible for Pharmacare by 25 percent?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, that's a question of policy, and I think the question is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has a different question?

MS. BROWN:

Yes, I have a different question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister

lectured the opposition by saying that we had not mentioned the

positive programs in our ministry, such as Pharmacare. Today we have

been informed that the minister intends to increase the deductible for

Pharmacare by 25 percent. Why did the minister fail to mention this

cutback in her speech yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps another question? The Leader of the Opposition.

PREMIER'S OFFICE HIRINGS

MR. BARRETT:

I ask the Minister of Finance why, when he ordered a freeze on the

hiring of civil servants on August 6 of this year, he did not include

the Premier's office, which since that time has hired ten staff members

at the annual cost to the treasury of $312,799. Could you explain to

the House why the Premier's office was exempt from the hiring freeze?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is asking for perhaps a lengthy answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it could be a very lengthy answer. I will pay heed to the rules of question period.

The

Premier was very much aware of the hiring freeze. I don't know if the

figures which the member opposite posed in the question are accurate or

not.

MR. BARRETT: They are.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

They may or may not be. Nonetheless, the hiring freeze was lifted from

ministries as other efficiency savings were delivered to the Ministry

of Finance.

[ Page 6749 ]

Certainly that was clearly understood. Efficiency savings have been introduced and delivered to me by the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT:

I ask the minister, in light of his answer: was there a freeze on the

Premier's office at any time since his announcement of the 6th? If so,

how long did it last?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

in order to be completely accurate with respect to how long the freeze

lasted, I would have to take the question as notice, and I shall bring

it back to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister

inform the House whether or not he knew that the Premier had indeed

hired ten people, or if this is news to him?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there were....

MR. KING: Rumours.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, quick thinker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's the only interjection the member has offered in good humour in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker. I was enjoying it.

introducing the hiring freeze throughout government, we were aware of a

number of positions which were in the process of being filled, either

by direct recruiting where an order-in-council applied or through the

Public Service Commission. It would have been extremely unfair and

impractical, I think, to have simply said with respect to the engaging

of individuals throughout government that no matter where the

negotiations were at that point they would not be concluded. So the

hiring freeze, of necessity, had to take some number of working days to

come into full effect. I think that was the reasonable approach.

MR. BARRETT:

Supplementary. Is the minister telling the House that all these ten

hirings were already in the process before the freeze was announced?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think I made it clear that with respect to the specific individuals

to which the member opposite has directed his question, I took that as

notice. I was replying in general terms with respect to the hiring

freeze throughout the government service.

MR. BARRETT:

Is the minister unaware that these ten hirings took place, but that in

his answers today, he is under the assumption that they took place

because they were already in process? If they did not, as announced by

the policy of the minister related to the freeze, has he taken steps to

see that anybody who did not conform to these conditions has their

hiring rescinded?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

the member appears to be having some difficulty with respect to the

detailed answer I have given thus far. The hiring freeze applied across

government. We had a number of individuals who were in the process of

being engaged. I cannot, as I stand in the House this afternoon,

precisely answer the member opposite with respect to the ten

individuals to whom he refers. I've taken that question as notice. I've

noted the supplementary question, and I will respond to it at the earliest opportunity in this House.

GOVERNMENT TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, on August 4th, following release of the first quarterly

report, the Minister of Finance is quoted as saying he would impose

travel restrictions as a "psychological measure" to make everyone in

government aware that times are tough. Can the minister explain why, in

defiance of such a psychological measure, the Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), during B.C.'s Agriculture Week, went to

Europe at tremendous cost to the taxpayers?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would refer the member who asked the question to question period last

Thursday afternoon, when his seat-mate asked precisely the same

question. I assume he wasn't here.

I ask leave to respond to

another question asked in question period. This is a relatively lengthy

answer, but I think it is important to set the record straight.

On Thursday, November 26, during question period the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — who is not in his seat — asked, as Hansard

would show, about an apparent conflict between figures which were used

in two documents. May I preface my remarks by reminding members that

with respect to the commitment of this government to public disclosure

of the financial affairs of this province, there is full public

disclosure on a regular basis, including a quarterly report and the

appointment of an auditor-general. There is now the response by the

Minister of Finance to the recommendations made by the auditor-general

in her reports and the adoption of new policies to improve the

presentation of financial information. These last changes are

consistent with recommendations not only by professional bodies

interested in this general topic; they are also in response to the very

definite urgings of the auditor-general. In addition we have the

tabling of background papers providing detailed information on the

assumptions and analysis of each budget. We have, of course, now

introduced, passed and proclaimed the Financial Administration Act,

which I think is long overdue. It is clear evidence of a commitment to

fully inform the people of B.C.

To the question, the member

for Skeena suggested that I had disclosed information to the Securities

and Exchange Commission of the United States which contradicted

information provided to the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker,

I'm sorry he is not here, because I think it was an unfortunately

mischievous statement. Nothing could be further from the truth —

absolutely nothing.

I draw your attention to page 7 of the

first quarterly report, released July 29, 1981, table B, general fund

summary 1981-82, under the column "revised outlook," predicting a

negative balance of $173 million for the operating or budgetary

transactions. May I refer the House to page 35 of the British Columbia

Hydro prospectus, which raised the question, as far as the member for

Skeena was concerned; it was filed November 6. On page 35 of the

prospectus is the

summary statement of combined revenues and

expenditures. Under "revised estimate, 1982 budgetary transactions," a

negative balance of $173 million is indicated. The previous page of the

prospectus, page 34, provided commentary on this table, and I would

quote. It is brief, Mr. Speaker. It says:

[ Page 6750 ]

"The

fiscal 1982 revised estimates of revenue and expenditure of the general

fund contained in the quarterly financial report for the three months,

April to June inclusive, 1981, and the 1981 budget speech forecast of

revenue and expenditure of special purpose funds have been combined for

presentation under the heading 'Revised Estimate, 1982' in this

prospectus."

The figure of $176 million quoted by the member

of the official opposition does not appear on page 35. I can only

assume that he is referring to $176.8 million, which is identified as

the net expenditure from special purpose funds. Mr. Speaker, members

will know that these funds are set up during years of revenue surplus

and drawn down when revenue growth lags, a situation to which I alluded

last spring. The $36 million referred to by the member appears on page

7 of the second quarterly report released November 9. This figure

represents the "Change in Unappropriated General Fund Balance."

Operating or budgetary transactions were forecast to be minus $109

million, an improvement from the minus $173 million reported at the end

of July. Nonbudgetary transactions of a net positive $102 million

result in an unappropriated general fund balance of $12 million.

Mr.

Speaker, you and some members opposite will know that prospectuses take

some considerable time to prepare; they therefore can never be

completely current. In consultation with the regulatory authorities and

with our underwriting group, it was determined that the best course of

action on November 5 was to proceed with the first-quarter financial

figures in the prospectus. This was done with the assurance given that

our financial situation had in fact improved. I did this in order that

I would not be in the position of disclosing the financial affairs of

the province of British Columbia first to the Securities and Exchange

Commission in the United States and later to the people of British

Columbia and this House.

Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious

to the member that in reading financial statements, great care has to

be taken. He should note the type of transaction, the category of funds

referred to, and he should make sure that he is on the right page. The

reporting period is obviously an important variable. Confusion could

arise with respect to whether one is talking about the stock of money

at the end of a period or the flow during a given reporting period. I

think attention to these details would result in a more informed member

and the avoidance of very misleading questions. Once again the House

should note that the official opposition is wrong.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

This morning I mentioned some of the opportunities that exist in

British Columbia and, indeed, referred to the very serious problems

that we're having in our forest industry as a result of a lack of

markets in North America and other market areas. I think I also

mentioned the other day that all sectors of our forest industry are

suffering as a result of these failing markets. We know that the

revenues of the government of British Columbia this year from direct

forest revenue will probably be less than $90 million, as compared to

over $500 million a couple of years ago. We have certainly suffered our

share of the bad times. In the forest industry itself, of course,

profit is practically nonexistent this year, and therefore the

investors in that industry are certainly suffering as a result of the

markets.

It's also unfortunate, but it is a fact of life,

that employment has decreased in the forest industry again as a result

of the bad markets. I must commend most companies in the forest

industry, though, because, in all cases that I'm aware of, the manner

in which reductions in product have been accomplished has been done in

as fair a manner as is possible.

I know the members referred

to the WFI layoff at Honeymoon Bay some time ago, and that was indeed

an unfortunate situation as well. What we had was an obsolete plant

without an adequate timber supply and with a fully committed forest, so

that there was no possibility of securing a timber supply for that

operation and it had to be permanently closed. I would point out,

however, that during the period since that company was purchased by

Western Forest Products, I feel that Western Forest Products did make a

very sincere and conscientious effort to search out every possible

means of securing a wood supply for the Honeymoon Bay operation to

attempt to provide continuing employment at that location.

Unfortunately, it was not possible.

It is also interesting

that, in a follow-up meeting I had with senior representatives of the

International Woodworkers of America, the three principals of the

companies which purchased WFP and senior members of my staff, an offer

was made by Doman Industries, one of the principal companies of WFP,

that they would immediately put 135 of those employees to work if they

would allow it to run its Cowichan Bay mill on a continuous basis, as

it was designed to do. The immediate response, of course, from the

senior IWA people present was: "No, you can't do that." They didn't

want those 135 jobs to be put into place at Cowichan Bay, which, by the

way, is within easy commuting distance of Honeymoon Bay. I thought that

was a rather narrow point of view to take, especially in the difficult

times that we're having right now.

Mr. Speaker, I also

mentioned this morning some of the things that are happening in British

Columbia which are creating jobs and opportunities for people who work

for others and also for the small business sector and our major

resource industries. I will again mention northeast coal. It is opening

up an area of 10,000 square miles of this province to development not

only for the coal resource but also for the petroleum and natural gas

resource, the forest resource and yet undiscovered mineral resources

that are in that area — an area that is as large as some European

countries and is untouched — providing tremendous job opportunities and

also providing opportunities for thousands of British Columbians to own

homes in a brand-new community. That development not only benefits the

northeast, it also benefits the entire northern part of British

Columbia and, as a matter of fact, most of Canada, because our rail

links will be upgraded, connecting with the rest of Canada, and we will

finally have a second major seaport on the west coast of Canada —

something that is long overdue.

But, again, the opposition

are against northeast coal. They're against the Hat Creek power

development, and they were against the Columbia River power

development. As a matter of fact, they said Mica power wouldn't be

required until 1986. They're against Site C, the Iskut-Stikine, B.C.

Place, the trade and convention centre. They're against the tourist

industry, as they pointed out so plainly when they were in government.

In fact, they are against everything that does create jobs and

opportunities in British Columbia. Yet somehow they try to con the

working people of British Columbia into thinking that they are for the

working person and job

[ Page 6751 ]

creation.

Well, from the things that they are against, I'm sure that they must be

against jobs for people in British Columbia, because all of these

things that they are against do create jobs, and they do create the

economy that we have in British Columbia, that thankfully now is much

more diversified than it was a few years ago. In spite of the serious

conditions in the forest industry, we still have a lot of industrial

activity and a high level of employment in this province, and that in

spite of the fact that we have had record in-migration over the last

several years.

I am very proud to support this throne

speech, because it in fact does the things that the opposition is

saying need to be done — that is, to provide opportunities for the

people of British Columbia, to provide employment for them, and to keep

this economy going.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I want to

convey my profoundest thanks and highest regards to the little rump

group over in the corner who, fulfilling their duty over the past term

or so, sitting in these sessions of the Legislature, have received

their directions from the leader of their party and have faithfully

remained in the Legislature listening through such speeches as we just

heard from the Minister of Forests, I think that we ought to strike a

medal for that little rump group, because they have fulfilled their

duty above and beyond the call of duty.

One of the problems

we have with this government is that they speak with a forked tongue.

On the one hand, we have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who

in August was claiming that he was going to impose travel restrictions.

But since August — and only since August — five ministers, including

the Minister of Finance himself, have taken foreign trips at great cost

to the taxpayers. The Minister of Forests went on a European tour. The

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) spent two weeks in West Germany

at tremendous cost to the taxpayers; there is no evidence of any

benefit arising from that. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan at tremendous cost to the

taxpayers.

MR. SEGARTY: At least he didn't go to play rugby.

MR. LAUK: At least that would have been something useful. He came back with less.

The

Minister of Finance himself, in defiance of his own travel

restrictions, went to Europe, not once but twice, at tremendous cost to

the taxpayers. It is one thing to call upon the people of British

Columbia to tighten their belts. It is one thing to ask single welfare

mothers to tighten their belts and to do with less. It is another thing

to cut back on manpower training places in the province. It's another

thing to cut back on Pharmacare and day care. But when it comes to

travel, the ministers can't do without their junkets to foreign lands.

That's part of the perks of being in office.

They will not

set a moral example for the rest of the province. That's why the people

don't take them seriously when they're juggling the books, as we've

just had an example of with the Minister of Finance presenting one

thing to the people here and another thing down in the United States.

That kind of lack of credibility is what's hurting all politicians, and

not only all politicians; it's hurting the political system itself —

this kind of cynicism on the part of this government, which bleeds off

social programs from people who can least fight back and can least

afford it to build their megaprojects and go on foreign junkets.

ask the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development and the Minister of Finance to tell us what they

were doing. Couldn't they have sent someone instead of taking this

great entourage? Couldn't they have posted a letter if they had some

business in Europe? Why did we have five ministers travelling around

the world at great taxpayers' expense at a time of recession in the

province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I pay for that myself. I don't dip into the taxpayer's pocket like you

do, Mr. Minister. You keep your hands in your own pockets, and you'll

be all right.

It's really cynicism to have the government

take the so-called posturing through their Minister of Finance — and

boy, does he know how to posture. He struts and poses and makes grand

statements about the terrible financial situation the province of

British Columbia is in. And in the dead of night, these ministers are

stealthily creeping off to the airports for their foreign trips with

bags of taxpayers' cash that they can throw away in the cities of

Europe.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the speech.

MR. LAUK: Am I interrupting? I'd hate to interrupt the cross-commentators, Mr. Speaker.

Another

dissembler is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). He's playing

games with the property taxes in the province of British Columbia. They

have profited in a windfall way because of high assessments that have

accrued over the past year. The treasury has grown fat at the expense

of homeowners. Property taxation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, does not

test the ability to pay. It is not the fairest form of taxation in this

province, yet the minister allowed those assessments to reach

incredible proportions so they could bleed off that excess profit

through taxation — confiscation, really, as we've subsequently seen —

of the property-owner in this province,

He has the nerve to

bring in legislation now which gives the most sweeping uncontrolled

discretion to the government to set assessments up and down the

province. That is a cynicism that is beyond belief, Mr. Speaker. The

people of this province, the homeowners, will continue to pay higher

taxes under this new legislation and under the new programs announced

by the Minister of Education.

I want to have a word about

Kinsella before this session grinds to a halt. The Premier has said

that the hiring of this new deputy minister, the highest civil service

post in the province, was done because of Mr. Kinsella's administrative

ability. Yet nowhere in his curriculum vitae, as best we could patch it

together, can we see that Mr. Kinsella has any administrative or public

administrative experience. None. Not a minute. Yet he came highly

recommended to the Premier and the government.

He has a

similarity to another civil servant, but in this case the civil servant

that I'm talking about was attached to the Social Credit caucus at one

time. Can anyone tell me who said this on September 22, 1978? "The

other question was: do we play dirty? Quite honestly, the stakes are

extremely high, and we do play dirty, and we don't really worry about

[ Page 6752 ]

that

too much. The future of this province is at stake, and we have to do

better than they do because we're smarter than they are.

Who said that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Dan Campbell.

MR. LAUK: How about old Jack Kelly? Has anybody here seen Kelly? Remember him?

Now

here's another quote. I want everybody to guess who said this. This was

said more recently, on March 30, 1979. This was when a campaign

coordinator was accused of dirty tricks. He said: "All of these

subtleties we're taking advantage of. We're not running from that. Why

not exploit it? The name of the game is to win." Who said that?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

No, a man by the name of Patrick Kinsella. Now we know what criteria

this man Kinsella has for this government. I wonder who taught whom?

Can any of the ministers tell me whether or not Patrick Kinsella ever

met Jack Kelly? One year ago almost to the day, I stood in this House

and I said to the Premier of this province that even though he was not

directly involved in the conspiracy of dirty tricks — that web of dirty

tricks that enveloped this party and unfortunately this province — he

was morally responsible for it. He was the leader that set the tone for

dirty tricks. How? One of the ways he does that is by hiring people

like Patrick Kinsella as nothing more than a politician, a hired hack

of a political party in Ontario, who is now importing Ontario's dirty

tricks to the province of British Columbia.

It was the

Premier who was aware of this. He can't hide behind vague answers. He

was aware of Mr. Kinsella's record in the province of Ontario. He was

the one that made the decision without posting it, without advertising

this civil service position anywhere in British Columbia so that some

British Columbian could apply for it. He was the one who hired Mr.

Kinsella. He has set the moral tone in this province, and it's a low

moral tone. It's a tone that involves winning at any cost, no matter

what happens. Kinsella calls it subtleties. Is that the difference

between the Ontario dirty tricks players and the British Columbia dirty

tricks players? One says quite honestly the stakes are extremely high

and we do play dirty. The other says all of these subtleties were taken

advantage of.

I suppose that last phrase is a bit more

sophisticated. It's sort of central Canadian — Upper Canadian. The same

results are there. The same moral tone is being established by the

Premier of this party, the leader of the Social Credit Party. The name

of the game was to win. Kelly said: "Play dirty honestly. We have to.

The stakes are high. We play to win." He was fired. Kinsella says: "We

have to take advantage of these subtleties. After all, the name of the

game is to win." He was hired.

I'm going to deal with

something I said back in 1979 that has created speech material for both

the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Both

those gentlemen have used that speech of mine on four or five occasions

in the Legislature and outside of it. I would just like to take this

opportunity to thank them for using the speech. At the time, of course,

they were ridiculing it. Even last spring, the Premier stood up in the

House and said that the five predictions I made in 1979 were foolish.

He went through them, and all of the backbenchers laughed. Remember

that? The good doctor from Point Grey chuckled and straightened out his

old school tie. Everybody was having a great time. But in the last six

months, four out of five of the predictions have come to fruition.

Let

me just canvass with you what was said at the time. Firstly, I said oil

prices in the world will go up. Anybody chuckle about that? They did

then. The editorials in the hyphenated paper, as it now is in Victoria,

was "Lauk Depression Gives Professor Chuckle." Let me talk about this.

This is Leonard Laudadio, the chairman of the university's economics

department in Victoria. He said: "It's a silly forecast. It is

irresponsible for Lauk to make such a long-range forecast, which is

likely based on very little economic information. It's a politician's

forecast, not an economic forecast." Laudadio said he doesn't see the

price of oil going up as much in the next ten years as it has in the

past decade. Since that statement, the price of oil has doubled. In two

years it has doubled.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I am going to make a forecast in one moment, Dr. McGeer. I'm glad you

asked. None of us may be here to see the results, that's the problem.

The problem with economists.... I'm not criticizing Dr. Laudadio. If he

wants to poke fun at politicians, that's his privilege. But one of the

problems with the country, the media and the political system is that

we actually go to economists for that kind of important advice. We

should not do so. The study of economy is not graphs and charts. It's

not science. It's a study of human nature. It's a study of history and

what's likely to come about as a result of the lessons we refuse to

learn in history. Economy is the study of human nature.

Now exactly what was said? Here is what I did say, Mr. Speaker, way back in August 1979.

Continuing

oil price increases and massive public and private debt will send

unemployment up and land values down. We are facing something pretty

serious. The free-market system is hitting a reef; we owe ten times

what we own. A recession sparked by higher energy costs will boost

unemployment to over 10 percent, possibly 14 percent. The recession may

turn into a depression when unemployment forces homeowners, through

high interest rates, to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks

and mortgage companies, creating a glut of land on the market and

forcing land prices down.

That was in August 1979. Everybody

chuckled. When somebody asked at that time, "Is there any way to avoid

that situation?" I said: "Of course there is." There is always a way to

avoid situations that are coming up: it's to prepare for them and to

plan for them. It's to take care not to get involved in heavy

megaprojects at tremendous public expense, when you know around the

corner you're going to be in deep economic trouble, so that the blood

of single parents on welfare, of old-age pensioners on Pharmacare, of

people getting their services cut back, of the forest industry where

one out of four people is unemployed, can get a break from government

when times are bad. Nobody needs a government when times are good;

anybody can be the government when times are good. A good government, a

tough government, produces programs for people when times are tough,

and that's where this government has fallen flat on its aplomb.

Let me say it for Hansard

this time, Mr. Speaker, so that I can't be misquoted, as I was by the

Premier and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) over the past two years.

The future of this

province is dim, and it's dimmer than in most other provinces, because

of the actions taken by this government. They have been foolish; they

have been downright juvenile in taking high-profiled megaprojects and

invol-

[ Page 6753 ]

ving

themselves in northeast coal resource giveaways and asking the people

of the province: "Be patient; the benefits are coming." We heard this

right after the war, Mr. Speaker, those of us who were living in this

province at that time. We heard it from the governments of the

coalition, we heard it from the previous Social Credit administration,

and now we're hearing it from this Social Credit administration.

They're once again asking ordinary people in the province: "Be patient;

one day these resource giveaways are going to be of some benefit to

you."

We've seen examples of whom they have benefited, Mr.

Speaker. They benefit a handful of people in this province, as they

always have. This province's resources and its major capital and assets

are owned by fewer than 40 families. In 1933 they were owned by fewer

than 40 families. Nothing has really changed. I put to you, Mr.

Speaker, that we are facing a terrible recession in this province

because this government is unwilling to make the major structural

changes to the economy that it can make, even as a provincial

administration, and because the national government, the Liberals, are

so inept and wimpy they can't possibly come to grips with the major

economic structural changes required in this country. We cannot have

the entire national economy owned outright by fewer than 250 families.

Do you remember the Family Compact, the original Family Compact at the

birth of this country? It used to be 200 members, 200 families. Let me

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the same number of families own this country

today. Every once in a while they play musical chairs and somebody

falls off the edge, but it's the same number of families.

ask this government to redistribute wealth; we ask this government to

change the structure of the economy; and they answer us by

redistributing constituency boundaries. They answer us with

megaprojects, bread and circuses. They sneer at ordinary British

Columbians through the economic policies that they are imposing upon

us. In times of economic downturn the government should not stubbornly

cling to these megaprojects. They have to pull back from some of them.

They have to create priorities. You've got to stop northeast coal now

and wait until the economy improves. We simply can't afford it because

of the deal that the government has presently come up with. You've got

to do it now. Otherwise, in the next two or three years you are going

to mortgage our future and forfeit any opportunity that ordinary

British Columbians have to have a prosperous life.

You know,

these people seem to want to hold out the promise for people that

somehow these benefits are going to accrue to them within their

lifetime. Not the way they've planned these big projects, Mr. Speaker,

and not the way they've made these deals. They've sold us down the

river in northeast coal. Now they're clamouring around desperately, not

for economic reasons but for purely political reasons, trying to

scotch-tape together that northeast coal project. Hundreds of millions

of taxpayers' dollars are going down a hole there, and we're never

going to see them again — not in increased taxation, not in more jobs

and not in a better life for the ordinary people of this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They

will not take an equity position with the private companies. They will

not negotiate a good deal with the Japanese. They will desperately take

a political decision. By those desperate political decisions that this

administration has made, British Columbia is facing the most serious

recession in its history since the Depression.

I notice the Minister of Tourism from Vernon is smiling.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm shocked at your statements.

MR. LAUK:

I'm shocked at my statements, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped and prayed that

I would never have to make those statements. That's why in 1979 I said:

"Be forewarned and plan for these days." What do they do? They come up

in the House and they chuckle. They think it's funny, instead of

sitting down and carefully thinking out what they're doing.

HON. MR. MCGEER: Let's have point two.

MR. LAUK:

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has asked for point two in

my program. Point two is the most important plank in our platform as a

party for getting the economy moving again and for getting more jobs in

this province. Point two is the defeat of the Social Credit Party. If

you throw out the government of the day, Mr. Speaker, the New

Democratic Party can come into office with a planned program for

getting this economy moving and for shifting major portions of the

public capital that's being squandered into areas where maximum job

opportunities can be achieved. The needs of this province are great.

Because this government has foolishly — like the young boy with his

first experience with hard liquor — gotten involved with five or six

major projects in this province and is stubbornly refusing to pull back

from some of them.... Instead they are cutting social programs at a

time when these social programs are most greatly needed. They are

stubborn, Mr. Speaker, at our expense. They cling to their face-saving

at our expense. I'll tell you that it will be most expensive for most

people in this province. There will be even higher unemployment this

winter. The forest industry is in deep, deep trouble. The pulp industry

is the next to start falling off and later on this spring that will be

a most serious problem.

There will be more mortgage

foreclosures and bankruptcies than any time in the history of the

province in the next several months. Interest rates will level off at

15 percent or 16 percent and begin to climb again.

One of

the problems with all of these fantasy makers on the other side of the

House, Mr. Speaker, is that they're hoping against hope — they're

betting men; they're always at the track — that interest rates will

continue to fall. They don't read the reports. They don't ask the

experts. They don't talk to the Bank of Canada. They say that somehow

if we look up at the clouds and set the right climate here with the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, interest rates are

going to fall. The thing is you can't throw up your hands and say: "My

goodness, we can't help it." The interest rate went up in the United

States, then went up in Canada, and now look what's happening to us.

You were told in 1979 what would happen. Where are your programs? Where

have you hedged? Where have you taken the plans and the measures to

protect the people of British Columbia? They are a crisis-oriented

government that responds on a day-to-day situation to the crises facing

this government. They are not a government that sits down and plans;

they're a government that sits down and reacts. They are a knee-jerk

government that have taken us in a crazy, cyclical way into a recession.

They are the government of recession. They are the government of unemployment. They are the government of

[ Page 6754 ]

hardship for the people of this province, and the people of this province have had enough of it. They've had quite enough of it.

Mr. Speaker, they laughed at oil prices. The Premier laughed, and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said: "What are you talking about? Oil

prices aren't going to go up." The barrel international price was $13.33

on January 1, 1979. As of August 1, 1980.... Let's not cover this year.

I'll leave that for later.

Time

is running out for your government, Mr. Minister. Time is not only

running out for the Social Credit government; it's running out for

every other backward-thinking, right-wing, elitist type of government

anywhere in the free world. These are the governments that are going to

be thrown out of office, because they're not fit for public office.

Their ideas are not even nineteenth century — they're thirteenth

century, as my hon. friend for Prince Rupert pointed out the other day.

You've

got to get control of the economy for British Columbians. You've got to

stop the giveaway projects, and you've got to plan your large projects

in a way that will not make ordinary people suffer. I would say that

this government, over the past two terms, had an opportunity to put

away for a rainy day. They had an opportunity to build sound economic

programs to protect us against inflation and high interest rates today.

They cannot claim they didn't know it would happen. They did know. They

were told. They just weren't listening.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'm surprised because I thought the time must have run out on the

member for Vancouver Centre. He stood up in debate in this Legislature

just a few moments ago to describe to us what the New Democratic Party

proposed to do. Members will recall that speech — the five members of

the New Democratic Party who demeaned themselves to attend this

Legislature to listen to what their future program would be. The only

problem was that the member forgot to tell us. He sat down. He created

the opportunity. He gave us two important points for the people of

British Columbia. One was, he said, to stop northeast coal. The second

was to defeat Social Credit. Right on. Then he said the New Democratic

Party will come into office with a program for the people of British

Columbia to end this economic slump. Then he sat down. Why? Because he

didn't have anything to say, and nor does anybody on the opposition

side have anything to say. Nor, Mr. Speaker, is there any press to

listen, nor any press to tell the public of British Columbia what is

said in debate in this chamber, what the NDP are against and the fact

that they have no policy nor any program.

There has been

over a week of debate in this chamber. I have no hesitation, Mr.

Speaker, in saying it has been the worst week of debate I have ever

heard in the Legislature of British Columbia during a throne speech,

completely devoid on the opposition's side of any ideas or any

constructive suggestions at all. The Leader of the Opposition has been

unable to find the time in his

schedule to appear in debate in this

chamber, or even to listen to the policies and arguments put forward by

his own members. Never in the history of this Legislature have we had

such a disgraceful performance on the part of the Leader of the

Opposition or the opposition party.

MR. LAUK: You said that last year.

MS. BROWN: And the year before.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Of course I said it last year and the year before. Mr. Speaker, each

and every year it gets worse. Here, once more, we had an opportunity

this afternoon to hear what the program of the New Democratic Party is

— if any — but that opportunity was passed by, not because the member

went overtime in his criticism of Social Credit, but because he had

nothing to say. He couldn't even fill his time criticizing Social

Credit, far less presenting any alternative policies on behalf of the

New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that

they're in opposition? Is there any wonder that the public rejected

them in 1933, that they rejected them in 1937, that they rejected them

in 1941, they rejected them in 1945 and rejected them in 1949...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nineteen fifty-two!

HON. MR. McGEER:

And when did they reject you next? Nineteen fifty-three. And when did

they reject you next? Nineteen fifty-six. And when did they reject you

next? Sixty. And when did they reject you next? Sixty-three. Next?

Sixty-six. Next? And what happened after that?

MR. LEA: They rejected you! [Laughter.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, Mr. Speaker, they couldn't choose between all the free enterprise

parties that had grown up in prosperous British Columbia. Of course,

when that little political indulgence was corrected, I might say as a

result of the New Democratic Party being in office, nobody but the

Leader of the Opposition, who was then Premier, could have brought

these warring free enterprise parties together. Only the Leader of the

Opposition could have succeeded in that, and he did, and he's been

objecting ever since.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the great unifier!

HON. MR. McGEER: He is the great unifier. I can't quarrel with the truth or wisdom of that statement.

And

so, the great unifier having worked his magic, the public rejected the

New Democratic Party in 1975 and they rejected you again in 1979. But

is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, as to why? Because surely if it was

not clear up until today, it has been made clear this afternoon. The

New Democratic Party is where it is because it has no policies, and it

will remain where it is into the future or until it reforms itself and

develops some positive alternatives for the public of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to describe some of the activities that I've undertaken

as a minister of the Crown in the last few months, because I believe

that some of them are instructive. I know that the member for Vancouver

Centre wishes that all the ministers of the Crown would stay in their

offices and never visit the rest of the world and be as uninformed

about what goes on beyond our jurisdictions as they are, to make things

equal — because after all, that's the policy of the New Democratic

Party.

One of the countries that I had the great fascination

to visit last month was Argentina. The country of Argentina last week

issued the first million-peso note. It's worth roughly $100 Canadian.

The peso started on a par with the dollar in 1973. When I was in

Argentina, the peso was 10,200 to the

[ Page 6755 ]

dollar. The day after I left, it was devalued again to 18,000. I want to give the reason.

Argentina

was, until 1930, the most prosperous nation in the Americas, save the

United States. The standard of living was higher than in Canada. It's a

country about the size of Alberta and British Columbia, blessed with

every natural resource a country could hope to possess. They have had

since that time a succession of governments that have been

characterized by two policies. These are the ones that I want to

particularly emphasize to my friends opposite. The first of these was a

policy of excessive nationalism, believing that everything outside of

Argentina should be rejected, and that only those things which were

Argentinean should be permitted to carry on in that country.

MR. LAUK: What a bunch of nonsense.

HON. MR. McGEER: What a bunch of nonsense.

MR. LAUK: You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I don't know what I'm talking about. The minister across, Dr. Lauk, of

course knows all about these things. Of course, I visited the country

and was completely uninformed about what I saw and what I learned.

The

other principal feature of their policy has been to promise to the

people of Argentina and to offer to them benefits that the country had

not earned through their industry. How does one accomplish that? One

accomplishes it simply by printing money. If we think we have seen

inflation of the maximum degree possible, then of course we only have

to look to some of these countries like Argentina to realize that

irresponsibility on the part of government, spending beyond your means

and trying to isolate yourselves from the world economically, is going

to have rapidly escalating effects.

The first of these is

that you will no longer attract any investment. You no longer will be

able to develop any technology. Your industry, initially locked in the

past, will become more and more isolated in the world, and your

capacity to provide for your people will sink rapidly on a relative

scale. That can happen no matter how intelligent your people or how

richly endowed may be your land. When one visits a country like

Argentina one can see in abundance endowment of the people and the

land, but isolation of the industry — yes, it's clearly there.

Isolation of the technology so that they're locked into the past is

clearly there. A desire to provide benefits to the people that the

country can no longer earn is there in abundance. The end result is

poverty, inflation, a slippage of national achievement and prestige,

and a bewildered and disappointed people.

Think what it

would be like in Canada today if we were to develop a policy of

excessive nationalism. Imagine what would take place if we were to

pursue for any length of time the policies advocated by the New

Democratic Party, saying that we will control the economy, we will

drive those foreigners out, we will soak the rich. What will happen?

This isn't the first jurisdiction that has ever said those things and

then gone on to implement them. We can find all kinds of examples

dotted around the world in those countries which are slipping rapidly

behind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

You're mentioning countries that have had heavy investment and advanced

technology. I will make one exception, Mr. Member: France. I'll make

some predictions for you since you've made all these marvellous

predictions. France is going to get into trouble because your friends —

the people that are most closely associated with your philosophy — have

been put in power. You protest, but if France now does better than it

did under its former regime, then at least you can say you've got some

argument in your favour.

You certainly can't turn to Britain

as an example. As the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), a former

member of the British Labour Party, well knows.... He's a fugitive from

their economic system and a welcome immigrant to Canada, but he's

preaching in this country that we follow the same philosophy that took

that nation — one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the

world for threequarters of a millennium — and dragged it down in one

generation of Labour government to the bottom of the heap in Europe.

That is because you have put in practice in that country the

philosophies that the members opposite have preached.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, you don't like to hear these things. Why don't you like to hear

them? Because they're the truth. What they are is the application of

the arguments that they put forward. Mr. Speaker. So I say, listen to

these arguments.

MR. LEA: What are they?

HON. MR. McGEER: All right, let's go through some of your arguments. Stop all development of natural gas; never ship out a cubic foot.

just heard from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He

said: "Stop northeast coal," and you agree with that. You'd stop

northeast coal tomorrow, wouldn't you? I suggest that we go to the

public of British Columbia next week on the issue of northeast coal.

Stand up in this Legislature and say you want an election fought, that

you want a mandate from the public of British Columbia to stop

northeast coal. That's when we should have an election on that issue

alone.

Let's have an election on the issue of whether we

should have any more power development in British Columbia, because the

New Democratic Party is against the damming of the Laird, the damming

of the Stikine, the damming of the Iskut, and it's against Hat Creek

coal — all these projects. Let's have an election now on the issue of

whether there's to be power development and resource development in

British Columbia, and on whether there's to be any northeast coal. And

if you want to stop the megaprojects and you don't want B.C. Place to

go ahead, let's have an election with that as an issue too. Let's get

on the table what we're for and what we're against in this province,

because I can tell you this: the press of British Columbia will never

tell the public what your policies are. So why don't you state them and

have an election manifesto out of it?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the New Democratic Party: you haven't got any policies

that you put forward, but you've said all these things. Why not get them

down. Make your list, one to ten, of the things you'd stop and invite an

election if you want one so badly.

[ Page 6756 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, have I got your policies straight? Have we got the promises in

the Legislature today that this is what you're going to stand for in

the coming election?

I can tell you that I have visited

countries that have put into practice the very things which I have

heard the New Democratic Party consistently advocate over the past 20

years in this House. They have put all of these arguments into practice

and, without exception, disaster has struck every nation that has done

so. The only thing that saved us here in British Columbia was that we

had just the slightest brush with that kind of thinking.

The

basic problem is that if you promise what you cannot afford, as does

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) every time she stands up in

this House.... She promises those things which she cannot afford and

which her party and the government cannot afford. If you go promising

policies which you cannot fund or afford, then ultimately you are

reduced to printing money in an illusory attempt to pay for all of

these things.

Imagine yourself as a young person in a

country like Argentina today, which has just printed its million-peso

note. How can a young person in Argentina possibly look forward to the

future? How can they build with their families? They look around the

world to countries like Canada, to which they can escape. They look to

places that have a sounder government than their own country has been

able to provide. They do so with sadness, and it's quite possible to

find nations in the world that are crowded, where land is hard to come

by, where resources are thin, where opportunities seem to be limited in

anything but a manufacturing sense. You see this kind of despair in

countries that have been endowed with everything a nation could want

except one thing — a tradition of sound government. It's the only thing

that has been lacking.

You realize that all of these

policies and developments that have been so beneficial to Canada, and

which the New Democratic Party is the first to take for granted, are

things which cannot be taken for granted. They are things that have

developed only because of the sweat and wisdom of people who went

before, but that would be cast aside and destroyed in a matter of a few

years by an inept and uninformed government. I can only say that were

we to put into practice the sorts of things the New Democratic Party

has advocated, that's precisely the position British Columbia would

find itself in in the future.

We have not heard the New

Democratic Party put forward any coherent policy. They stand up as

individual members and voice their prejudices. They're against

northeast coal. They're against Iskut. They're against Stikine. They're

against Laird. They're against Social Credit. They're against

everything that's forward-looking, everything that will build for the

future. What they want to do, instead, is spend more money that they

have no concept of how to earn. You're not going to earn it. Who's

going to do it for you? Will the industries that you drive out of

British Columbia do the earning? Perhaps we should look at it another

way. Will the earning be done by industries that you'll bring in? Which

industries will you bring in? Will you bring back Mason Gaffney? Would

he be the one to direct the economy? Well, you brought him in with our

money before. We still have about an hour and a half left in this

debate, and in that time we can still hope to hear something in the way

of a coherent policy from the New Democratic Party.

In the

meantime, it's my pleasure and my duty to file with the House some

messages. I would say it's a form of Christmas card delivered by the

students from the University of Victoria. I gave the commitment that I

would deposit this with the Clerk of the House. The students from the

University of Victoria are justifiably concerned about the policies of

the federal government. You asked if I was still a federal Liberal, and

the answer is that I'm a Social Crediter because I believe in sound

economic policies in government.

I can vividly recall the

time during the 1960s when the provinces pleaded for financial

jurisdiction over education, since it was their constitutional

responsibility. The federal government was unwilling to turn the fiscal

resources over to the provinces and said instead: "We will keep the

fiscal resources, and we will contribute to the post-secondary

education programs by using your money to do it." For nearly 20 years

the federal government has kept that commitment, but now the federal

government has decided to renege on that, to keep the money and to

leave the provinces stuck with....

MR. LEA: You signed an agreement in 1976.

HON. MR. McGEER:

The agreement was for a limited length of time, but at no time, Mr.

Speaker, when the federal government came to renewing those contracts

to support post-secondary education and health, did they ever say to

the provinces: "We will now return your fiscal resources, so that you

can fulfill your constitutional responsibilities." On every occasion it

was: "We'll keep the money, and we'll leave you with the

responsibilities." That's the problem of a federal government that has

no commitment to the past, because they weren't the politicians who got

elected on that policy. They'd forgotten all about it; it was old

history. When all of these solemn agreements were made, the Prime

Minister wasn't even in Parliament; he came along later. Sooner or

later, if one gets into any of these long-term shared-cost programs

with the federal government, one is going to get into the situation

where one is stuck with the baby and where the means of support has

disappeared out the back door. That's precisely what's happened with

the federal government, and my advice to future governments — federal

and provincial here in British Columbia — is never get into bed with

the federal government again on a shared-cost program, because sooner

or later perfidy will take place.

I suppose the great

mistake of the day, Mr. Speaker, was that in order to get some of our

tax money back in British Columbia, the government of the day climbed

into bed with the federal Liberals, and here they are stuck with the

family and no means of support. We're in the same position as the other

provinces. It's a sorry day when Confederation has to be run on this

kind of a basis. The only way that we're going to be able to carry our

heavy share of the load in the future is to develop new methods of

bringing in the resources to government to carry the expensive social

programs that we're embarked upon. That's not an easy thing to do if

we're a resource province, because as all of the members in this House

know, our markets are external. If the demand for lumber is weak,

everybody in British Columbia hurts; if the demand for our mineral

resources is weak, everybody in British Columbia hurts.

Therefore we've got to broaden our economy and try to build a future in which we're less dependent for our well-

[ Page 6757 ]

being

on our natural resources than we are today, no matter how bountiful

they may be at the present time relative to other countries in the

world. That's one of the reasons why I, as the Minister of Science,

have been working hard to try and lay the groundwork for

high-technology industry in the future that can operate and provide

money entirely independently of the natural resources that we have in

this province. In looking for an opportunity in this province to

participate to a significant degree in the new high technology, which

will be the basis of industry for tomorrow, one looks to those fields

where there might be within the next decade or so growth in the area of

somewhere between a thousand- and ten thousand–fold. If you can't see

market growth of that size, the chances of a small jurisdiction like

British Columbia being able to capture a significant share of the world

market would really not make any impact at all on our total industry.

we seek those areas that are newly developing in terms of high

technology, where we have some advantage and some lead because of the

skills that we have — either in our industry or in our universities —

that will provide this opportunity to share in a market that might grow

to the order of a thousand- to ten thousand–fold. We look to fields

like fibre optics, gallium arsenide semi-conductor devices,

pharmaceuticals, particularly with the new interferon project — areas

that will experience that kind of growth in the next decade or so, and

where our industries, starting as tiny little acorns along with others

in other parts of the world, will be able to grow to significant oaks

and therefore become participants, along with our major resource

industries in the economy, in employment for tomorrow.

Those

kinds of activities will not bring their payoff in three months or six

months or one year, but I believe we can within the decade look forward

in British Columbia to major high-technology contributions in our

industry simply because we will have selected those fields that are

likely to experience the largest and most dramatic growth. I believe

that this is the only answer for us, to maintain the high standard of

living that we have been able to build up today on the basis of our

natural resources. I believe it's the only way that we're going to

supply opportunities to our own children and those who will immigrate

to this province that will give them, relative to a world scale, the

same enjoyment that we've been able to have in this past decade. I'm

equally convinced that if we set ourselves back by adopting foolish

policies on expenditure and investment, if we pretend that British

Columbia is some island that will permit us to march out of step with

the rest of the world in investment and product development, then we're

going to be a sad and sorry province.

I hope that the public

of British Columbia listens with great care to the New Democratic Party

and what they say. I hope that the press of our province listens with

equal care and faithfully portrays what you people say — not any false

image, not the pin-stripe suits, not all the lessons that you've

learned, not all the images that have been put forward to foot the

people of British Columbia, but telling precisely what you stand for

and what you're against. I hope, as well, that they'll have the wisdom

to apply those arguments to the rest of the world and see where they

have been put to work and what has been the consequence of that;

nothing could be more sobering for the people of British Columbia or

more important for the future of our province.

Of course,

one can always hope that the New Democratic Party will reform. One can

always hope that they will do some of the things that the press

suggests they are doing. But it needs to be reality, not a figment of

anybody's imagination. When you stand up in this House and put forward

solid economic development arguments and solemn commitments, that's the

time the public of British Columbia should be taking you seriously. But

if you want to stand by the arguments you! ve put forward this past

week in debate, if you want to commit yourselves now to firm policies

of being against northeast coal, against power development, against

development of our natural gas industry, against private capital,

against the forest industry, against the 200 families — or whatever the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) was arguing about earlier

— if you want to be against all those things and make that your policy

for an election, by all means let's have it out now and decide whether

the public of British Columbia is going to continue with sound policies

or veer to the left again.

I say that the socialists should be rejected, and of course we should continue with Social Credit in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Before recognizing the second member for Vancouver Centre, I would ask

if the minister would ask leave for the tabling of the document which

he filed.

HON. MR. McGEER: I ask leave.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the throne speech, and I will be

voting against it when the question is called. However, I want to

suggest to the House that, although there are many things that we hope

to stress with respect to the faults of the government, there are some

things that British Columbians should be celebrating and should be

quite proud of.

I speak of the success of our professional

football team, the B.C. Lions, in their efforts this year. As the hon.

members realize, it has been some 17 years since the Lions have done as

well in the play-offs in the west. They came so close to defeating the

three-time champions, the Edmonton Eskimos, in the final game. So as an

ex-player I would just like to put on record that we have enjoyed a

very exciting professional football year in British Columbia. As well,

I would like to speak on behalf of the assembly and congratulate the

Ottawa Rough Riders and Edmonton Eskimos for putting on a display of

sportsmanship and drama in the Grey Cup final. I don't think there's

been anything like it in this country's history. We did enjoy something

really rather spectacular, both provincially and nationally, so I'm

quite honoured to make those remarks before getting into the more

sinister aspects of what we're here to deal with, Mr. Speaker.

The

previous member who spoke, as we all know, was once a member of the

opposition for the Liberal Party on this side of the House. He was once

a leader who condemned the Social Credit Party for its insensitive

attitude toward the electorate. In fact, he even wrote a book

describing how incapable that government of the day was in taking care

of the people's business. Of course, today he is stating that he is

proud to be a Social Crediter because of their good fiscal policies and

programs with respect to carrying on our affairs.

As well, I

want to reflect for a second or two on the decision of the Premier to

call this session and to have the second state ball of the year. We had

one in February or

[ Page 6758 ]

March

of this year, as you will recall. Now we have held another one.

Personally I'm not opposed to the tradition of state balls, which

should be open to the public for the people to at least enjoy a few

moments of pleasure for their very heavy tax burden. As it is, however,

very few of the people who are paying those taxes are fortunate enough

to attend the state ball. The Premier suggested when he cancelled the

state ball in 1976 that there was nothing to dance about. In fact, he

went on to wave around a document that had been drawn up by an

accounting firm of his choice to show how the previous administration

had failed in the management of public affairs. I believe the

accounting firm was Clarkson Gordon, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

wondering if the Premier intends to defend his decision to call this

state ball on the same basis that he used to denounce the outgoing

administration in 1975, and to allow a similar auditing of the public

accounts to justify — in fact, prove — that we do have something to

dance about in 1981 that we did not have in 1976. That will be very

interesting, and I'm certainly pulling for the Premier. I hope he will

be able to make that point, because if he does not, one would begin to

question his sincerity with respect to good stewardship in handling the

public taxes.

I'm rather dubious of whether or not the

Premier will come up with such a study, because I believe he is given

to impetuous and impulsive behaviour in trying to capitalize

expediently with respect to political kudos. He probably assumed at the

time he made that statement that it would be forgotten, just as he

assumed that the statements he made about not having seatbelts in his

car, when a reporter asked him, with a camera trained on his seat, as

he was about to descend from his car, whether or not he was equipped

with seatbelts.... You will recall, Mr. Speaker, those incidents,

because at the time we were debating seatbelt legislation for the

province of British Columbia. The reporter asked the Premier if his

automobile was equipped with seatbelts, and he told him no. No problem.

He just looked him dead in the eye and said no. He didn't even bat an

eye. The reporter happened to have a cameraman along with him trained

on the Premier. The Premier got up and walked away from his vehicle and

the cameraman zoomed in on the seatbelts. It's not a big deal. He's

entitled to his little fibs here and there, but he is after all the

chief minister of this province and has very little to gain by those

kinds of fibs, unless the man is just that insecure and incapable of

the kind of leadership and exemplary behaviour that this province needs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

is why I say that I'd like to be positive as much as possible in making

my constructive criticism. I'd like to be positive because I would like

to believe that the Premier and all his cabinet ministers — in fact,

all members of this Legislature — are here out of a sincere desire to

reflect to the best of their ability the concerns of their various

constituents throughout the province. I would hope that as fellow

British Columbians and fellow Canadians, notwithstanding our political

differences and biases, there is a level at which we can appreciate the

best that each of us can give.

But when we see the kind of

behaviour that the Premier has demonstrated time and time again, we're

not talking about political policies. We're talking about human

integrity. We're talking about the integrity of the person who is

supposedly giving us the kind of confidence that we need to believe and

to work toward making any policy work. Whether Social Credit or New

Democratic Party, those policies require the confidence of the voters.

But you have very little confidence in anyone who is so insecure as to

suggest something which is going to be determined in the very moment

that person moves, such as, "I have no seatbelts," and when he gets up

and you zoom in on him you see the seatbelts. The Premier doesn't say

anything about it, but that's what our school children and the people

in the street see.

This is one of the things that I'm going

to talk about today — the incredibility of the government and the lack

of sincerity. It's a government of gimmicks and masqueradery — if there

is such a noun.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

Masqueradery. I just made it up, but I think it should work. We'll

check it out, What it means is that you disguise yourself, Mr. Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), so that the people

don't know who you are, so that you can be something else. In other

words, you try to pretend that you're concerned about something.

First

of all, let's talk about the Premier's role as chairman of the first

ministers and the exercise with the Prime Minister in his plans to

patriate the constitution. How could it be that the Premier was

involved for all those months, making trips back and forth from the

east coast to the west coast? He wanted to impress upon everyone that

it was an important matter of historical significance and that he

himself was a statesman and the voice of human rights and Canadian

unity. He was concerned for the long-desired and prayed-for unity of

this country, and the various provinces being able to rationalize ways

in which federalism could become a healthy reality; but I think he

failed when you consider some of his actions — not his pronouncements.

want to first suggest to the assembly why the Premier never once made

any representations with respect to native rights and women's rights

during all of those deliberations. Why was he not out in the forefront?

Why did we have to wait for a throne speech to have him come up with

some kind of very unclear commitment to affirmative action on behalf of

the women of this province? It's a little bit late. You had the chance

to be right out front. Instead, we have native people from British

Columbia having to lobby, travel overseas, go back and forth to Ottawa,

demonstrate, demand, threaten, and do just about everything they could

to get attention to a long-standing grievance, a justified problem of

long-standing historical significance in this province. In fact, their

grievance was very much a part of the last campaign, as you will

recall, when your government suggested that they would deal with the

land claims of the British Columbian native peoples.

The

point I am making is that part of the concern of patriation of the

constitution was not just to bring the constitution back to Canada. It

was a concern for making it a document that would help to unify the

country. The Charter of Rights was a very major part of those

deliberations. The Premier missed his opportunity. Instead of getting

on the bandwagon, he could have created the band, the wagon, the wheels

and everything else by taking the lead in fighting for women's rights

as well as for the concerns of native people.

[ Page 6759 ]

What

we got from him was astounding, when finally pressed on the question.

He said: "That's fine. We're quite willing to discuss native rights,

cutoff lands, and discussions can begin as long as we are guaranteed

that we don't have to pay for our principles. We don't want anything to

do with paying for justice." And there is a price. So he wants Ottawa

to guarantee that whatever decision we come to in British Columbia, we

here will not be responsible for putting our mouths where our

principles are.

That's one of the faults of a government

that says it's concerned about human rights. Another one that concerns

me is this. As we all know, this is the International Year of Disabled

Persons. In the Speech from the Throne — now, listen very carefully —

there were a few very well-chosen phrases about things that generally

are considered popular and attractive with respect to getting marks for

the government so it will appear to be a humanitarian concern — a

sensitive, caring, representative body on behalf of the people of

British Columbia. But why wasn't it a clear and concise statement with

respect to this government's position on bringing the disabled and

handicapped citizens of this province into the legislative arena? In

other words, give them the same rights that all other British

Columbians have and enjoy.

Why did it not mention the

recommendation of the Human Rights Commission with respect to concerns

that disabled persons have had to suffer under...forever, really — ever

since we've been here? The kinds of things that disabled people have

had to deal with in the community have been anything other than a

respectful role that we've had to witness in this society as British

Columbians. They don't have a guaranteed wage with respect to

employment. They don't have protection under the Workers Compensation

Act.

In fact, our attitude toward the disabled and the

handicapped has been to give them a bare subsistence allowance of one

sort or another, under the impression that persons who are disabled do

not aspire, like able-bodied people, to upward mobility — to have

ambition, to be able to participate to the maximum of their abilities

and potential, the same as other citizens. We view them as people who

require rehabilitation and a place for recreation and somewhere to

spend their time, without an opportunity to be constructively fulfilled

as human beings. Philosophically, we have a rather paternalistic

attitude to these British Columbia citizens, who, incidentally,

represent some 10 percent of our population.

We're talking

about over 300,000 people in one category or another. A large number of

our population are discriminated against as a result of physical and

mental problems over which they have no control. I think that if we

really are concerned about human rights, we would certainly want to do

everything that we can in this Legislature which I believe the public

would want us to do — it’s not just the lobby of the groups who are in

the various disabled organizations, handicapped organizations,

coalitions and so forth; they're ordinary citizens — when they are

reflecting upon their humanity and their responsibility toward their

fellow British Columbians. Everyone wants to have a fair chance to earn

a living by their own means, and be able to live in relative dignity

and respect, and not have to be subjected to the kind of attitudes that

exist because of lack of commitment on the part of government to giving

them the kind of statutorial support they require. So that is one of

the other concerns that I have with respect to the Speech from the

Throne.

The platitudes are there, all of the jargon is

there, but when it comes to specific acts, something that we can do in

this Legislature — besides talk; we can take action — I see nothing in

the throne speech that would indicate to me that we have a commitment,

especially during this the International Year of Disabled Persons. As

signatory to the United Nations declaration in this respect, I think we

have a duty and should be ethically bound, if nothing else. If we can't

treat it morally I think we should, as a responsible assembly, do that

much during 1981. I am hoping that we will see some amendments to the

Human Rights Code of British Columbia, as recommended by the Human

Rights Commission, so that disabled persons will be able to live

equally in society the same as everyone else.

I would also

like to mention another group in the community that you would be

surprised to find is not doing very well as a category among our human

beings in this society. I must say, when I think about what the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was talking about

earlier — about his megaprojects and international economics and the

kinds of dynamics that are involved in the concerns that we statesmen

in high places must address ourselves to — I can't help but concern

myself with the fact that in British Columbia we have people who in

most cases are the very first ones to lay a hand on fresh produce, the

first ones to till the soil, the very first ones to harvest our

foodstuffs and the produce that we rely on. In other words, as the

member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) pointed out the other

day, the most important energy resource we have is our food. I have to

agree that food is a very vital resource, as we need it to be able to

come in here and do our jobs.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that

British Columbia is one of the few places where farmworkers — those

people who are apparently the lowest on this food chain, in terms of

the production and creation of foodstuffs — are not guaranteed the

minimum wage, let alone any assurance that they will even have a job,

or any protection whatsoever with respect to injuries on the job? As I

understand it, that industry is one of the most hazardous. Chemicals

are sprayed without warning, without giving them any opportunity to

protect themselves and know what kinds of chemicals they're exposed to,

Many of them have their little toddlers running along with them.

Families are working as farmhands. Most of them do not have sufficient

shelter for the seasonal nature of farming.

So they're at

the mercy of their employer, who I understand is at the mercy of the

next level in the chain. So while I respect the problem that farmers

have — and that's another story; they certainly deserve serious

consideration with respect to equity in our economic system and a fair

return for labours expended — I make a case today for those people who

are in even less position to defend themselves than the farmers, and

that's the farmworkers — a group of human beings that I say are

subsidizing our food production system at slave wages. In other words,

this country hasn't had slavery for over 150 years, but we do have a

group of people in this country who are harvesting the food for us to

eat and who cannot be guaranteed $3.50 an hour or any kind of

protection against exploitation. They have no control over hours of

work and no protection if they get sick — virtually nothing.

This

is happening in 1981, so I would suggest that we be concerned about

human rights. It's true that you can't put everybody's name down in a

Charter of Rights; but we can be committed to basic human rights, be

concerned about humanity, and ensure that anyone who is doing something

for a living and has to raise their family and take their rightful

place in society should be able to do so the same as you and I.

[ Page 6760 ]

other words, they should have a chance to compete successfully. But I

can suggest to you that farmworkers — who do this professionally — are

a category of people that is faring pretty poorly. I think it's

disgraceful that in modern times we still have farmworkers working for

$1 or $1.50 an hour with no guarantee of job security whatsoever. This

is 1981. Well, I hope that we see something in that regard. I quite

frankly doubt it.

You will recall that Premier Bennett,

during the first ministers' conferences around patriation of the

constitution, suggested that he, on behalf of British Columbians, would

not stand for anything less than tradition and convention when it came

to something as serious and important as the Canadian constitution. In

fact, I heard him on one television program and I thought: well, the

Premier may have had a turn of heart, and maybe he is really learning

how to be sensitive and how to care about the things that matter. In

other words, he is a man who is discovering late in his career

something about principle. I happen to agree that, although the supreme

court may have been able to come down with a legal opinion with respect

to the procedure in patriation of the constitution, the legalities are

one thing and custom and tradition are another — the things we know to

be the case by a virtue of practice and experience, the processes we

employ in coming to decisions and making agreements and operating our

affairs cooperatively to avoid confrontation and erosion of the

stability and security we need in this society. We have had to have an

unwritten constitution of cooperation among the citizens,

notwithstanding whatever the law may say. So that was well established,

and I think all of the first ministers made that point quite well, and

I think that the Prime Minister of Canada recognizes it as well.

Therefore we were able to get an accord, an agreement. I laud them for

that.

But, Mr. Speaker, would you or someone explain to the

assembly today how it could be that the Premier of this province is so

committed to convention and tradition, to due process, to the concept

of majority rule and all of these very fine principles we all respect

and would like to feel are genuine and can be depended upon in time of

crunch, when the chips are down...? In 1978 the city of Vancouver had a

plebiscite with respect to a ward system, in which they put to the

people of Vancouver the opportunity to decide whether or not they

wanted to elect their council people by ward — whether each and every

one of them would represent a ward and would be elected as such. They

voted 51.8 percent in favour, which is a clear majority. That happened,

and everything else is a matter of formalities, because all that was

needed after that vote, which was loud and clear, was the city to

request the provincial government — which has power with respect to the

Vancouver Charter, under which the city of Vancouver operates — to

amend the charter, permitting those citizens to duly carry out what

they had democratically arrived at — the decision to have ward

elections in the city of Vancouver. Now, convention was followed; the

democratic process was followed; there was no unilateral decision by

any mayor or anyone who was trying to do something really fancy like

Trudeau was doing with respect to patriation of the constitution. We

did everything that we're supposed to believe in in this province, and

yet the Premier instructed his members of the Select Standing Committee

on Standing Orders and Private Bills to kill it. He said: "We're not

ready." So here is a government which on the one hand says that it has

a commitment to conventional procedures, to the customs and traditions

of democratic processes, but it doesn't apply in the province of

British Columbia with respect to the ward system. You can't have it

both ways.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm not

surprised, because politically the people of Vancouver say they have a

better way of operating; but the government of the day, the Social

Credit government that is in power right now, sees this as detrimental

to securing its friends in the right places in the city of Vancouver

and is therefore opposed. They were opposed, and they unilaterally,

arbitrarily, on their own, notwithstanding the vote of city of

Vancouver voters, said no. Well, just for the record, so much for the

commitments of the Premier and his concern about the democratic rights

of people. Of course, we don't forget they also wiped out the community

resources board a few years ago, when the Minister of Human Resources,

now Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), destroyed the

right of people to self-determination and the right to have a say in

the welfare programs of their communities.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by talking about the....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It's okay. Take all the. time you want; I'm in no hurry. I know you think it's funny, Mr. Member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I think you're really funny.

MR. BARNES: That's fair enough. I can tell you one thing, what I'm talking about are not words....

MR. KEMPF: Tell us. I've been here for half an hour trying to figure it out.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to intervene on behalf of the second

member for Vancouver Centre, as I'm being interrupted by the member for

Omineca, who does not feel that the subject I'm discussing is of any

importance to the people of British Columbia. I cannot proceed under

those circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, this government has done something else that has made the

people of Vancouver angry, despite the ward system problem. On their

own, they decided that they were going to have one of the hugest

megaprojects that ever descended upon North America happen....

MR. KEMPF: Are you against it? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Are you finished, Mr. Member for Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: Yes or no?

[ Page 6761 ]

MR. BARNES:

You're showing contempt, whether you realize it or not, for the people

of British Columbia, and that's very becoming of your character; I

realize that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon.

members. In order to continue with debate, the member who is debating

will continue to address the Chair. It will assist me in keeping order.

And would the member for Omineca please try to restrain himself.

MR. BARNES:

I have been addressing you, Mr. Speaker, and I find that the behaviour

of that member — and, in some other instances, other members — is one

of the problems in this assembly. As we try to address matters of

public concern in our own way....

MR. KEMPF: Your members don't even come in the House.

MR. BARNES:

I'm just glad we don't have any school children here today — I hope not

— because this is an example of what disturbs them so much. They really

believe that we are being paid our salaries to carry on the people's

business to our best ability. But those interjections from members such

as that clearly point out the hopelessness of trying to communicate to

elected officials matters of serious public concern. This is why so

many anti-this and anti-that organizations are being created: because

people are frustrated. They don't believe the politicians are sincere,

and from what I'm gathering this afternoon, I can appreciate where they

get their concern.

I can tell you that I can see nothing

funny about the people of Vancouver having to field a decision by the

Premier of this province to create B.C. Place and the stadium with no

reference, no opportunity for planning, nothing to do with the impact

and the costs on those people: no transit system in place; no housing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

This member keeps asking me if I am for it. I'm not against a lot of

things, Mr. Member, but I am for the people of British Columbia, and

they should bloody well have an opportunity to have some say before

anything is done.

You should be responsible enough to refer

to people when you're going to do the kinds of things you're doing to

the city of Vancouver and the West End. I can tell you that the impact

on that community is tantamount to wiping out families. The stability

of that community in the West End will never be the same. It has become

a red-light district of not only adult male and female prostitutes but

also children who are 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age, because of

exploitation and irresponsible planning on behalf of that government

and no reference to the city of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I

would go so far as to suggest to that member and to the members on the

government side that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), who is responsible for the trade and convention centre.

proceeded to create the Pier B-C Development Board without a permit

from the city of Vancouver to drive piles or do any development.

know the government is high-handed. We've heard of heavy-handed state

Social Credit before. We know what you will do when you get the power.

But I think it is a little bit much when you are arrogant enough to not

only deny the city of Vancouver the ward system and their just rights,

as any municipality should have in this province, but also go ahead and

hose them with respect to their bylaws. They had no right to develop or

do anything. any more than any other private citizen would develop.

They're not a Crown corporation yet. There's a promise — maybe the

Premier will tell us about it. Maybe one day you will form a Crown

corporation for Pier B-C if you ever get enough money to pay your

interest on the project which you re not completing. But that's one

mess that I don't want to even comment on. When you talk about

incompetence, it's indescribable what those fiscal managers are

supposed to be able to do.

MR. KEMPF: Are you for or against B.C. Place?

MR. BARNES:

All we can get from that member is: "Are you for or against?" That's

just like saying to somebody: "Do you want to be raped or not"' Listen,

what you've done to the people of Vancouver was tantamount to an

offence under the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe they

understand that it's not a case of being for or against anything.

There's something good and bad in just about anything you can imagine,

whether it's the automobile or whether it's cyanide. The point we're

making is that all those projects should have gone through the process

of communication with the various levels of people who are concerned so

that we can arrive at a level at which we can live with the thing. What

we're getting instead is no planning, no responsibility and complete

disregard for the bylaws of the city of Vancouver.

Thank

goodness we have a mayor who is responsible and tried to cooperate with

the Social Credit government and who respects the senior level of

government — something that this government does not show for the city

of Vancouver. He's trying to accommodate the government, actually by

helping them to cover up their bungling and their incompetence. You

cannot justify taking the action you took with no respect for city of

Vancouver bylaws.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have much time,

but I'd like to comment on one other matter and that is the

government's policy with respect to cultural affairs in this province.

It's no secret that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) did

very well in the by-election, but must they give him a $500,000 bonus?

Do you know what they're doing? The arts festival that is being held in

Kamloops wasn't even requested. I don't doubt that the artists could do

with the help, but you know we do have a system in this society where

we have a problem of how much money we can give to the various

organizations. I happen to know there's one organization right here in

Victoria called Kaleidoscope. It has been operating for six or eight

years and they don't have enough money for operating. All they're

asking for is $30,000 to carry on a program that is in place in the

schools in this province. You have no money for them, but you've got

$500,000 to try to do a little promotion with respect to the politics

that you hope to gain from these high-flying projects.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How much time do I have to wind up?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, sir.

[ Page 6762 ]

MR. BARNES:

Well, with that I will show my courtesy and respect for your high

office and take my place. However, I hope that I will have an

opportunity soon to challenge you on some other matters of serious

public concern.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, first

of all, I'd like to extend my congratulations again to you on seeing

you fit and healthy in the chair. Of course, the members all remember

our concern when you were ill last session. It certainly gives us all a

warm feeling to see you continuing in that very important role.

rise to speak in support of the speech of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor, which I feel clearly identifies some areas in

which this government is going to be prepared to move, or is moving

now, that will be of assistance to different segments of the community

where need is required, but will be beneficial to all the citizens in

British Columbia. I think it's very important for me to make note of

the fact that indeed British Columbia is not an economic island within

our country, nor is it an economic island in the North American

economy. Certainly it is not an economic island as it relates to the

international or the world community.

The British Columbia

economy does react very strongly to economic initiatives — or lack of

them — taken by the federal government. Our economy, whether it be

government financing, government spending, or for Crown corporations,

or whether it be in that large area — the private sector, small

business, large business, individual worker, organized worker,

non-organized worker, teacher, student — where the economy is

created.... They are directly affected by economic initiatives taken by

the government in Ottawa, or the economic facts of life as they pertain

to North America.

In fact, internationally, British

Columbia's economy is more internationally entwined, and more

internationally responsive to international economies than any other

part of our country. Our British Columbian products are primarily world

products. They are the products in which the people of British Columbia

trade and earn their living, but not off other Canadians. Our great

friend to the south, the United States, is responsible for 60 percent

of the purchases in our most important forest industry. We are also

very reliant on the economics of the Pacific Rim, which is the growing

and emerging market for British Columbian products. We are also

dependent on the traditional markets of Europe, where many British

Columbian products play an important role, not only in our own economy,

but in the Canadian economy as well.

I think it would come

as a surprise to many members of this House to recognize that of the

ten Canadian provinces, British Columbia, farthest from Europe and

farthest from France, provides the second-largest amount in dollar

terms of export to France. Many members in this House would be

surprised by the the importance of British Columbia not only to our own

people, but to the Canadian economy as an earner, through export, of

foreign exchange dollars. Through those earnings of foreign exchange

and dollars into this country, in large part, we play the most

significant role of any province in this country to earning dollars to

help us in our international balance of payments. This helps us provide

a higher standard of living not only for our own people but for all the

people of Canada.

It is of great concern to this government that our forest industry, so reliant

for its economy and its employment on international markets, is today suffering

and that up to 25 percent of our forest workers are presently unemployed because

of both lack of markets and unprofitable pricing that the competition in the

international marketplace has caused. Of course, this government recognizes

that problem and will do everything we can to assist directly in the forest

industry.

Mr.

Speaker, as you know, it is now, has historically been, and will

continue to be the most important part of the British Columbia economy.

A number of years ago in this province its importance was so great in

relation to a much smaller British Columbia economy that at that time

there would have been economic chaos in this province should the

international markets that exist now have existed. Today, while our

hearts go out and our efforts will go out to assist the forest workers,

it is significant to note that the economic strategy that has been put

into place by this government over the last six years is playing a very

important

part in maintaining employment for the people of British

Columbia.

It is very important to note that a project that

has been criticized by the opposition members — the development of

northeast coal and the resulting development of road, rail and port —

will assist in moving other British Columbian and Canadian products.

What if the planning hadn't taken place over the past five and a half

years, with the cooperation between the federal and provincial

governments in conducting not only the economic studies but the studies

on the environment and all of those areas in which information was

needed, not only on the development within British Columbia, but on the

potential markets both in the Pacific Rim and around the world to make

such a gigantic project feasible? Should we not have shown the

foresight in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 and continued to press on with

the type of hard work involving federal, provincial and municipal

levels of government, and a number of government agencies — British

Columbia Railway, Canadian National Railway, the National Harbours

Board and other British Columbia agencies — that will have some

relationship to this project? What if we hadn't continued during all

that period and done that planning with our economic blueprint for

British Columbia? What if we had ever listened and hesitated and

stopped because of the criticism that came from the opposition in this

province? Not all of the opposition has been from members of the New

Democratic Party, but a large part.

If we had been dissuaded

and said, "Yes, if you do anything, you're subject to criticism; you're

better to be a government that does nothing, and then perhaps they

can't criticize you," then surely today we would be much poorer off in

this province and our potential and our optimism would not be

well-founded for the middle and latter 1980s and into the 1990s.

All

members should know that British Columbia northern development of

transportation, as the first large-scale development — I say "first"

because there will be others — will pick up employment next year for

British Columbians from the private sector and the public sector. It

will create 5,000 to 6,000 jobs in British Columbia during its

construction period. It will do more than that, for we must think as

Canadians as well. It will create 10,000 to 11,000 jobs in Canada. So

it will assist Canadians in all parts of our country, but it will

assist most those Canadians who are fortunate enough to live in British

Columbia. Next year it is estimated that the development of that

project will contribute about 1 percent to the gross provincial

product. It will assist then in helping British Columbia's growth rate

to stay far above the national average. It is a growth rate that is the

envy of most

[ Page 6763 ]

parts

of this country, and certainly of the United States, where they have

had and have been in an economic recession for some time; their growth

rate does not match that of British Columbia. The great financial giant

to the south is not growing as fast economically as British Columbia. A

few years ago people would not have considered that to be possible.

Today, as well as being a financial and sound economic beacon within

our own country, British Columbia is, of course, a beacon in North

America. That type of planning, over and above what I consider to be at

best uninformed opposition, in many cases — mindless politics played

with knocking any proposal the government makes for the sake of

negative criticism, at no time offering constructive alternatives in

economic planning to this province.... I'm going to touch on a number

of things that have happened in the last six years and have helped make

the economy we have now, as troubled as some sectors are, as strong as

it is, and have helped make it possible for British Columbians, more

than people anywhere else, to look forward in a very positive manner to

their own particular future and the future of our province as a whole.

Some

people from the opposition have said that the northern transportation

system and the northern coal development should be stopped. They have

said that that project is robbing money from social programs that this

government is committed to. Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you that such

is not the case. Those allegations are not true. In fact, that project

will be the salvation for many social programs to continue in the

future.

It's a myth fostered by those who do not understand

the productive side of our economy. When they become part of the

political system, their only responsibility or obligation is to promise

as much as it takes to get elected, without bearing any of the

responsibility of knowing how the money is going to be earned to pay

for those programs.

What would be even more foolish would be

for people who believe in social programs — or say they do — and say

that that is their commitment to oppose the very development of

economic projects that will employ our people, pay the taxes and send

the money to government which will guarantee to each and every citizen

that indeed there is an economy that can generate those revenues in the

future and will guarantee to our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers

and to those who are less fortunate that those benefits which

government has promised and does provide to the people can be continued

in the future. It is foolish to believe that you can continually oppose

every economic initiative in this province for what might be smart

"partisan politics" and, in the confusion of the moment, perhaps garner

a few votes at the expense of the very future of your province. Maybe

some politicians view the next election, or just their own election, as

the most important thing in the world and perhaps that's good politics

for them. Well, our party and our members are concerned with the mark

we leave on British Columbia, not only whether we leave it a better

place, which we're striving to do, but we just want to leave it....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Interjections are out of order, but if they're heard from outside the

member's seat they must be, of course, stopped immediately.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I think you're referring to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam,

(Mr. Levi), who has moved into that group to try to make it look like a

crowd! [Laughter.]

To get back to what I consider to be a

very important part of the throne speech, as that speech reflects,

government philosophy and policy.... As part of the discussion of that,

I refer to the projects which have occupied the debate of many members

in this Legislature. I'm trying to respond in a very positive way to

the negative criticisms that oppose every economic project. I want the

people of British Columbia to know, particularly as I know the members

on this side do, and perhaps some on the other side as well, that those

projects are not just important to the jobs that we need right now for

the people who are going to work in them, building them, and they're

not just important for the jobs in the future. The economic value

created by those projects is a continuing thing that will continue to

employ people, continue to generate profits, continue to generate

foreign capital by way of earnings into this country to resolve our

international balance of payments.

Above all, to be able to

guarantee that any government, whether it be a socialist government, a

free-enterprise government or some other government, given their chance

to govern the province.... The economy is such that they have at least

some limited opportunity to implement the programs they promised the

voters. I guess it would be a tragedy if, down the road a generation

from now.... If we hadn't undertaken this economic activity, our sons

and daughters would not be talking about higher standards of living and

social programs, but about curtailing programs that we take for granted

today, because, for the most part, in the last 30 years our economy has

been well managed. Government has been soundly administered, and we

haven't fallen into the trap of big-spending governments who would

plunge future citizens into a debt burden to pay for their excesses for

current account. To do so would be to rob from future generations who

would be caught up in not only paying dead-weight interest charges but

in trying to repay the capital, because perhaps they'd be more

responsible.... It would be robbing from them many of the things we now

take for granted as part of our way of life in British Columbia.

have been left the stewardship of a province that has a very promising

future. That future is not guaranteed; it's not assured. There are

other countries in the world and other parts of Canada that were

blessed with as rich an endowment of inferred resources as British

Columbia has. There are other parts of Canada in the population centre

of this country that are geographically better placed to be

distributors or manufacturers of goods — to provide secondary industry

in this country. In comparison, British Columbia's management of its

resources and government has been a credit to most of the governments

that have preceded us, in providing a sound base of management,

encouraging the province to grow during the fifties and sixties, and

providing an economic infrastructure of rail and highway that has

allowed our industrial base and the secondary industries to expand and

employ our people.

I talked about northeast coal. I talked

about its importance in developing this major rail access, the second

major rail access and port system for our province and our country. I

have also pointed out that that didn't just happen, and how important

it is to maintain our economy now, and not just rely on what was taken

for granted by many: that the forest

[ Page 6764 ]

industry could continue with the vagaries of the international market, in continuous prosperity.

The

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank), who drives a Mercedes,

laughs at things like that. He thinks it's funny. I want to say quite

frankly that at some point in his career he should recognize whether he

really does care about the people or about getting some of his

smart-aleck remarks in Hansard so he can mail it around to prove he's been here.

I'd

like to discuss some of the other things the government has done to

broaden the industrial base of this province. Perhaps the announcements

have been so many and have become to many so commonplace over the last

six years that they've taken them for granted. Perhaps many of the

people have taken for granted announcements such as the methanol plant

in Kitimat by Ocelot Industries. Maybe they've taken for granted the

announcement of a major engine overhaul plant by Canadian Pacific Air

Lines in Delta. Maybe they take for granted those announcements that

regularly point out where the government has assisted or provided the

climate for some new small business to start up in their area — perhaps

not as glamorous as the over 1,000 new employees that will eventually

be employed in this province in higher earnings by Canadian Pacific,

with the engine overhaul plant which will deal with international

customers and not just the national airlines.

I'd like to

think of the small plants and the small businesses that have developed

in every part of this province where the government has assisted a

local municipality in advance — planning in advance, through that great

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who recognized he didn't have a tough act to follow but

wanted to do the best he could because he wanted to be compared against

perfection, not what he followed.

Mr. Speaker, that minister

has shown a leadership that has been put into action, not the

smart-aleck words of the courtroom lawyer who sends high bills to his

clients, but of someone who has lived in the frontier of this province

who knows what it's like to have to earn a buck.

No plush

townhouse or Mercedes. He knows what it's like to earn a buck in the

resource areas of this province from Dawson Creek to Pouce Coupe to

Chetwynd. He knows what the people there have to do and he's done it.

He's tried to spread that prosperity around this province by

encouraging industrial parks, by building on the resources available in

the area — not only the natural resources but the resources of

people who've been willing to get out and work and initiate new

business.

What does it take to get new business? Assist the city of Mission with an industrial

park that brings a fibreglass plant to British Columbia and creates jobs and

economic value in this province and stop importing it from elsewhere — the

type of initiative that has put industrial parks in almost every part of this

province catering not just to the large projects in which we can have great

debate like the northern development.

agree with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer). It is clearly a project in which members of this

house should make their positions clearly known and parties should make

their positions clearly known, because it is an area in which we should

take a stand. It's not enough to criticize it and say you're against it

until you run into someone who's for it and then you say: "Well, I

don't really believe that, that's just politics." You've got to finally

take a stand and tell the people if you at least have one.

you have no policies, tell them that. But as far as I'm concerned

today, until I hear otherwise, the New Democratic Party opposes the

northeast coal development. That's going to be an issue for British

Columbians in the future in which they must assess not what they're

saying at that particular time, but the judgment that they have shown

in trying to face up to their responsibilities as part of the

Legislature and part of the political system in this province for the

years they have been in opposition