1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy. Mr. Nicolson –– 1509

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Mrs. Wallace –– 1509

Agricultural Credit Act reimbursements. Mrs. Wallace –– 1510

Como Lake Private Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1510

Rent controls. Mr. Barnes –– 1511

Surgery cancellations in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 1512

Video display terminals. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 1513

Budget debate.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1513

Mr. Hall –– 1514

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1519

Mr. Passarell –– 1519

Mr. Brummet –– 1521

Mr. Leggatt –– 1522

Mr. Lockstead –– 1526

Mr. Cocke –– 1528

Mrs. Wallace –– 1532

Presenting reports

Report of Special Committee on Selection.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1533

Mr. Howard –– 1533

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 1534

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1534

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask the

House to welcome guests to our Legislative Assembly: a number of

students from Cambie Junior High School in Richmond, accompanied by Mr.

Dan Carswell. I'd like to welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to

ask the House to join me in welcoming, on a visit to Victoria and this

Legislature, my parents, Fritz and Nora Gabelmann, from Osoyoos.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to

welcome Mr. George Smith and his wife Ann. Mr. Smith is president of

the Comox constituency for our party as well as regional director for

region 1. With them are his brother Ed and his wife from North

Battleford, I believe.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a group of about 30

students from Nanaimo District Senior Secondary, sponsored by Crown

Zellerbach and led by their teachers, Miss Cooper and Mr. Little. I

would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask this House to welcome today Lorne McCuish, the Member of Parliament for Prince George–Bulkley Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today is a delegation from the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture, including their president, Mr. Knoerr, from Smithers; Mr. Jack

Reams from the Fraser Valley, a swine breeder there; Harold Allison of the cattlemen;

and Mr. Austring of the blueberry growers. They're accompanied by two staff

members, Mr. Wessel and Mr. Dick Stocks. I would like to say that many of the

members of this House will know Mr. Stocks, and it would be of interest for

them to know that Friday will be his last day of work with the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture. I'm sure that all members of the House would join with me in

not only welcoming this delegation to the precincts, but in wishing Mr. Stocks

the very best in his retirement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the members' gallery this afternoon we have an

outstanding British Columbian and outstanding Canadian who has had an exceptionally

good record in employing people in our province and in representing the community

within Vancouver in an outstanding way. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Ben

Wosk.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Douglas College campus in

the Royal City there is with us today a group of students who are

studying welfare work. I'd like the House to acknowledge their presence.

Oral Questions

PURCELL WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is one of the largest untracked

wilderness areas in the southeastern part of the province. In April 1974 it

was protected under orders-in-council: one order prevented claim-staking under

the Mineral Act until February 28, 1980. Has the minister taken action to have

that reserve extended?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm continually surprised at the lack of

knowledge about the public business of British Columbia. I was under

the impression that questions which were public knowledge were not in

order. But for that member's help and edification, the government has

passed an order-in-council, which is fully public, extending the

reserve on the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy for another year.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD

POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

I understand that Cargill, which owns Panco Poultry, is attempting to

purchase Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Inasmuch as this would place

80 percent of the poultry processing in B.C. under the control of an

international giant in the food industry, will the minister tell the

House what action he has taken to prevent this takeover?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of Cargill's possible acquisition

of Maplewood Poultry is under review in Ottawa by FIRA. I've publicly

expressed my concern in regard to having approximately 80 or 85 percent

of the total turkey processing being handled by one company.

MRS. WALLACE: Just to clarify, would the minister tell the

House if he has intervened in this matter? Has he written or contacted

the Foreign Investment Review Agency in any way, expressing his concern?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's under review by this government, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: I understand, then, that the minister has not

at this point in time sent any communication to the Foreign Investment

Review Agency to express his concern. Am I correct in that assumption?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again, it's under review. My staff have been in communication with Ottawa.

MRS. WALLACE: I think the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that Scott poultry, otherwise known as Pan

Ready, a cooperatively and Canadian-owned poultry processing plant, is

prepared to purchase Maplewood if Cargill is not successful?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's irregular to use question

period to bring information to the House, but if the minister has an

answer to the question, please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. The

member opposite is also aware that any purchase by a foreign country of

a Canadian corporation goes through the Foreign Investment Review

Agency in Ottawa and they are

[ Page 1510 ]

also aware of the fact that there is a Canadian company interested in purchasing Maplewood Poultry as well.

MRS. WALLACE: Does this obvious inaction of this minister

indicate that he prefers the control of Maplewood to fall into the

hands of Cargill rather than into the cooperatively owned hands of a

local concern?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Next question.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

REIMBURSEMENTS

MRS. WALLACE: A further question to the minister. According

to the minister's statement of March 6, the interest reimbursement

under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1979, will be the difference between

9 percent and the average interest level calculated from a

cross-section of loan applications. Will the minister tell the House

approximately what that percentage rebate will be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this public knowledge?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to respond that the member is

incorrect in her last statement with regard to Cargill, Mr. Speaker.

There was a fair amount of conversation going on, and I didn't quite

hear her second question. Would she like to restate it?

MR. SPEAKER: The gist of your question, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I quoted your statement relative to the

Agricultural Credit Act, 1979, that the rebate would be the difference

between 9 percent and the average cross-section. My question is: will

you tell the House approximately what that percentage rebate will be

for 1979?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, the rate for 1979, which is paid in

1980, is the difference between the average rate established — based on

the applications coming in and the average bank lending rate — and 9

percent. That is the amount to be reimbursed. I cannot respond to the

member approximately because the figures haven't been calculated as

yet, but I can assure you that the cost to this government in regard to

that interest reimbursement program for 1979 will well exceed our

budget, but we made that commitment last April and we're sticking to it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in a statement the Minister of

Agriculture said that the effective rate for 1980 will be 2 percent

less than prime. The chartered bank prime business rate reached 15

percent in October 1979 and, of course, is going even higher. Is the

minister aware that farmers' interest costs will jump by one-half from

approximately 9 percent to a minimum of 13 percent, and that an

increase of such proportions will have a disastrous effect upon the

agricultural industry?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question really suggests its own answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am aware of the fact that this is

going to have an impact on the farm community. I'm also aware of the

fact that this government has gone on record in expressing concern with

the federal government regarding the ever-escalating interest rates. It

is a federal matter, but I will assure the member that the cost to this

government for 1980 at 2 percent below prime is a better reduction to

the plan that was put in place in 1974, because it will be at least a 3

percent gap, approximately, and if you look at the plan when it was in

place in '74 and '75, your margins were about 1 to 1.5 percent

difference. So I say we're doing a pretty good job, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated he realizes that

this will have a detrimental effect on the agricultural industry. I

would ask how he expects to expand agriculture, as he has indicated is

his government's intention — by undermining agricultural credit? —

regardless of what he says about former amounts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again for the member's

edification — the amount of money that we will spend is well in excess

of figures in previous years.

MRS. WALLACE: So is the interest rate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Madam Member, so is the interest rate.

But you will also recognize there are other sectors of our economy in

this province that don't have that relief. That is why we phase the

program in from the 9 percent figure, because we can be severely

criticized in the agricultural industry if that margin gets too far

—between 15 percent and 9 percent somebody is going to question: "How

come the farming community is not accepting some of the increase in

costs like the other sectors of our economy?" We must be realistic in

that program, and I think I've got the support of the farm community in

recognizing that.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Apparently the Premier doesn't think that applies to the construction industry.

However, I have one final question. In view of all this, has the

minister also decided to apply a similar massive increase to the

interest rate for agricultural land development projects under the ALDA

program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That matter hasn't been addressed as yet,

Mr. Speaker. The ALDA program at the present time is at a 4 percent

interest rate, but it is a small loan and it helps develop the

agricultural land. If it was adjusted it would still be a very good

program.

The other point I'd like to make is that there is no comparison

between the $200 million construction program that created jobs, that

provided housing, that assisted our forest industry, and the interest

reimbursement program.

COMO LAKE PRIVATE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister

of Health, in a statement after question period, indicated that Como

Lake Private Hospital — the hospital in question a few days earlier —

had been quite exonerated. The former very proud Minister of Health,

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

McClelland) is, I know, far more responsible for situations like this.

[ Page 1511 ]

However, checking with my sources last evening, I found 23 major complaints.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who were they?

MR. COCKE: I'm not telling you who my source is. But I will tell you this....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

MR. COCKE: I was very quiet yesterday when the minister was

making his statement, yet I found 23 major criticisms. I am asking

whether the minister, since that hospital has been inspected so

recently, has taken any remedial action with respect to that hospital.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes.

RENT CONTROLS

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

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have chosen just two examples out

of dozens and dozens of examples in the West End of Vancouver, where

one tenant was paying $277 per month until March 1, 1980, at which time

his rent will be increased by $203 to $480. Another tenant was paying

$300 per month until March 1, 1980, at which time his rent will be

increased to $480.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. BARNES: Both these tenants have no practical recourse to

rent control legislation, Mr. Speaker, and in spite of the latest

efforts by the staff of the rentalsman's office, rent control does not

exist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that when I try to put

some perspective on my question, the members opposite ask me to get to

the question. I intend to and I hope they will answer it.

The lack of housing and high rents have created an emergency

situation. Has the government decided to reinstitute rent controls? The

question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does his

government intend to reinstitute rent controls?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order as it talks about future policy of the government. Next question, please.

MR. BARNES: There is no such thing as rent controls right now.

MR. LAUK: If Mr. Speaker had listened to the question, he wouldn't be overruling it.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member for Vancouver Centre demonstrating contempt of this House? If he is, he knows very well the remedies.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Before we recognize the next questioner, I read for you the

recommendations by which the question period of this House is governed.

"Your committee further recommends that the following provisions be

applied to the oral question period: only questions considered by Mr.

Speaker to be urgent and important shall be permitted, and his decision

shall be final." The report is signed by G.V. Lauk, chairman. [

Laughter. ]

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first member for

Vancouver Centre questioned your decision, Mr. Speaker, because the

question was put: "Has the government decided to institute...?" It

didn't ask about future policy. It asked whether the government had

made a decision. So I think the member wondered whether you had heard

the question correctly. It was a perfectly legitimate point.

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has the government instituted new...." then the question is in order.

MR. LAUK: Point of order. The question, as I heard it, was

quite clearly: "Has the government decided to reinstitute rent

controls?" That question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not have the record in front of me;

therefore I have to accept the words of the hon. member. I will allow

the question. Would the hon. member repeat the question?

MR. BARNES: Lack of housing and high rents have created an emergency situation. Has the government decided to reinstitute rent controls?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, rent controls are still in effect.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, from visits to other honourable

assemblies such as this one that traditionally have a question period,

I have found all of them allow a

preamble sufficient to focus the

attention of the minister to whom the question is asked on the gravamen

of the question itself — what it means. It is clear that in the past

few days several Crown ministers have been interrupting the questioner,

disenabling the question to be put across so that it would be

understood, disenabling the minister to hear the question, and they

have had to ask for repetitions. I would ask that all hon. members, if

they respect that procedure in this House, remain silent while

questions are being asked.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to give an answer to a question raised by one of the hon. members opposite.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1512 ]

SURGERY CANCELLATIONS

IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. MAIR: On March 5 last, the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked a question with regard to surgery

cancellations at Victoria General and Royal Jubilee hospitals. Due to

the serious nature of this matter I took this question as notice and

promised at the time to come back to the House with a full statement on

this situation. The member expressed concern over the large number of

surgery cancellations at the two Victoria hospitals and the lengthy

waiting list for elective surgery, and asked what action I would be

taking to alleviate this situation for the period between now and such

time as the new Helmcken Road hospital is operational. The member gave

the length of the waiting list as 2,000 at the present time, and the

number of cancellations this year as 253.

I have not determined how bad or good these figures are in relation

to other metropolitan centres of similar size. However, every single

incident of cancelled elective surgery does indeed cause a great deal

of anxiety for the individuals concerned. I am extremely sensitive to

this situation. I want the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that this

government is taking real and positive steps to reduce surgical waiting

lists and the cancellation of elective surgery in Victoria's two major

acute-care hospitals.

I might point out that the number of beds available on any

particular day depends on a number of factors, including the number of

patients discharged, the number of emergency admissions, and the

condition of patients scheduled for surgery. These variables make it

very difficult to avoid some cancellations, and make it very difficult

indeed to predict bed availability. Health ministry staff are working

with the two hospitals in an attempt to ensure the most effective

utilization of existing beds.

However, Mr. Speaker, the primary cause of the problem is the number

of extended- and intermediate-care patients presently occupying

acute-care beds in these two facilities. While the number of these

patients in the hospitals varies from month to month, at present there

are approximately 200 long-term care patients occupying acute-care beds

in these two hospitals. I'm advised that approximately 63 percent of

the acute-care beds in these two facilities may be occupied at any

given time by emergency and urgent surgery cases. The extent to which

long-term care patients occupy the remaining 37 percent of the beds

greatly influences, of course, the availability of elective surgery in

this city.

Ministry staff are working hard to expand our Long-Term Care Program

at an accelerated rate to alleviate this situation. However, it appears

in some respects that the Health ministry's Long-Term Care Program has

done too good a job in generating clients for its services. The success

of the program, which, after all, does deal with people with health

problems, has raised the difficulties to which the hon. member has

referred. Despite rapid expansion of the Long-Term Care Program over

the last two years, the two major Victoria hospitals still have

long-term care patients that are awaiting beds in more appropriate

facilities.

Over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, home support services

available to eligible Victorians have increased substantially. These

programs, which include homemaker services, home-care services and

adult day-care service programs, are important in reducing the need for

institutional care.

Extended-care and intermediate-care programs were expanded by over

400 beds in 1978 and 1979, and at least 450 new beds will come on

stream in 1980. It is interesting to note that the number of surgical

cancellations at the two hospitals in 1979 dropped by some 30 percent

over 1978. It is believed that the 295 new extended- and

intermediate-care beds introduced in 1979 caused this, and that the 450

new beds coming on stream this year will have a similar favourable

impact.

To further expedite the transfer of long-term patients from

acute-care hospitals, I have asked the Juan De Fuca Hospital Society to

consider reopening the House of Peace building on the Priory site in

Colwood. I am pleased to say that I have received their full

cooperation and support. This unit, which will provide approximately 40

additional extended-care beds, will be ready for occupancy in the very

near future. I'm hopeful it will be as soon as May. While work is

underway for the early opening of the House of Peace, planning

continues for the construction of the new extended-care beds already

mentioned.

I am granting, Mr. Speaker, subject to the concurrence of the

Capital Regional District Hospital and Health Planning Commission,

approval in principle to the Juan De Fuca Hospital Society to plan for

another 75 extended-care beds, and for the Saanich Peninsula Hospital

to add a 25-bed extended unit to their present facility. In addition,

consideration is being given to another 430 intermediate-care beds in

this area.

These measures, Mr. Speaker, combined with modifications in the

processing of applications and admission procedures, should have the

dual effect of ensuring that long-term care patients receive

appropriate programs and facilities, and making more acute-care

hospital beds available to individuals requiring elective surgery at

one of these two Victoria hospitals.

Of course, the new Helmcken Road hospital is due for completion in

1983, and I have instructed my staff to constantly monitor population

data, paying particular attention to older-age groupings to ensure that

this situation does not repeat itself. I hope that the review of

long-term care facilities, which I mentioned in the House yesterday,

will address the need for more precise forecasts of long-term care

requirements.

I have indicated in the past that our Long-Term Care Program has had

two effects: it brought out more clients than we had anticipated, and

it attracted many candidates from elsewhere to this wonderful program.

With the cooperation of all involved — which for the most part, I might

say, has been magnificent — and the new beds authorized and being

built, these serious problems raised by my friend opposite will soon be

eliminated.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to draw the minister's attention through you to standing order 47(3). I

appreciate the minister bringing the information to the House, but

47(3) deals with such information.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling as to the tabling of

documents used during debates or ministerial statements, and the

response to statements that may be violating 47(3).

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, had I had notice of that question prior to it being asked, that is

[ Page 1513 ]

the length of the answer that I would have given

spontaneously in the House at that time. It seemed to me appropriate to

give that answer — if I had so wished — in question period today; but I

chose to extend the courtesy to the members opposite of giving it after

question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a ruling on the

minister's courtesy or lack of it. That's for the public to judge. I'm

asking you to interpret the rules of the House as they stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Standing order 47(3) suggests

that if a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the

minister who is to furnish the reply....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to answer a question which was put to me by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)?

Leave granted.

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The question arose with respect to video

display terminals and cathode-ray tubes. The Workers' Compensation

Board is not considering dropping from our industrial health and safety

regulations those regulations dealing with ionizing or non-ionizing

radiation.

Section 13.63 of the WCB industrial health and safety

regulations covers this issue, and we have no intention of changing

that regulation.

The proposed amendment to

schedule B of the act — to which, Mr.

Speaker, the member might have been referring, although I am not sure —

is to clarify the injuries which arise from ionizing radiation and

separate them from the injuries caused by non-ionizing radiation. Both

kinds of injuries continue to be covered for compensation purposes when

they arise out of, or in the course of, employment.

If the WCB does receive a complaint about CRTs or VDTs, we send out

an industrial hygiene officer to conduct the necessary tests and, if

necessary, write orders. We have had no experience with the Teleram

unit, but would investigate a complaint against it, as we would any

other CRT unit or any other piece of industrial equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I have some other matters of technical data, which I

don't think it would be appropriate to raise in the House at this time.

If the member would like a copy of the response, I'd be quite prepared

to send it to him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

think that the House should be very clear that the order to which the

Leader of the Opposition referred really doesn't have anything to do

with the asking of questions in oral question period, but rather the

placing of questions on the order paper and how they shall be handled

from that point.

I think that the House should also know that the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Mair) and others have, out of courtesy to this House, not

answered questions during question period, which would have required

some extra time. I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, having heard the point

made by the Leader of the Opposition, that the opposition doesn't wish

us to carry on that practice, and that we should answer all questions

during question period, regardless of when they've been asked.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that a careful reference to the standing

order, which the Chair attempted to do, clarified that matter and the

House appeared to be satisfied. However, there was another question

regarding the tabling of documents, and I might just refer to page 421

of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "A minister who

summarizes a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is

not bound to lay it upon the table." However, it is inherent in this

particular statement that those matters of correspondence, or those

documents which are read from in their entirety.... I think that it is

acceptable practice in this House for those to be tabled. I would ask

all hon. members to just review page 421 of the eighteenth edition and

take it for their guidance.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday a number of items were mentioned

with respect to the motion put forth by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. One of the points raised in that particular motion is

references made to "embracing manufacturing and secondary industry, and

to mobilize our human and natural resources." Now if there has ever

been any better evidence of whether or not a government is mobilizing

its forces.... The budget certainly indicates the amount of money which

is being put into the private sector. Yesterday I made reference to a

trade journal and I referred to four separate quotes. In

summary each

one of them felt encouraged by the prospects for the province in the

coming year — the strength of the economy, the amount of money which

was available in construction, industry and resources, including mining

and forestry. I think one thing we have to keep in mind at all times is

that the amount of money which is being spent is primarily labour

intensified, hon. member. Most of it is. In the construction industry

and in the forest industry it has great expectations.

You know normal research for the members opposite — they're constantly referring to the press. In the Vancouver Sun

on February 23 it said: "There are 2,300 new mining jobs seen in the

next few years. " I can tell you that wasn't the case some years ago.

One of the concerns I had with respect to the motion made by the

member opposite is that they constantly look for deficits. The member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) told the House when he analyzed the budget

in 1976: "No deficit." The same thing applied to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi): "No deficit." But it seems to me

the opposition's view of deficit financing is most unusual. They

believe their job while in government is to provide the deficit; when

we're in government we provide the financing. We do have a surplus, and

that surplus is being used. It's being sent back into the private

sector.

The interesting thing about it all is that the budget refers

constantly to construction, hospitals and schools. The question then

comes up: why do we have that surplus? The engine in the private sector

was given some fuel, jobs were created, expansion occurred and profits

were made. All of this provided revenue.

[ Page 1514 ]

Tourism is substantially up. Any tour of the interior or northern

part of the province will find that motels and hotels are all jammed

and the restaurants are busy.

Mineral exploration is once again an industry in our province.

Surely if it's an industry, we're providing jobs, and if we're

providing jobs we're capitalizing on the human resources which are

available.

I remember that last year the hon. Leader of the Opposition said:

"As socialists we will be hard-nosed capitalists in business ventures."

Hard-nosed capitalists — some nose! He drove the industry out of the

province. Today it's back in and we're capitalizing on human resources.

Last year he made reference as well to the fact that he was prepared to

make a separate deal with any company wishing to conduct explorations

and set up a full-scale mining company. He said that last year.

Reference was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to

coal leases — that there was no uncertainty as far as the majors were

concerned in exploration and development. But I'll tell you it was

done, and it was all done above board. We didn't say, as he did: "We're

prepared to make a separate deal with any company wishing to conduct

explorations and set up a full-scale mining company." I remember. I

heard him say it.

Are we capitalizing on human resources in the forest industry?

Certainly we are. Through a spirit of cooperation and encouragement we

have record revenues and expenditures — substantially increased

revenues to the provincial treasury without buying the industry. I like

that — without buying the industry. A well-known leader of the members

opposite said: "I've realized that it is possible to plan an economy

without owning it." I think I'll remember that for a long time,

particularly when it was made by Tommy Douglas.

Before we can deliver those products and capitalize on human

resources, industrial development must be in place. When industrial

development is in place, not only do we capitalize on human resources

in providing employment, but it generates revenue which provides the

equal distribution of wealth to cover our social obligations.

The best example of that is hospitals and highways. A social

conscience is not the private preserve of the members opposite. A

surplus comes about for many reasons. It does not result from a policy

based on experimentation and political theorizing. It comes about by

being based on sound principles, not like the members opposite who, in

their planned economy, included everything in the plans except the

economy.

For the past few weeks we have listened to a wide variety of

subjects being discussed in both the budget debate and in the debate on

the amendment as put forth by the Leader of the Opposition. I can't

subscribe to that motion for one moment. I can't, because it says that

we are not embracing or mobilizing our human and natural resources. The

fact is, we are.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite — the socialists — do have a

chance to form a government; it's just one of the risks that democracy

has to take.

I speak against the motion. The budget is strong. It reflects the

confidence our people have in the economy and the government they have

elected.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment, which deals

with three areas of concern — unemployment, inflation and interest rates

— it is my opinion, notwithstanding the contribution just made by the Minister

of Labour, who had a number of interesting things to say, that the government's

action or lack of action, depending on which issue you are talking about, has

in large measure contributed to the problem that the amendment complains about.

It should come as no surprise to anyone listening to my words

representing the party on this side of the House that they go to the

differences in philosophy between the government and the opposition,

because the government's philosophy in these hard times is typified by

the three problems that the amendment addresses. The problems are

exacerbated and made worse because the government itself cannot imagine

or visualize the government as a basic economic tool in the province.

It just can't imagine that the government itself can be part and parcel

of the leadership, the guidance, the determination or the direction of

the economic machinery of this province. Instead, in dealing, for

instance, with bills before us that I can only touch on lightly going

past, it deals with one-time political side-show expenditures of money.

Obviously the expenditure of that money is going to do some good.

Nobody is denying that for one second. But in terms of the government

taking a place in the economic strategy of this province, it doesn't

meet the problem. A one-shot political side-show, in itself, is not

planning, not stimulating, and not leading. It's only a continuation of

the kind of half-baked interference in the private sector that they

represent, which typified the government from 1952 to 1972; the

interference that saw the expropriation of B.C. Electric and saw the

government take over the ferry system; the interference with the

private sector for the wrong reasons — not to take over, direct, lead

us, or stimulate us, but as a continuation of the one-shot political

side-show economic measures of those piggy bank funds that you are now

repeating all over again in Bills 6 and 9, or whatever numbers they

are. It is the way the Social Credit Party has behaved in the province

answering the private sector since the days of those takeovers that I

referred to.

When the major spokesperson on finance for our side took his place to reply to the Minister of Finance the other day, he said:

"Nothing in this budget will help to solve the three

main problems facing us today: record unemployment, high interest

rates, and increases in the cost of living.... This budget doesn't make

it any easier for the average British Columbian to buy groceries. It

does not make it any easier for him to meet his mortgage payments, to

buy a home. It doesn't make it any easier for him to find a job."

It is because of the truth of that statement that we have put

forward an amendment dealing with those three specific issues. The

major spotlighted expenditures of the government are showpieces: B.C.

Place, the Annacis Bridge project for Surrey and Burnaby, the

convention centres, and the port development at Prince Rupert. But as a

start, as an economic document that commenced the eighth decade of this

century, it isn't going to fulfil its destiny.

It is not, in my view, going to do anything at all to address those

three problems. I can't think of any way in which to spend half a

billion dollars that would be less relevant in meeting the serious

flaws in our economy. After all, those schemes, no matter how grand

they may be, no matter how much we may support each and every one of

them, won't address the problems of inflation, unemployment and

skyrocketing interest rates. If it isn't going to fill our pocket-

[ Page 1515 ]

books, will the budget

make those few dollars last a little longer? The answer to that is no.

There is no indication that the government is preparing to move ahead

with the kinds of long-term employment encouragement schemes that are

necessary to get British Columbia work.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who just took his place,

will, with me, look in vain for those proposals specifically designed

to meet today's problems. If we take the tack taken by the Minister of

Labour, the member for Prince George North.... He, in effect, said:

"What do you think the money in the budget is going to do if it's not

going to put people to work?" In short, the minister, who should be the

one who is complaining on that side more than anybody else, says: "If

you throw enough money at the problem, it will go away." The problems

will not go away just by throwing money at them.

The money he is telling us to adulate, the money he is recording in

his speech of yesterday and today, only goes to fuel the system that

we've got going now. That money, the $5.8 billion in the estimates,

will only go to fuel the system already in operation, a system that is

obviously in trouble.

While I think of it — and if I may have the attention of the Labour

minister, who is talking to his predecessor — I attended a conference

last week that dealt, in part, with the subject of apprenticeship

training. That is dealing with our young people, dealing with manpower

development in this province. Here's a statistic the minister may be

interested in. In 1975, when we left office, there were 13,139

apprentices in the program. Five years later, five years after your

government went into in operation, there are 13,799. That is some

progress, Mr. Minister. That is after going to a high the year after we

left office — remember it is a three-year program — of over 14,500.

You're not doing very well. You're not doing very well in equipping our

young people to meet the problems of unemployment.

Five years of that Social Credit planning, and what have we got?

We're standing still. Everyone will tell you that things are in a mess:

the Building and Construction Trades Council, the industrial unions. I

see in the galleries today representatives of the industrial unions.

The industrial unions will tell you that the apprenticeship program is

in a mess. They all say the same thing. The bureaucracy, led by

incompetent ministers in the past, has stifled....

MR. BRUMMET: Name them.

MR. HALL: I'll name them. Just wait your turn, Mr. Member for North Peace River.

The bureaucracy has stifled the changes foreseen in 1974, and the

investigation, the inventory and the statistics that were gleaned, the

task forces sent into operation in 1974.... Because of the member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey — the Minister of Labour and the Minister of

Education at the time — the whole system is in a mess.

The one thing I congratulate you about, and the one thing I

congratulate the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) about,

is that we've got two new ministers, perhaps not befuddled like their

predecessors, perhaps not quite overweened with ambition, moving around

the House from one side to the other as they were.... You've got an

opportunity, the two of you, sitting next to each other, to sort out

that apprenticeship program and deal with it in a satisfactory way, to

make sure that our young people are going to the job, going for

training, either in a position to receive the training or to have

training from the vocational institute — for an interview or from the

apprenticeship point of view.

Serious doubts exist now over the various roles played by the

Ministry of Education and by the Ministry of Labour in this important

program. For years, Mr. Minister — and I'm glad to have your

attention — Canada has been able to "wing it" by relying on a continuous

supply of trained people, skilled people, coming to Canada from Europe

for high wages and a better way of life, for more freedom — freedom of

movement, freedom of adventure — for all the reasons that many of our

ancestors came here and I personally came here.

Mr. Speaker, in Europe the reverse is true. The European economic

system is being supported by immigrants for low wages, for unskilled

jobs, completely the reverse of our traditional pattern here in North

America. In the last few years the economic systems on either side of

the Atlantic are drawing closer together. It's not quite so attractive

now for a technically skilled tradesperson in Europe to come to North

America. The differential in wage rates is not so wide and so

noticeable; the inducements are not so splendid. Add to this the other

factors of disincentive — the unemployment situation in North America,

federal policy on immigration, and disincentives that you and I could

discuss in another debate. The fact of the matter is that when you add

all those factors together, we're heading for a crunch, a crisis in

skills. There's no doubt about it.

Yet your figures alone show no progress in five years. What are we

doing about that? What are we going to tell the school-leaving class in

Surrey? What am I going to tell those students at Queen Elizabeth High

School and Princess Margaret High School in White Rock — that they're

going to be two and three years on the unemployment rolls? "Go and work

at Kentucky Fried Chicken." "Try and get a job on the ferry." No, we've

got to do better than that.

There's not even an increase in budgetary terms to cover the cost of

inflation; there's not even an increase in the estimates for this

program that will meet the diminishing value of the dollar.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) quite correctly corrected

one of our speakers when he said that you have to add to the estimates

a $4.5 million special appropriation for manpower development, for

opportunities. He was quite correct to point that out. I should point

out, however, that it was $5 million last year. It's only $4.5 million

this year; that's going the wrong way. You were half a million dollars

out from your predecessor. You lost half a million dollars because

there's no muscle there — half a million dollars before Treasury Board.

That's not very good. Anyway, we'll give you a passing grade just for

the moment until about five past three.

If we add up the minister's own figures of $21.5 million in his

estimates and $4.5 million for special appropriation, we come to $26

million. That figure has got to be compared to our 1975 figure — you

guys want to talk about '75 all the time; I don't know why —of $20

million for the employment program alone. That was special

appropriation, not taking into account the general manpower training

vote in the estimates.

What are you going to do about that, Mr. Member for Prince George?

You've got to use your muscle. You've got to talk to your neighbour

from Oak Bay. You've got to do

[ Page 1516 ]

something about training, about manpower, about the mismatching of

skills, about bringing our young people to the workplace and having

them equipped and trained and ready to learn — not to swell the

unemployment rolls, as I say. That's what's happening south of the

river in Richmond and Delta, in Surrey and White Rock. More important,

those two new members should be tearing strips off the member for South

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because he's really the villain of the

piece. He's the guy who wants to fight 1975 all over again. He's always

getting up and waving his arms and making his 1975 speech. I've got his

'78 report — that was after you'd been in power all that length of

time. You said in your press releases that you'd turned the corner,

you'd cleaned up the mess, you'd put to the sword everything that was

slightly pink. Everything with my name on it or with anybody else's

name on it had all been washed out.

What did they say in the 1978 report on economic development?

Economic Development was the one ministry of government above all that

should have been doing something. In the report tabled in the

Legislature covering the '78 calendar year, the minister was unable to

point to one significant accomplishment in his ministry. The minister

should be thankful he doesn't operate on commission, like salesmen in

the private sector.

"The department was directly responsible" — so the

report claimed — "for an increase of $45 million to $50 million in

manufacturing exports, an amount equivalent to the creation of almost

1,500 jobs in the province's manufacturing sector."

The clever wording will be noted:

"...equivalent to creating almost 1,500 jobs."

"The Economic Development department itself had a budget of more than $29

million, in which $9 million was spent on administration. The remaining $20

million from federal as well as provincial sources were awarded in the forms

of grants and loans."

Apart from all the words that the minister used in presenting his report and

making his speeches from 1975 to 1980, the bottom line is that for an expenditure

of almost $30 million we produced only $15 million in direct new investment.

Really, that's not a record I would want to write home about. I think that that's

not the kind of performance for which the member for South Peace River should

be marked A. That's a pathetic performance.

This year he's going to have $59 million to fritter away. And as I

can discern it, he has no programs. Indeed, one of the main programs he

has is a fifty-fifty deal with the federal government; I don't know how

much credit he's taking for that. But in the nine-month statement, in

trying to solve the problems of unemployment, I notice that of a $21.5

million program he'd not spent half. So you make your speech, saying:

"We're going to spend a lot of money." Then you look at the estimates,

and you don't spend the money. You're really trying to get it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, let me return to my theme on the amendment and why I'm

supporting this direct criticism of the government. It's because they

won't learn from their mistakes. They continue to withdraw vast amounts

of money from the consumer spending stream. They started that way and

they'll finish — and I predict they will be finished — that way. In 1976,

the year to meet all the doom and gloom, the year setting the tone and

the pace for this government, the following comments were made by Simon

Fraser University professor of economics Dr. J. McCallum:

"The Social Credit government ignored the

recommendations of their own economic policy advisers. In their first

budget they withdrew over $462 million from the consumer spending

stream by raising taxes, raising income tax, raising cigarette and

tobacco tax, increasing medical premiums and hospital rates, increasing

ICBC rates, increasing bus fares and increasing ferry rates."

The source is the B.C. Ministry of Finance budget in April 1976.

There was $462 million withdrawn from the spending stream of this

province. And then, I should add, a year afterwards they boasted about

surpluses.

"The results of that deliberate policy of overtaxation

were disastrous, for both the rates of inflation and the rate of

unemployment increased."

In commenting on those tax increases, your own governmental research

director for the Ministry of Finance stated that the Premier and the

Minister of Finance "either don't know what they're doing or they don't

care." He's gone. Not surprisingly, he bit the dust very soon after

that. "It's been estimated by independent economists that this

deliberate policy of overtaxation" — which is still to be found in the

budget that we're debating today and why this amendment is before us —

"has added 7,000 people to the unemployment rolls, increased the rate

of inflation by one full percentage point and decreased economic output

by $480 per family of four."

That's what you did in 1976, and you still keep making the same

mistake. That's why we object to this big government increasing its

expenditures faster than ever we did. How we were pilloried! How we

were taken to task! An increase of a billion dollars in one year.

You've increased staff to a figure never before seen, the largest

figure ever. Big government. And we're not taking into consideration

all the things that you've hived off into Crown corporations and

quasi-public bodies hither and yon; how you've sold off, got rid of or

transferred them to some other jurisdiction. So even comparing the

apple on one side and the apple on the other, it's the biggest

government we've ever seen in this province.

With all the things you've done in withdrawing that consumer

spending power, at the same time you've not tackled the question of

inflation, unemployment and spiralling interest rates. One of the

reasons you don't do anything — I wish the Minister of Finance were

here and I could speak to him through you, Mr. Speaker — is that the

opportunities to do something don't appear every day. They only come

along every now and again. It's not something you can do every day. You

have to have a plan, a strategy, and when you see the opportunity

you've got to move. We're proud of what we did between '72 and '75 in

moving into the economy in a very real way. You should be proud too;

otherwise you can't possibly applaud when you mention the word BCRIC.

If we hadn't done what we did between '72 and '75, you would be

applause-less whenever the Premier stood up and talked about BCRIC,

which gets him so animated.

The reason you don't do anything is that you don't grasp the

opportunity when it comes along. If we're to talk about unemployment

and inflation, we've got to increase our control, our direction and our

impact on the economy. Indeed, we would argue that we have to do that

if we're to have any future at all. This morning's interest rate

announcement alone would indicate the severity and the need for

large-scale intervention by governments into the economic field.

So what's happening, and what are we doing about it?

[ Page 1517 ]

Most major decisions, Mr. Speaker, regarding the B.C. economy are

made in New York, San Francisco and Toronto. The degree of external

control is increasing dramatically. Fifty-one percent of our mining,

petroleum and gas industry and 60 percent of our manufacturing is in

foreign hands. External control is not in B.C.'s best interest. Ask

anybody on the other side to stand up and argue with that, deny that,

or tell me I'm wrong when I say that that control is not in B.C.'s best

interest. For example, external control can reduce job opportunities

because of the tendency of externally controlled firms to process B.C.

resources outside B.C. We've seen that. There was the instantaneous

investigation into the fishing industry. Remember that one? It took two

seconds, even faster than Leslie Peterson's investigation into Socred

finances.

Mr. Speaker, the manufactured goods from externally located parent

companies — that's the control the offshore controllers exert on B.C.

This government should be committed, this Legislature should be

committed, to regaining control over key sectors of the B.C. economy

and placing greater decision-making power in the hands of the average

B.C. resident. That's what we should be doing. In mining, which

includes petroleum and natural gas, 51 percent is controlled outside

our borders; manufacturing is 60 percent. Takeovers! We're losing

control, not gaining it. For all the brave words of the Premier

extolling the tremendous inflow of capital into BCRIC, all those brave

words about economic self-determination, the fact of the matter is that

takeovers are increasing, from 11 in 1976 to 39 in 1978. The priority

of this province's economic strategy should be to safeguard B.C.'s

environment and reduce occupational health hazards and accidents as

well. We don't hear that. We don't see any of that from the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

The B.C. economy is developed by exporting resources such as timber

and minerals to outside markets. Ideally the earnings from the sale of

those resources should be reinvested back into the B.C. economy to

strengthen the management of the province's resources and to build up a

strong and diversified economic base. The evidence, however, suggests

that B.C. has not been particularly successful in doing this. The

management of resources remains pitifully inadequate, although I will

agree there's been an improvement in this budget. It's the one thing I

liked about the budget. There's now been some determination by the

minister who sits way over in the far corner there, at first blush, to

do something about maintaining our resources and looking after them.

We'll have more to say about that later. But the fact of the matter is

that the B.C. economy is almost as specialized today as it was 20 years

ago. That's one of the things that we could do something about and

that's why the minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is

such a failure. That's why we continue to be at the mercy of everybody

else — at the mercy of the east, the south, anywhere outside these

borders. That's why BCRIC is letting that government down. Not one job

created yet — just a holding company. The jury's out still, I agree.

The fact of the matter is that the money released by the purchase of

the CPI holdings in M&B is now loose. It's loose money. It can go

off anywhere. It could be leaving a gross deficit in the money

available to help Canadian control of Canada. That's why we issued the

statement we did. It would have been far better for us, in terms of

remedying the economic troubles of this province, to purchase the

shares in that company that are held offshore instead of just

transferring one Canadian dollar for another Canadian dollar and

letting the dollars that have gone to CPI perhaps go loose out of the

economy. I hope they don't. I've got some faith, perhaps, in Big Julie

that they won't, but who knows? They could go anywhere. By our actions,

or the actions of the corporation, that's what's happened. That's why,

Mr. Speaker, in 1979, in an election fought very often on a comparison

of performance, and indeed dealing with the three subjects that are the

essential elements of this amendment, the people of British Columbia

came back. They came back to realize that the economic mumbo-jumbo of

the Premier and his Minister of Finance didn't hold water. I want to

say quite succinctly in straightforward, tangible terms that that's one

of the reasons I'm back.

They want to talk about '75. I like to talk about '79. There are

some obvious reasons for that. The one reason I'm back is because in

that debate in 1979, not quite a year ago, there was a comparison of

performance about inflation, about dealing with prices, about job

production, about the control of the economy. Mr. Speaker, I'm back and

the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is back. The second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is here. The member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) is here. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in spite of your best

efforts....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He's not here.

MR. HALL: He's here. Don't you believe it. Every time there's

a vote Mr. Member, my friend, my seat-mate, my running-mate, the first

member for Surrey, every time there's a vote he'll be here. The member

for Skeena is here, despite your best efforts, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to those government benches over there, that partisan

government, in terms of things it should not have touched. The two

members from Burrard....

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I say you're partisan in things that you should not

have touched. I'll develop that for you because you didn't understand

it. I'm suggesting that in spite of your best nakedly political efforts

in gerrymandering the political map of this province, the members from

Burrard came back here, representing different seats. That's what I'm

telling you. Just as you got rid of the fellow who was here last time,

we managed to get back under our own steam as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it would assist us

if you would address the Chair. And hon. members, let us not interrupt

the member who is speaking.

MR. HALL: I thought I was doing very well till now. Mr.

Speaker, the two members who represented Vancouver-Burrard from 1975 to

1979 were returned, representing different seats, as indeed was the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). That was a comparison of

performance. That was where the public looked at the differences

between us. That's where the test was in 1979. There'll be another

test, hopefully as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is because the public made those kinds of judgments,

and because they were aware of the facts we presented during the

election campaign of 1979.... Now I would like to bring them up to

date. I'd like to present some

[ Page 1518 ]

more of those facts that deal with the question of inflation, of

unemployment, and how this government is grappling with the economic

indices of the province.

Let's start off, Mr. Speaker, in terms of real economic growth. The

average rate of growth in the gross provincial product in the years

that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) loves to talk

about, 1972-75, was 5.6 percent. The average rate of growth of the

gross provincial product under the government sitting opposite, from

1975 to 1978, was 4.6 percent — and the source for that information is

the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development itself.

Turning now to the Conference Board in Canada, and asking them to give me the

figures for 1979, we find the real economic growth of this province — that

is, the annual rate of growth of the gross provincial product — was 3.3 percent.

If we now take the years 1975-79 inclusive, the Social Credit performance is

4.3 percent, a full 1.3 percent less than the figures achieved during 1972-75.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board in Canada forecast that

in 1980 the real economic growth in this province will be 2.6 percent.

That's because you believe you can solve the problem by just throwing

money at it. I come to that one obvious dilemma that you have with a

$5.8 billion budget and no plans. You think just by spending it the

problems will go away.

The second fact, Mr. Speaker: investments. The rate of investment

under the New Democratic Party government for 1972-75, those years that

the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) loves to talk about, was

31 percent. The rate of investment in the first three years of your

government was 30 percent. What do we find out now? The Employers'

Council of B.C. Business Trends Survey , December 1979: 39 percent of

the companies contacted are operating below capacity. That fact alone,

together with the performance of the Canadian banks, is probably the

most disgusting scandal in this province since Confederation. Cash is

on strike, capital is on strike in this country, and our economic

capacity is not being utilized.

I remember a member for the Social Credit Party sitting over there,

Mr. Speaker — I think it was before your time — the member for

Vancouver Centre, a well known bon vivant, Mr. Capozzi. He joined us in

applauding when we said that the greatest scandal in Canada and B.C.

was the behaviour of the chartered banks. I well remember that speech.

It was probably the only time I ever applauded him, but he was right.

What else does the Employers' Council of B.C. tell us? Of those

contacted, 64 percent expected to spend the same or less on new

construction; 53 percent expected to spend the same or less on new

machinery and equipment; only 23 percent in the primary sector expected

to spend more. That's some performance in terms of investment. On top

of that, bankruptcies to September 1979 were 545, compared to 525 for

the whole of 1978.

The inflation rate. There's been some improvement in that, vis-a-vis the inflation

rate for Canada as a whole. The inflation rate in this province, this piece

of geography that we're here as a Legislature to look after, is 7.6 percent.

In the last 12 months the price increases in Vancouver in food have been 10.6

percent; in rental accommodation, 4.2 percent, and they're going out of sight;

clothing, 9.9 percent; transportation, 10.6 percent. That's how we are dealing

with inflation.

We're now coming to the main point, Mr. Speaker: the unemployment

rate in this province. The unemployment rate in B.C. rose from 7.1

percent to 9.6 percent from December 1979 to January 1980, 7.3 percent

to 8 percent, seasonally adjusted. The number unemployed in January was

119,000, the highest in provincial history. B.C. was the only province

in which actual unemployment was higher than one year ago. That

increase in the unemployment rolls — and this is why I talked about the

tradespeople, the apprenticeship program, the training that should be

put forward by this government in the Ministries of Education and

Labour — was concentrated among young male workers. Vancouver and

Vancouver Island accounted for all of the deterioration, and

particularly significant was the fall in primary industry employment,

which went from 62,000 down to 56,000.

There has been an improvement in the last month, and I welcome it. I

don't think for one second that the turning over of $8 million in

mortgage money has been the cause of that unemployment, but if the

government wants to take that credit, fine. I don't happen to share it,

but that's fine. That's the debate that can go on.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the monthly bulletin from the B.C. Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), on February 8 he said the actual

unemployment rate was 8.3 percent. That's versus 9.4 percent a year ago

and 9.6 percent in January 1980. We have to look into those figures. I

get a little tired of looking into figures and not realizing what is

represented by those figures. It's pretty good to be an MLA. We're all

nicely fixed, thank you. Mr. Speaker, what this represents is that, for

instance, employment in primary occupations fell from 52,000 to 50,000

in January-February 1980. We know there's no evidence at all that the

government is dealing with secondary and manufacturing industries. As

Tommy Douglas, who was eulogized by the Minister of Labour just a

minute or two ago, said, we can't be drawers of water and hewers of

wood forever.

Employment in primary occupations fell by 20 percent between July

1979 and February 1980. Employment in processing remained static,

employment in construction fell from 87,000 to 73,000, and total

employment figures are down. Layoffs in forestry are three times the

normal level. Plywood, largely geared to the domestic market, had 30

percent laid off at the beginning of February. The IWA estimate that it

will reach 40 percent. In the sawmill sector, Crown Zellerbach laid off

1,000 workers in February. Western Forest Industries laid off 250 at

the same time. Those are the facts, faces, names and kind of people

behind those figures.

Mr. Speaker, I've no difficulty in recognizing that other

governments are involved in solving these problems. I'm not so stupid

as to think that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance can

go out and solve this tomorrow. But we can't detect even the

understanding of their role and we can't even detect that they want to

take hold of the economy and give it some leadership and direction.

I've no difficulty in recognizing that there are no easy solutions. We

can all brag about surpluses and the Statistics Canada lead table. I've

been doing that in here on and off in these debates since 1966. Rates

of spending per capita on education.... We know that. We've seen

the battle of cuttings and the battle of the lead table.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 1519 ]

Where's the plan? Where's the strategy? What are you doing about

manufacturing? What are you doing about secondary industry? What are

you doing about our young people? Bragging about surpluses and lead

tables and refighting the wars of 1975 just won't do. They won't do

when I go back to Surrey and join with my seatmate (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) over there in opening libraries, in talking to school people, in

dealing with overcrowding and all of the various things that he and I

do — and we do it well. What do we say in answer to people who say:

"Will there be a job?" "What are these kids going do?" "What about

unemployment?" "How can I pay the bills this weekend?" What answers are

you going to tell me to give them? Vote Social Credit? Is that it? They

didn't believe you.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's good advice.

MR. HALL: They're not going to believe you, Rafe. Mr. Speaker, thank you, the green light's on.

HON. MR. MAIR: Ernie's seen the light.

MR. HALL: They're not going to believe you because of what I

told you about 1979. You seem to have forgotten. Where's Mr. Kerster?

Where's Mr. Veitch? Where's Loewen? Where's Mr. Bawtree?

HON. MR. MAIR: Where's Bob Williams?

MR. HALL: I presume he's in Port Moody. Is he supposed to be here? If he'd run he'd have beaten any one of you lot, I'll tell you that.

So I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment, and I think they'll screw up their courage and support it themselves.

HON. MR. MAIR: Normally I would say how pleased I am to take

my place in this debate, but I've got to tell you that the debate on

this amendment is a waste of my time, and most importantly, a waste of

this House's time and a waste of the public's time.

MR. LEGGATT: Sit down.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you. I will, right after I take Bob

Williams in Kamloops anytime he wants, my friend. When the budget was

brought in by my friend, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I

was, of course, called by the local press. The question they had to ask

me is how come the opposition Finance critic was so weak and pathetic

in his criticism of this budget. My reply to the press at that time was

that this is a sign that you can read. When the criticism is pitiable —

like his was — what it really does is accent and point out the strength

of the budget. They had so little to criticize that their criticism was

weak and pathetic and not worthy of any consideration.

The same theory holds true for this amendment. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the frailty and the shallowness and the insipidness of

this motion speak volumes in support of the budget itself. The

bankruptcy of substance in this amendment, its total inadequacy, I

submit to you, is eloquent praise, indeed, of the budget brought down

by our Minister of Finance. I have no desire to add to the opposition's

agony by hitting them when they are down.

MR. PASSARELL: Standing in support of this amendment, I would

like to make a comment concerning a report on the late news last night

that a former member of this House criticized the MLAs for swearing. To

set the record straight, I and the vast majority of the MLAs in this

House do not swear when we speak. The statement itself was an insult to

the Speaker, because I do not believe the Speaker would allow that type

of language to continue in the House, and I found it a personal insult

for him to say that MLAs swear when they are speaking.

In supporting this amendment, I would like to deal with four areas

of concern: the unacceptably high unemployment rates in the north,

particularly in the northern native communities; the cutbacks in the

Youth Employment Program by this government; the chronic failure of the

government to deal with the structural unemployment problems of the

economy; and the failure of the government to do anything about

northern food costs.

First the plight of the native people. The government seems to be

turning its back on the native people of this province and the

unemployment problems they face. I would like to read from a document,

which I will table, as presented by Miss Mercy Robinson of the United

Native Nations, Local 108, in Vancouver. It says on the first page:

"It is apparent and quite evident that the native

Indians are a growing reality here in Vancouver, B.C. The existence of

approximately 30,000 native Indians that reside in this area alone is

an astounding fact. The native Indians are faced with an ongoing

problem of unemployment, inadequate education, lack of proper

accommodation....

"They flow from the gazetted areas of the Indian

reserves, where the socio-economic standards are far below the levels

of the urban areas. They come from various other sections of the

province for reasons such as the possible assimilation to a better

standard of living in this abundant and rich society, so they too can

enjoy what the rest of society so readily enjoys. They seek equal

opportunity in its employment aspect."

Mr. Speaker, there was a questionnaire given to the business

community of Vancouver by the U.N.N. They received 594 responses

concerning native people's unemployment in the province. Of those 594

businesses that returned the questionnaires, 147 said they would hire

or train native Indians.

To continue with Miss Robinson's report, "There are no alternatives

for native Indians in the urbanized setting, so the last resort is

social welfare, which robs one of pride and dignity to the extent of

dependency — dependency on financial assistance."

A previous government speaker mentioned the good times ahead for

this province. But a publication from the Department of Labour states:

"The actual unemployment rate in B.C. rose from 7.1

percent to 9.6 percent between December '79 and January '80, with a 7.3

to 8 percent seasonal adjustment. The number of unemployed in January

was 119,000, the highest in provincial history. B.C. was the only

province in which actual unemployment was higher than a year ago. This

decline was concentrated among young and male workers, while Vancouver

and Vancouver Island accounted for all of the

[ Page 1520 ]

net decline. Particularly significant was the fall in primary

industry employment, from 62,000 down to 56,000."

These figures were based on data gathered by the federal government

— figures, Mr. Speaker, that do not include the native people of this

province. It's a shame that when we see figures of 119,000 for

unemployment, they do not include the native people in this province. I

wonder why the provincial government would not be interested in the

employment figures for the native people of this province. If we used

the figure of 119,000 unemployed in this province from the Ministry of

Labour and then added the native people who are also unemployed in this

province, this figure could increase to significantly close to 200,000.

In many northern native communities unemployment is close to 100

percent. I would particularly like to know what steps this government

has taken to help the thousands and thousands of native people who are

unemployed. From this budget it appears that nothing has been done.

The second item I'd like to talk about is the government Youth

Employment Program. The Youth Employment Program under the Ministry of

Labour gets less this year in real terms than it did last year. Just to

keep the program's purchasing power, another $2.28 million would be

required. It wasn't that long ago, only four short years, that the

program had $30 million allocated to it. Over the last four years this

has dwindled to $4 million. Another aspect of the Youth Employment

Program that has been cut back is that every youth who gets help from

the Youth Employment Program is a student. For each week they're on the

program they are required to kick in $50 towards the cost of their

education for the following semester. That amount of money is deducted

from their provincial grant. So the government, in a sense, takes back

with one hand what it gives out with the other.

The outlook for youth employment this summer is even bleaker. Not

reflected in these figures is the fact that the program is now

available all year round to meet the needs of students at Simon Fraser

University who are on a trimester system.

The third aspect of concern is the government's chronic failure to

come to terms with the structural unemployment problems in our economy.

Yesterday one of the speakers for the government urged members to

consider the background material published with the budget. I would

like the members to consider the following, which indicates how

concerned this government is about our economy and the plight of the

119,000 unemployed — excluding the unemployed native people. On page 11

of the budget it says:

"British Columbia now exports a much wider range of

products. Over the past decade increased exports of coal, natural gas

and fish products have decreased British Columbia's traditional

dependence upon exports of forest products, while the expected

weakening of lumber export is certainly worthy of serious concern,

particularly to those directly affected. To a greater extent than ever

before British Columbia's economy is buffered from the aspects of the

United States housing cycle."

I repeat: "...the expected weakening in the lumber export is

certainly worthy of serious concern, particularly to those directly

affected." Imagine those people directly affected who are laid off. I

would have serious concern that these people are wondering what the

government's concern is about their unemployment.

An unemployment rate between 7.3 percent and 8 percent is

unacceptable in this province. According to the Minister of Finance we

may now have projections that this is going to continue until the year

1985. Two years ago the rate of unemployment was between 7.3 percent

and 8 percent. At that time it was unacceptable to the government. They

introduced a $76.1 million job-creation program. It was a program which

did little to bring down that unemployment figure, since it has stayed

at the same range it was at two years ago.

The hon. second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), the then Minister of Finance, said that the government was

going to do something about it. All their surplus was blown on 11

accelerated programs. Now, as a measure of their concern, this

government is committing maybe 10 percent of its surplus to job

creation in the shape of a $100 million highway extravaganza when the

people of this province need decent housing, decent transit and

economic planning for long-term jobs rather than this band-aid

approach. Ten percent of the surplus for job creation is too little.

Some northern communities are experiencing an 80 to 100 percent

unemployment rate. Meanwhile the people of B.C. have been overtaxed to

the tune of $400 a year. Imagine the jobs that would have been created

if some of that purchasing power was put back into the hands of the

people of British Columbia. Purchasing power means jobs, Mr. Speaker,

and we have a government that is punishing us with overtaxation. Being

overtaxed wouldn't be so bad if it was for some purpose, but there does

not seem to be any.

What help does this budget provide to independent loggers in the

north who must meet their high costs? It doesn't, Mr. Speaker. While

there may be some 40,000 more new people in the job market this year

than there were a year ago, it is quite apparent that this government

is not interested in the structural problems of the economy, just so

long as the Minister of Finance is able to say that British Columbia's

economy is buffered from the aspects of the U.S. housing market more

than ever before.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the high cost of food

in the north. Explaining this to the city folks is easy — just compare

the prices you paid for food five years ago with what you are paying

now. Five years ago we were paying today's lower mainland prices in the

north, and there remains the crying shame that when you buy a bottle of

booze it's the same cost throughout the province, but you can't go and

buy a litre of milk or a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread for the same

price throughout this province. There is nothing in this budget to deal

with the hard fact that people in the north are penalized, through food

costs, for living there.

The government is fond of asking for suggestions, although it does

not act on them when they're given. I'd like to throw three suggestions

out to this government on what it could be doing to solve some of the

problems.

First, it could cut sales tax by 50 percent for communities north of

the 55th parallel. Secondly, it could cut provincial income tax by 30

percent for northern communities above the 55th parallel, and halt dam

construction on the Stikine-Iskut and Liard Rivers so that the

commercial fishing, trapping, logging and guiding jobs these river

systems provide can be kept without these people being affected by dams

that will place them as another statistic on the unemployment figures.

So, Mr. Speaker, you will understand why it is that I will support

this amendment: there is nothing for native people in this budget,

there is no concern shown for the problems of the north, and employment

programs for our youth have been cut out.

[ Page 1521 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

former speaker made reference to the government wanting input, and then

he followed it up immediately with two questions which, I believe,

related to halting some dam construction which is not yet....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My point of order is that the member,

unless I heard him incorrectly, was referring to two projects for which

there are no plans and which are not under construction. Could we

clarify this?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With all due respect, hon. minister, that is

not a legitimate point of order. You might discuss that afterwards with

the member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to a correction to a statement that the member made. I trust I'm in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order regarding a correction.

And the correction is, hon. minister...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member suggested halting construction of the Stikine-Iskut dam. The correction is that the dam is not under construction.

MR. KING: On a point of order, a member is entitled to make a

correction with respect to whether a statement is a fact or

not only if a member of the House has been incorrectly quoted and

wishes to get up and correct that statement, but to argue a point of

fact is not a valid point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made; otherwise you would

engage in cross-debate for some considerable length of time after a

member has spoken. Members do have an option, at further opportunities,

to make corrections.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would like to speak

against the motion, which would have to be considered frivolous, if not

ludicrous. It would appear that the motion was written before the

budget speech was delivered, for certainly the content of the motion

bears no resemblance to what actually came out in the budget speech.

But then, after all, I suppose the research staff was paid to write

these plans and to plan the strategy, so there was no point in letting

it go at that.

One concern that I would like to share with the members of the House

is that yesterday, when I was on my way in from the airport in the

limousine at noon, I saw a sign being arranged in the Victoria office

of the NDP. Beside the names Hanson and Barber it said: "Rummage Sale

Coming up." I would hope that that isn't real.

Anyway, the motion is ludicrous in the sense that it makes reference

that the budget has failed to "relieve citizens of the onerous burden

of continual increases in the cost of living." In the budget we have a

$54 million cut in taxes; we have, after last year, further cuts in

sales tax; we are promoting energy conservation; we are encouraging

industries. The more revenue they generate, the less individuals have

to pay to keep services. The amendment also refers to mobilizing "human

and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing

manufacturing and secondary industry." I say it's ludicrous, because in

the budget we have a stimulus to create building programs; we have

hospitals, schools, post-secondary education facilities, highways,

forest management, youth employment programs. That creates jobs, and

certainly unemployment is down despite a net influx.

Yesterday a member — I believe it was the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) or somewhere — was talking about the net influx in 1979.

Some 4,728 more families came into British Columbia than left. Despite

that, we have a lower unemployment rate than throughout the nation. In

the last three years 9,334....

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about? You were a schoolteacher.

MR. BRUMMET: You know, this business of a schoolteacher — I'm

not going to apologize for that. I was very proud of being a

schoolteacher. I was very proud of being a school principal.

MR. COCKE: Then give us some facts.

MR. BRUMMET: I am. You wouldn't understand them. Since we're

on this item of my being a school principal, on Friday the mover of

this motion, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, decided that he wasn't

getting too much attention, so he decided to lash out at someone. He

lashed out at me incorrectly for making some remark that some other

member had made. When he was corrected, that did not deter that hon.

Leader of the Opposition. Oh, no. He decided to say the following:

Perhaps you're new, and you're only a high school principal, and you

realize that you're not...responsible for your statements to adults;

but, in terms of your own students, don't you come in here and lecture

us with statements that are absolutely false and only serve some kind

of mixed-up political purpose.

Now I am sure that Hansard will put that

in some sort of coherent phrase in the final analysis. However, let me

just comment on that, since it seems to come up in this House time and

again that I'm only a high school principal. I would say that's a very

high calling.

It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is not here very

often, because I would like to point out to him that I left my position

as a high school principal quite voluntarily. As a matter of fact, when

I left I got a memento. I understand that he got a little momentum when

he left his previous position. As a matter of fact, I believe he failed

then as Finance minister, he failed as Premier, and surely he's not

going to carry on as Leader of the Opposition when he fails the next

time in the next election.

However, back to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to comment

very briefly on what the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said. It

certainly doesn't come as a correction, but if I listened correctly, he

said in his speech: "...this $100 million highway extravaganza."

Now, as I recall, when he was speaking in his own words the other day

he was asking for more money for the Atlin riding. Is this the same

member? Or was this speech written by somebody else?

[ Page 1522 ]

I wonder how much highway development he would get if his socialist

party were still in power. We know what highway development there was

during the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They didn't have any money. There was none.

MR. BRUMMET: They didn't have any money. Anyway, the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was talking about tax increases in the

spring of '76, how increased employment has hurt the economy, etc. The

economy has grown faster and bigger and ahead of any other province,

with perhaps the exception of Alberta, and is still growing at a more

rapid rate. When he said that it was a one-shot political side-show,

was he talking about the forestry plan, was he talking about the

development of mining, the highways, the railways, bridges, B.C. Place?

Obviously he does not understand that these things create jobs while

they're in the building stage and they create further employment when

tourists come to view them and when other people travel to look at

them. However, Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to make a couple of points,

but as far as discussing that motion, it does not deserve a great deal

of discussion. It is ludicrous and I certainly vote against it.

MR. KEMPF: I would like to ask leave of the House this afternoon to make introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery and in the precincts

with us today are 44 students from Fraser Lake Secondary School in that

great constituency of Omineca. With them this afternoon are Mrs. Apel,

Mr. Ward and Mr. Lust. I would ask this House, because they have come

nearly 700 miles to be with us this afternoon, to give them a special

welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I listened with some interest to the debate this

afternoon, particularly to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who

made a very short contribution to the debate and indicated as he rose

that he felt he was probably wasting his time, and that the House was

wasting its time, dealing with the amendment presently under debate. So

I thought I better have another look at the amendment to make sure I

wasn't wasting my time in dealing with it. Let's see what it says:

"This House regrets that in the opinion of this House, the hon.

Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of

the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living...."

Well, that's just part of it. Let's deal with that one. Is the

Minister of Health seriously telling us that he's wasting his time in

this House debating the question as to whether the government has or

has not relieved the citizens of the onerous burden of continual

increases in the cost of living? We have a national and international

crisis with inflation. When you put this motion which deals with that

specific question in front of the House, it is contemptuous of this

House and of these proceedings for a Minister of the Crown to stand up

and say: "It's not worth debating; I'm going to sit down." It's worth

debating, for example, for all the old-age citizens in that particular

member's riding who are largely stuck on fixed incomes and are watching

those incomes erode every year. That's serious to them. It's

contemptuous of this House, and therefore it's contemptuous of those

senior citizens, that the Minister of Health wouldn't see fit to stand

on his feet and direct his attention and his considerable ability to

that particular subject.

Let's look at the rest of it: "...or to mobilize our human and

natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing

manufacturing and secondary industry...." By any fair assessment

this government has failed to deal adequately with providing employment

— perhaps just as importantly, the kind of employment that only has a

future in the long term — I'll deal with that later — and that is, of

course, secondary industry.

The last part of the motion is: "...and also that no provision

has been offered to protect our citizens against rising interest

rates." Well, Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the agony that every

citizen out there suffers. Again, it's a strange decision on the part

of the Minister of Health to decide to tell us that he's wasting his

time debating interest rates — interest rates which may go to 20

percent, interest rates which are eroding the purchasing power of

everyone in the community except the money-lenders. That used to be a

party, Mr. Speaker, that spoke up about the banks, that spoke up about

interest rates, that was concerned to see what those rates were and the

effect they were having on the total economy. I'm a little disappointed

that we didn't get that kind of debate.

Dealing with the budget itself and as to how it really reflects upon

the total budget.... I'm glad to see the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) here because he made a fairly lengthy speech which

dealt with the lack of constructive comments surrounding the

government's budget. I'm glad to see he's in the chamber. He was

concerned that this side of the House was just a bunch of nay-sayers,

that we're all destructive and we don't think in constructive terms.

Well, let's have a look at this allegedly constructive government

that is doing all its economic planning. First of all, let's look at

the document submitted with the other budget documents, "The

Medium-Term Economic Outlook and Fiscal Analysis." I welcome something

in this document. It says on the first page: "A crucial component of

budget policy as it relates to both revenue and expenditure is that it

should be established within a broader context than just one year."

This is the first time this government has seen fit to endeavour to

plan beyond a year-to-year basis, and for that I think they are

entitled to some congratulations. It's taken them 23 years to finally

figure out that you don't plan a budget or attempt to stream an economy

on a year-to-year basis; you look farther down the line. But apparently

they have begun — if you read this as the need for a medium-term

perspective.

If you look at their capacity to plan, they made an error. They made

a budgeting error of $500 million. You can call it a surplus if you

want, but it's not a surplus; it's clearly a budgeting error, which

will be compounded next year and the year after and the year after. How

far out are the books going to be if we continue to use what is

essentially very sloppy bookkeeping? If you examine the size of the

budget, the government is 10 percent out in terms of its estimates. Ten

percent is a very major amount in any kind of business. How long, for

example, would a company doing business keep a comptroller who was 10

percent out in his estimates when they found out he'd underestimated

his revenues by $500 million? The budget, of course, does disclose that

there's

[ Page 1523 ]

another $500 million in there, which is the windfall from resource

revenue. But we're dealing here with $500 million that's a mistake.

Whether it's on the plus side of the ledger or the minus side of the

ledger, it's a mistake, and it indicates bad planning. That's the key

to this thing: it indicates that in spite of all the talk about

economic strategy and all the talk about planning.... If you can't

guess your budget more accurately than that, you'd better fire the

people who are giving you the figures, because you're $500 million out.

I remember when I was in Ottawa, the Minister of Human Resources was

$100 million out. Do you remember that shocking $100 million? At that

time my Liberal friends in that particular House were screaming:

"That's a terrible case of mismanagement on the part of the government

of British Columbia." At that time, by the way, they had buried $100

million on a useless infrastructure at Pickering airport that no one

will ever see; but that's a whole other debate.

We're talking here about a $500 million error. I hope the public of British Columbia will remember that that is an error.

MR. DAVIS: That's profit.

MR. LEGGATT: My good friend and colleague from my

neighbouring riding says that it's a profit; the $500 million is a

profit to the government of British Columbia. That $500 million profit

came out of the skins of the average-income and low-income people of

British Columbia. Now is that the way you want to make profit? It came

out of overtaxing people all across this province. No, that's not

profit.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: My friend from Dewdney has to stop thinking in

terms of his private business; he has to start thinking in the larger

terms of the economy of British Columbia. You don't make a profit on a

surplus.

A well-managed economy is one in which accurate figures are fed in,

so that you have some determination of the kind of revenues you're

going to have available to accomplish the tasks at hand. Obviously this

government doesn't have that kind of expertise. Can we trust that kind

of management with the affairs of the economy? Remember how much they

screamed because we had a $100 million overrun? "Why, these fellows in

the NDP are hopelessly incompetent." And they convinced most of the

people in the province of British Columbia, because we lost the

government as a result of it. What are you going to do with a $500

million error? It's a very sad support for anybody who suggests that at

the moment there is any kind of planning going on.

What should be done with the $500 million that was taken away from

the citizens of British Columbia? It dried up their purchasing power

and reduced their capacity to buy the goods and services our merchants

are producing. In fact, it had a very adverse effect upon the economy,

almost as adverse an effect, I would assume, as in their first year of

office, when they decided, with a little fiscal trickery, to increase

all the costs of services.

What should be done? Well, first of all, the major problem this

province has to deal with — it is a crisis situation not merely in

British Columbia but around the world — is the question of inflation.

Each time you produce an element in the budget, you've got to try to

decide what it is you are seeking to accomplish. Is it job creating; is

it controlling interest rates; is it having any impact on the inflation

rate? Well, there's no doubt at all — and I'm glad to see my colleague

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) also makes this proposal —

that by not overtaxing the community, that is, in fact, a deflationary

move that comes to grips to some extent with the cost of living. So the

$500 million should clearly have been left in the hands of purchasers,

of wage-earners, of low-income people in the province of British

Columbia.

But there are other areas which we can look at in terms of the

inflationary cycle. One is credit controls. There is a problem, of

course, in regard to jurisdiction if you want to deal with credit

controls. If the United States is about to embark on credit controls,

this will have a deflationary effect on the economy. However, the side

effects in terms of increased unemployment are onerous, and

particularly in an economy like ours where we have much higher

unemployment than the United States. In spite of all the rhetoric we've

heard in this place, we continue to be the third-highest region for

unemployment in Canada.

Now whether you want to use figures of 7.3 percent or 8.5 percent is

really quite irrelevant. The facts are that unemployment in British

Columbia is higher than it has ever been; we have more unemployed than

we've ever had before; we are the third-highest region in Canada and

consistently have been. Remember, that isn't just a statistic. It means

that all those people who are unemployed aren't able to buy the goods

and the services that are produced in the economy; they don't have that

kind of purchasing power. It's an economy that has told them that

they're losers, that we don't want them. That's one of the reasons for

all of the social unrest and crime and those kinds of problems. You

must deal effectively with the question of unemployment.

The difficulty on the unemployment question lies in the lack of

capacity in the long run for this kind of economy to provide additional

work. If you want to examine the forest industry, there have been

significant investments in the forest industry. I know the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is very

proud of the investments that have been made by major corporations —

Crown Zellerbach is one, and MacMillan Bloedel — but I want to tell

that minister that we're at the end of the string in job creation in

the forest area, if you're looking at big, major industrial chains. He

knows it.

The reason you're at the end of the string is that we are at the

point where we don't have additional fibre. We're at the point in the

forest industry where we are using our forest resources to their

capacity. On the other side of that equation you have the companies

which are investing, not only for the purpose of efficiency, of

competing more effectively abroad, but also to reduce the amount of

people who work in those plants. That's the reality. That's exactly

what kind of economy we're living in.

I don't see any response in this budget at all to this chronic

crisis that is coming upon us more and more every year. That crisis is

the crisis of technology, automation and cybernation. Until you address

that on some kind of long-term basis, you're not going to touch the

question of unemployment. Unemployment figures will continue to be

chronically bad; they will probably rise, given the kind of economic

forecasts that are coming forward in terms of the British Columbia

economy. Unless you look at new ways of creating employment, Mr.

Speaker, we aren't going to come to grips with the major problem of

unemployment in the province.

[ Page 1524 ]

Now what are the new ways of creating employment? First of all, when

technology takes over in terms of major industry — such as the lumber

industry and, to some extent, mining — we have fewer and fewer workers

per capita in production all the time. Incidentally, the efficiency of

the labour force in British Columbia is the highest in Canada, and

continues to be the most effective. It's not only because we have a

well-educated work force; it's also because that technology is

continuing to improve. As that technology improves, our capacity to

provide work goes down. But that is something that this kind of ad hoc

budget does not deal with. It's a kind of budget which sees a project

here and another project there, but it does not deal on any kind of

basis with the problems that the province must deal with in terms of

its budgeting process.

We talked about credit controls being impractical if you're dealing

with inflation. I wanted to say a word or two about wage controls. We

have had wage controls in Canada. They have not been totally effective,

but I think, to be fair, they have had some impact in regard to the

inflationary rate. There has been a raging debate in the Canadian

Labour Congress as to what is the impact of control.

What I want to say is that, given the kind of inflationary pressures

that this province will be in no way able to resist, I will predict

that within two years this country will be back into a control

situation. And British Columbia will be looking very seriously at how

these controls — which I expect will be imposed on us on a national

basis — will impact on the economy. There are a number of kinds of

controls we can go to. As I say, it is not whether you like controls or

don't like controls; it is that the inflationary cycle is going to

leave this country no alternative but to see controls reimposed.

What I want this government — if it's still around in two years — to

seriously look at is opposing the principle of just wage controls. That

has been a terrible mistake, and not only in terms of the economy; it

was a terrible mistake in terms of the structure of our political

system. You can't impose controls on one

section of the community and

leave another

section alone.

There is a form of controls which makes some sense. They should be

short-term; they should be for a specified period. There should be a

selective price control zeroing in on those areas where the population

simply can't handle the increase in price. Selective controls will mean

that if there is wage pressure in terms of prices in those particular

fields, that wage pressure will be reduced, because the free collective

bargaining process in Canada will naturally reduce the pressure on

prices in that particular

section of the economy.

But we cannot ignore what's going to happen in two or three years.

As I say, I'm pleased to see the first gesture — some 23 years late for

this government — In looking at our economy on more than a one-year

basis. Unfortunately, they displayed very clearly that in trying to

predict their revenues and expenses over one year, they are $500

million out. I can't imagine how far they are going to be out if they

look at it in three or four years. It must be incredibly bad guessing

on the part of their budgetary people.

But as I say, in terms of where we look for a solution to the

inflation problem, it is my belief that whether we like it or not, we

will be seeing controls in Canada again. The only question will be the

kind of controls we see and the kind of debate that will take place

around that question. It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that we on this

side of the House are more likely to interfere in the free market in

terms of controls — if you are seeking a solution to those two major

problems, inflation and unemployment.

What else is really the matter in terms of the budget? Why don't we

believe that it has addressed these two dragons that we have in terms

of our economy, inflation and unemployment?

I want to throw another bouquet across, in terms of the $200 million

housing program that was developed. The concept is sound, but the

government, of course, shouldn't be standing up and taking credit for

that particular concept. It was one they adopted — largely studied by

the labour movement. Nevertheless, I have to give them credit for

looking at a good idea, examining it and using it.

The only difficulty with the $200 million housing program is that

it's so very little in terms of what could be done with a small amount

of money. That $200 million is costing the taxpayers of British

Columbia $8 million annually to subsidize the difference between the

market interest rate and the 9.75 percent subsidized rate that the

government is proposing. Now that $8 million is a very small price to

pay, in terms of what is being....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) says that it increases the budget. I agree, it certainly does —

very slightly.

MR. DAVIS: No. I said that it means a good program.

MR. LEGGATT: I am saying that it's a good program; I am

endorsing the program. It's got certain structural weaknesses that I

want to deal with; but as a means of attacking this two-headed dragon,

inflation and unemployment, the housing program was the one part, it

seemed to me, in which this government was starting to show some

imagination. But $200 million was oversubscribed by five times. That

gives you some idea the demand for accommodation there is out there.

Also, of course, we've had Central Mortgage and Housing comment that

they don't believe it significantly increased the housing starts in the

province. I rather discount that statement; I think it has made some

contribution to housing starts in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Eight million dollars is not a very big amount — these people deal

in $500 million figures; in fact, they're out by $500 million. Why

don't we multiply that program by five? That's not a lot. Five times $8

million would be a $40 million mortgage subsidy program for the

province of British Columbia. That particular program would provide a

billion dollars and a large part of it is additional housing stock, and

additional rental housing stock which is most desperately needed now.

That program would start to move in a significant direction in terms of

those two major problems that we haven't been able to come to grips

with in British Columbia.

First of all, if you think there was some incentive to the lumbering

industry in terms of the $200 million, look at a billion dollars and

imagine the kind of incentive you would have there. Look at the number

of people you'd put to work all across the province in the trades. Now

planning is important. One of the difficulties with the $200 million

program is that no planning went into that program before it was

[ Page 1525 ]

announced. No effort whatsoever was made to accumulate decent housing sites

and land, because what's happened is the price of land has escalated out of

all reason. Now if there had been decent planning and if we had managed to acquire

reasonably sized tracts of land in those communities that are housing-short,

the program could have commenced on an orderly basis. Instead, what we had was

a crisis on the government side and a kind of an ad hoc response, where they

got lucky and pulled out this submission from one of our friends in the labour

movement and said: "Well, let's run that one up the flagpole and try it

out." That's not planning and that's not economic strategy. That's just

dumb luck. That's all that is.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: You've been lucky. If you want to keep looking

at the results of elections in the province of British Columbia, your

luck is running out, my friend. You've only been lucky up to now, but

let's have a look at the numbers out there. You're going to have to

quit relying on luck. You're going to have to do something else.

Now I want to just deal a little bit more with regard to this

question of housing. Housing prices in British Columbia have increased

by up to 35 percent in the previous four months. Now one of the

problems in contributing to house prices is when you take $200 million

and you don't have any plans as to where you're going to put the

housing, where the land stock is, and what you are going to do about

it. There was a government that had a plan about housing. It had

something called the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You may

remember it. The Housing Corporation of British Columbia, under a

tremendous barrage of criticism from the opposition, attempted to

provide some public housing in various areas in the province. They went

on and on about what a terrible corporation it was, how the structures

were all falling apart and people didn't like living in there — it was

just total chaos. That was the word I got from afar, and so I thought I

better have a look at these horrible places — all these slums,

allegedly, that the New Democratic Party was building.

I have three of them in my constituency, and I'd like the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who's

interested in economic development, to come and have a look at those

housing programs that were built by the British Columbia Housing

Corporation and the Dunhill Corporation, which was subsequently sold.

You would be surprised how delighted the people living in those

accommodations are with their accommodations. You would be surprised

how well managed those operations are, and how much the people thank

the previous government for giving them an opportunity for some shelter

so that they can move on to something else. It was a marvellous way to

give our young people an opportunity to begin in life, and begin

providing themselves with something which is not a privilege but should

be a right — and that is the right to accommodation.

Well, I have three of them: Meadowbrook, Woodside and Meridian

Village. All of them are very successful and all of them, by the way,

are well managed. I've had very few complaints about any of these

accommodations. There was some economic planning going on in those

days, and you could use some now. While I'm trying not to be a

destructive critic, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that I want this

government to seriously consider rehabilitating the British Columbia

Housing Corporation and going back into the idea of providing housing

to people who need it. But we, of course, heard all of the destructive

nay-sayers in those days in the opposition, and we also heard from the

then minister, who is now the present Minister of Finance, when he sold

this particular corporation. This is what he said in 1978: "The need

for affordable housing is no longer critical and the Housing

Corporation of British Columbia, although healthy financially, is

superfluous to our needs." Where is he now? That corporation was

superfluous to our needs, my foot! If they'd left that corporation

going and left Dunhill and left them the opportunity to assemble

low-cost land and provide housing to young people in British Columbia,

we wouldn't be in the housing crisis we are today. Mr. Speaker, that's

what planning is all about.

It is indicated that the actual subsidy in terms of a decent

mortgage program is as low as $8 million a year — it may be slightly

higher now with the new additional rates of interest. There is some

additional information about this that the government should have a

look at, and the first thing to remember about that particular program

is that 25 percent of the cost of every home you put up is in building

material. About $50 million of that $200 million is going to be subject

to sales tax. Therefore the government is going to recover about $2

million in sales tax on its program. If it's that good for $200

million, why didn't you make it $1 billion? Instead you are squandering

your money on this kind of little pet publicity projects that you've

got.

Let's have another look. What about the cost of labour that goes

into the housing program you've initiated for $200 million? Well, every

one of those workmen who are productively employed are taxed, and that

money comes back into the treasury. There is a very significant return

in terms of that interest subsidy from the tax of the workers who are

putting up the houses. The interest rate on apartment construction will

be increased to 10 3/4 percent in year two, and 11 3/4 percent in year

three. On the $75 million allocated that will save $750,000 in year

two, $1.52 million in year three, and $770,000 in the last six months.

The total saving is $3 million. The net cost of the program over four

years is less than $24 million — $6 million a year, which is complete

peanuts in terms of the amount of money that this government deals

with. They haven't had the kind of imagination to move into a housing

program that would have any kind of significant effect upon inflation

rates and employment rates in Canada.

Now there was one attempt at economic planning, which was through

BCRIC. The point has been made many times that the government wouldn't

be able to take many bows for BCRIC if it hadn't been for the

imagination of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they decided to take

those assets and put them into the private sector, reduce the width of

ownership to a mere 130,000 people instead of two million, which is

what the ownership situation was when the assets were administered by

the Crown corporations under the direction of the New Democratic Party.

But what is BCRIC now contributing to the economic life of the province

of British Columbia? I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's just

another trust company. That's all BCRIC is. BCRIC hasn't any kind of

original moves in it. My God, they went out and bought a bit of

MacMillan Bloedel, and they thought they were doing something

imaginative and original.

These guys are just like Montreal Trust, and the last thing

[ Page 1526 ]

we need is another trust company if we're going to develop the

economy of British Columbia. I don't think BCRIC has made a single

investment that isn't authorized under the Trust Companies Act in

British Columbia, which is designed, of course, to stop people from

investing in anything risky whatsoever. What do we need that for? Why

do we need another trust company, particularly when one of the major

problems in terms of the British Columbia economy is foreign ownership?

Why didn't BCRIC decide to make a move on the foreign owners of

MacMillan Bloedel? Why didn't they decide to look at apprentice shares

instead of CPI's? Who cares whether CPI has a piece of BCRIC? It

doesn't bother me, but I am concerned that the decisions surrounding

the economy of Canada and the economy of British Columbia are made

abroad. That's a significant question.

There is no contribution being made by BCRIC and by all that cash

flow that came from the good citizens of the province of British

Columbia — a cash flow used in the best will, wanting to change the

direction of this economy in terms of owning our own economy in the

province of British Columbia. They have failed in that kind of mandate,

Mr. Speaker. In fact, they've had difficulty even persuading the

financial community that they're successful. Right now it looks as

though the market is very much hedging its bets around the BCRIC

question. These two latest moves into the market haven't meant very

much other than a slight drop in share value. I think they're trading

at about $7.25 this morning. That's an indication that even the market

itself has some very severe reservations about the direction of BCRIC.

It's another holding company, just another way of sitting on assets

and not developing them. BCRIC hasn't produced any employment of any

significance in terms of the province of British Columbia.

I indicated earlier, in supporting the amendment, that there is a

failure to direct attention to the problems of the economy in terms of

the budget. But there's also a failure in the budget to look at where

we're going in terms of the kind of society in which we live. I

remember a time in British Columbia when there were very interesting

things going on out in the community. I'm thinking in terms of small

business; I'm thinking in terms of the developments that happened in

places like Gastown, Bastion Square and Market Square. There was some

very original planning and thinking. And the Vancouver courthouse,

which is one of the finest architectural sights in North America. Of

course, if our Philistine friends on the government side had their way,

that would now be a tall, black monolithic office tower, with just

about the same imagination as the Premier and the Minister of Finance

have shown in regard to this particular budget.

There was a time when our young people had a dream put before them.

It was a dream of full employment. It was a dream of freedom. It was a

time of experiment. Yes, and it was a time of making mistakes. But I

liked those mistakes; I didn't mind them at all. Because on the plus

side of those mistakes was the future of the province; on the plus side

was the imagination and the spirit of our young people. I don't see

this group inspiring that ever again, if they ever did.

What we need is to bring back that atmosphere of experimentation and change:

to see more Gastowns, to see more of the new concept of small is beautiful,

the new ways of job creation in the smaller areas, the development of alternative

energy. All these things can only come about with imagination. This budget simply

confirms what we've said all along: they haven't got the wit or the imagination

to continue to run the affairs of the province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will be supporting the motion of

non-confidence put forward by our leader and by our caucus in regard to

this budget. There are a number of good reasons why I will be

supporting this motion. First of all, the budget over all, in my view,

is deficient in many, many ways. Primarily, the budget has failed to

properly make provision for the senior citizens, the handicapped, the

low-income people, the working people, and particularly the working

poor people of this province.

It would seem to me unacceptable that a government has passed

special warrants, special orders-in-council, and has had a $115 million

overrun for the year '79-80 in the Highways ministry alone, and that

same government makes very little, and certainly unacceptable,

provision for our senior citizens, our handicapped and our low-income

people in this province.

What are the priorities? Is it the welfare of our people or is it

highways and bridges for a certain member of this Legislature? Is it

coliseums and stadiums, or the people this government was elected to

look after?

One other item, which I won't dwell on too long, is the matter of

housing. It seems to me this topic has been covered quite well by

previous speakers from our side of the House. I know that the member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the member who just spoke and other

speakers have described in some detail how the present government

ruined programs that were designed specifically to aid the housing

program in British Columbia. If this government came up with a program

for 50,000 new houses and apartment starts in the province, can you see

what it would do to our employment picture in construction and the

lumber industry and for the people who build these homes and provide

the services? I think this government has a responsibility to do

something along those lines. It has really said nothing. They have come

up with a $200 million program. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in

the whole of my riding, only 12 people qualify for this Mickey Mouse

program introduced by this government — off the top of their heads again

— a few weeks ago? Twelve people — big deal! How many people didn't

receive benefits under this program? Actually, there are hundreds. What

do you think those people are going to be saying when it comes time to

vote? Are they going to say: 'Hey, good job, government. Good job,

Social Credit."? Or are they going to say something else? I've got a

hunch they would say something else today, if they had a chance to vote

today.

Secondary industry. There's been very little secondary industry

promoted by this government. I am not going to go into a lot of detail,

because we are going to have a great deal of time, probably all summer,

to have the opportunity to debate these items in this Legislature. But

as far as I can see, there has been very little new industry in my

riding — a few programs. And there have been some government grants,

and those are appreciated — small grants, mind you, but those are

appreciated. But it's only a drop in the bucket. What's really required

in this province is something to provide employment opportunities for

our people once again.

This government has taken no action whatsoever on the matter of a

merchant marine for this province and for this nation. I doubt that

they've ever discussed this topic with the federal government; I doubt

that any representative of that government has ever g