1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6709 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kinsella appointment. Mr. Barrett –– 6709

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 6711

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6711

Ms. Brown –– 6713

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6718

Mr. King –– 6722

Mr. Mussallem –– 6726

Mr. Lockstead –– 6729

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6732

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6732

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, (Bill 4). Hon. Mr. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 6732

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to have the House welcome Mr. and Mrs. Dave Battison from the city

of Penticton. Mr. Battison is an alderman-elect of the city of

Penticton. With the Battisons today is Isabel Harris, the sister of

Mrs. Jean Battison. I'd like the House to give them a welcome.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have three representatives from

the United Native Nations: Bob Warren, Vic Wells and Debbie Hunt. I'd

like the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

KINSELLA APPOINTMENT

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if Patrick Kinsella, from

Ontario, and former campaign director in that province, has been

appointed to a high-ranking position in the civil service by posting of

qualifications first, or was he just hired ad hoc?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella was hired by order-in-council to my office, as all my staff are.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh a supplementary, could the Premier inform the House if there is a

written job description for this post and, if so, what does it contain?

If not, perhaps the Premier could give us a verbal job description.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to deal with that in my estimates. No, there is no written job description.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary question. Could the Premier give us a verbal job description?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Could the Premier give us a verbal job description today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Administrative.

MR. BARRETT: Is it normal to hire through order-in-council for a simple administrative position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT:

Could the Premier inform us as to what difference there is between the

Premier's office and other ministers' offices relating to

administrative positions being appointed by order-in-council or being

posted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all deputies and assistant deputies are hired by order-in-council.

MR. LAUK: Could the Premier outline what qualifications Mr. Kinsella had that British Columbians might have had?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was highly recommended as an administrator.

MR. LAUK:

During the time that Mr. Kinsella was the Tory campaign director in

Ontario, the Tory government spent over three quarters of a million

dollars on political polls. Has Mr. Kinsella the authority to use

British Columbia taxpayers' money for political polling in this

province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Kinsella was not hired on a political basis. He's been hired in the Premier's office and is in charge of administration.

MR. LAUK:

I'll just have to repeat the question; I don't think the Premier heard

it: has Mr. Kinsella got the authority from the Premier or the

government to use B.C. taxpayers' money for political polling in the

province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella

is hired as the deputy minister in charge of administration and would

have contact with all other departments of government — ministers and

deputy ministers — and as such would become familiar on a day-to-day

basis with the business of all aspects of government.

Your

direct question was whether he will be initiating polling. The answer

is no, but it does not preclude the fact that the government does, and

will in the future probably, seek public opinions, as we have in the

past, in trying to develop policies that respond to the need of the

people in this province. It is a useful and modern tool for government,

which is used by most governments now.

MR. LAUK: So he will be doing polling. How much money has been set aside from the treasury for this purpose?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect. Mr. Kinsella does no polling.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, an editorial dated November 22, 1980 in the Globe and Mail ,

in discussing the way the Tory party in Ontario handled the campaign

by-election, said of Patrick Kinsella: "If the Progressive

Conservatives are so confident of their position, why did they choose

to fight the campaign in such a shabby way? Kinsella used the sort of

literature which gives campaigns a bad name and which disgraces

everyone concerned."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hope it's a brief quotation.

MR. LAUK:

Did everyone hear that? The question is: did the Premier discuss this

editorial with Mr. Kinsella before he was appointed deputy minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I didn't discuss the one part of his life that was

partisan in nature — when he worked for a political party. When he came

to British Columbia, he came as an employee of the Premier's office. As

such, the role he undertakes for the Premier and the people of B.C.

[ Page 6710 ]

would be far different than that undertaken as someone working for a political party.

However,

it is important to have people in the Premier's office who are aware of

these types of things, and certainly attacks will be made on the

government or personalities in the government by members who are

politically partisan, in order to know what they have to expect in the

way of a personal attack, as part of being surrounded by government.

That's a very important aspect as well, when many politicians,

particularly in an appearance such as this, have questions of urgent

public importance asked. There are unemployed people and high interest

rates. The question period might better be used for personal attacks,

rather than dealing with the public's business. I think no other

incident illustrates to a greater degree why the people in the

Premier's office should be prepared for such conduct, rather than the

discussion of the public's business.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I would just remind you that questions ought not to be

asked which go beyond the scope, certainly the 15-minute time limit,

and answers should always be kept within the bounds of the limits of

the question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinsella was

of the view that spending almost a million dollars of the taxpayers'

money on political polling was irrelevant, too. In Ontario, Mr.

Kinsella was a member of Premier Davis's public-appointment committee,

which was to recommend "political appointments to the Premier for

public service." Has the Premier given instructions to Mr. Kinsella to

form such a committee in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I might make it clear that the role Mr. Kinsella played

there was working not for the government but for a political party. His

role here is different. Yes, Mr. Kinsella in the Premier's office will

be aware of all aspects of public business, including knowing who's

going to be working for British Columbia. I think this government has a

good record of appointment, and that good record of appointment is

seeking out the strongest possible British Columbians to do the job.

Why, we've even appointed to some aspects of public appointment such

great British Columbians as Tony Gargreave, for whom I have great

respect.

MR. LAUK: The Premier answered in such a

way, Mr. Speaker, as to indicate that Mr. Kinsella's role in Ontario

was strictly partisan. The nature of my question clearly pointed out

that Mr. Davis of that province put Mr. Kinsella on a political

appointments committee. The Premier has admitted that such a role for

Mr. Kinsella is perceived here. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I think discussing the way Premier Davis conducts the government in

Ontario could be better done by the opposition in Ontario. But I would

say that the members of my staff that work for government are going to

do the best possible job, whether it's Mr. Kinsella or any of the other

members, in trying to make sure that the government functions in the

best possible way and that the public business is conducted in the best

possible manner for the public to receive the benefits of good

responsive government. Mr. Speaker, to deny any question that Mr.

Kinsella would have no knowledge of that would be to say that he and my

office would not be undertaking what I hope they will do: that is, to

involve themselves in conducting a better public administration and

providing an opportunity for the Premier's office to do a much better

job.

MR. LAUK: In his job as deputy minister and

advising the Premier on political appointments to the public service,

has Mr. Kinsella prepared what is known as a blacklist of those people

in career positions who may or may not support the Social Credit

philosophy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the second

member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect when he suggests that Mr.

Kinsella will be dealing with political appointments to the public

service; the public service goes through the Public Service Commission.

I want to deny categorically the allegation contained in his question

that the government is making appointments to those boards and

commissions on any other basis. In our judgment, they have the highest

possible qualifications, and I want to deny categorically the

allegation contained in his question that such a blacklist would be

made or even considered. I can only consider that if someone would have

to think of that in order to contain it in a question, then that's the

way he thinks, not the way we think.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, it's not the way the Premier or I think; I'm talking about the

way Mr. Kinsella thinks. He was on a political appointments committee

that appointed Tories to public service appointments. Has Mr. Kinsella

received instructions from the Premier that he is not to do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, Mr. Speaker. It would be highly unlikely that I would give any

direction to Mr. Kinsella that he appoint Conservatives to government

boards and commissions, and he has had no instruction to undertake any

role of that nature in which the political party is of consideration in

any aspect in government but to provide the best possible government.

Again, I would suggest that to try to draw a parallel between the last

job he held in Ontario and the job he's doing in British Columbia would

be very foolish, because they are totally different. This one involves

working in the Premier's office, and in the others, as part of his

career, Mr. Kinsella worked in the political system for the

Conservative Party. To my knowledge, he's never been a member of the

British Columbia Social Credit Party, is not a member now and, to any

knowledge I have, may not be a member in the future.... They find that

amusing on the NDP side. They may have made that a requirement when

they were government. It's not a requirement of this government that to

get a job you've got to join the party. Let me make that very, very

clear.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly that

Mr. Kinsella is not a member, in my view, of the partisan politics that

seem to be a large part of the public life in British Columbia. He does

come from another part of Canada; yes, he's a Canadian. One of the

arguments in the recent constitutional discussion is the right of

Canadians to seek employment in any part of the country.

Now

if the member for Vancouver Centre is suggesting that other Canadians

aren't welcome in British Columbia, then let him clearly state that as

policy. It may be the first announcement of NDP policy that we've heard

in the last three years.

[ Page

6711 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. In the runup to the spring

election in Ontario in 1981, Mr. Kinsella was quoted as saying that Tories were

returning to "big spending, media-blitz style, with emphasis on the leader's

profile." Has the Premier decided that such a thing might be appropriate

in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, if I'd wanted Mr. Kinsella to undertake that role, and if

I had the power to do so — that is, to interfere with the party

organization — he would have been hired by the Social Credit Party, not

by the government of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, he certainly should have been hired by the party and not

by the people of this province. Even that's bad enough — the same bird,

different feathers!

I have a question for the Premier. In

the Ontario spring election over $20 million of taxpayers' money was

used in the runup to the election for promoting the Tory party in

government. Is the Premier going to do that here?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of how the Conservative Party in

Ontario conducted either of their elections. The only fact I know is

that once again they completely demolished the NDP.

Introduction of Bills

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

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

a bill intituled Geothermal Resources Act.

Bill

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

the day for second reading at the next next sitting of the House, after

today.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: In proceeding

with the remarks I made on Friday, I would just like to compliment the

mover of the motion regarding the Speech from the Throne, the member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), for his excellent speech, and

also the seconder, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). I thought

they presented well their thoughts on the throne speech read by His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I would also like to compliment the

Premier of this province for the job he did in bringing together the

ten provinces of Canada and the federal government to discuss and reach

constitutional accord in this last month. I think the effort that the

Premier of this province went to will go down in history as a major

part of seeing Canada come of age.

For the past six years the opposition has criticized our throne speeches. It's

the normal opposition's role, we know, to oppose the government. I think

John Diefenbaker said it best: "The role of the opposition is to oppose."

It seems that that's been going on now for several years, even though we

have achieved some tremendous advances in the past six years under the economic

activity and policies of this government. So I have to think that the opposition,

in opposing the throne speeches that have gone on in the past and this one,

haven't really looked at the track record. Possibly they should be getting

up and complimenting us on what we've done. If you look back as far as 1975,

when we came into office, I believe the unemployment figure was something like

9 percent unemployed in this province. In 1981 we had one of the lowest unemployment

figures in Canada; that's because of the policies set by this government.

we look back to 1975, the mining industry of this province was

virtually at a standstill. They had literally driven the mining

industry to its knees. Now in 1981 that mining activity has expanded.

We have new mines and new exploration. Tremendous participation in the

economic growth of this province has come from the mining industry

because of the sound economic policies of this government.

remember 1975, when the then Minister of Highways, the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), told the tourists to go home. They used to

call him the minister of pot-holes. Now in 1981 we've got a tourist

industry that generates over $2 billion in economic activity in this

province; that's because of sound economic policies.

If you

look at the financial history that's gone on since 1975, this province

has achieved an AAA credit rating as a province because of its economic

soundness, as opposed to what it was when the NDP were in office.

Last

year we had over 40,000 people come into British Columbia because of

job opportunities, because of an expanded economy. I can remember in

1975 there was a slogan going around: "Would the last one to leave B.C.

please turn off the lights." We've come a long way since 1975. Because

of that economic activity we've had, because of the job creations we've

had, we've been able to take out of the economy of British Columbia

those dollars, through taxation, through royalties, through economic

activity. We've been able to create hospitals; more hospital

construction has gone on in this province. We've expanded home-care

services and services to our seniors. We brought in such programs as

the SAFER program. We brought in dental care. All these things have

happened not because government has got a money tree in the backyard,

but because we've got sound economic policies and we've been able to

achieve in the past six years economic stability, stability that

provides services to people, after inheriting a nearly bankrupt

province in 1975, from just three years of government under the NDP

We've come a long way.

This throne speech outlines future

direction for this province in energy security — the development of our

alternative energy sources, our exploration for oil and natural gas,

our coal reserves and our hydroelectric power development program — to

make sure we are not dependent on the world supply of energy, so that

we can become more self-sufficient in energy to ensure that our

province can provide jobs for our young people. We've moved in this

throne speech to talk about job creation. BCDC is working with CP Air

to provide an engine-overhaul plant in the lower mainland. In Kitimat

the Ocelot development is looking at a new, further processing of our

natural gas resource. In the northeast, of course, we're developing the

megaproject, if you will, of northeast coal, and at the same time

expanding activities in the southeast of this province. All this is

aimed at creating jobs for our young people, and it is all the result

of a political climate in which the private sector can grow and can

develop our natural resources.

[ Page 6712 ]

The

other problem that's addressed in the throne speech deals with housing.

If you recall, a few years ago we brought out a $200 million housing

program which made housing available to people of the province, but at

the same time gave stimulus to our forest industry and our contracting

industry. This year in our throne speech the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will be making more Crown land available,

will be giving assistance to first-time homebuyers, and will be

providing a program where people can rent with the ability to purchase

their homes when they have the financial wherewithal to do it.

The

opposition has criticized the Lands, Parks and Housing minister's

housing program, but I can tell you their alternative would be

state-owned housing. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) made a statement a few days ago in this House: "We don't

agree with this kind of society." Those few words give a pretty good

indication as to what kind of society the second member for Vancouver

East would want. He's looking at a society with government control,

more government involvement in the business sector, whereby the

government would buy such things as sawmills, regardless of whether

they were viable or not; they would move into buying turkey plants and

chicken plants, whether they are viable or not, all under the guise of

saving jobs.

They make their case because they feel that

here are going to be 200 jobs lost here or 300 jobs lost there. But

they do not realize and they never have realized that it takes an

economy that is strong and growing to create jobs. If you move into an

area where you buy jobs regardless of their viability, if you buy

plants under the guise of saving jobs, then I think that's part of a

master plan and a plan where they want total government involvement in

business and in the financial sector of this province.

I can

tell you what kind of society that is. I'm sure the member for

Vancouver East will nod his head, because he's very familiar with the

word. It's called socialism. That's the kind of society that party is

aiming for. The people of British Columbia should be very well aware of

the policy and the philosophy of the NDP. They will promise everything

and anything. They will buy the mills; they will buy the farmland.

should mention that recently I was at a convention in Cranbrook, and

the Leader of the Opposition was asked: "What would you do if I wanted

to sell my farmland? Would you buy it?" The Leader of the Opposition,

figuring that this was another way of getting a few votes, said: "Yes,

of course we'd buy it; it would be our policy to buy the farmland."

After the Leader of the Opposition had left the stage, the farmer

turned to me and said: "You know, it's a nice solution; it's nice to

know that I can sell my farmland when I want to retire, because I can't

subdivide it. I will just be able to sell it to the government." The

only problem is that they won't have any money left to buy it. That's

exactly the way it will be, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have the

policies or the philosophy to allow the economy to respond to the

marketplace; they figure the easiest way is for the government to buy

everything. When the government owns everything, I'm not sure where you

go from there. But they paint the rosy picture. They say to everybody:

"Just let government do it and all will be well."

Well, Mr. Speaker, they did that from 1973 to 1975. They let government do

it, and I'm sure people will remember what it was like at the end of 1975.

So before the people of British Columbia ever consider letting the government

do it again, I would ask them to remember the old adage which goes as follows:

"Government is never a source of money or goods. Everything produced is

produced by the people, and everything that government gives to the people it

must first take from the people."

Mr.

Speaker, before I close I want to move on to a few items that really

occur outside our borders but have tremendous impact on the economy and

the well-being of British Columbia. That is the federal fiscal policy.

I want to give two examples of the impact of this policy on the

province of British Columbia and on the policies of the government of

British Columbia. First, Mr. Speaker, is the Canada savings bond issue

that came out several weeks ago and closed on November 7. The rate on

that bond issue was 19.5 percent for 1982. That was a policy determined

in Ottawa, and it set the rate for Canada savings bonds at 19.5 percent

for the next year. Mr. Speaker, that rate on that prime savings

certificate sets the base for all money lenders in Canada. Five days

after that issue closed off, the Bank of Canada's rate was 16.31

percent. Where the federal government thought they would raise some $2

billion to $3 billion in Canada savings bond issues, they actually

raised in the vicinity of $10 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the

difference between 19.5 percent and 16.3 percent is a little over $300

interest next year. That will be the cost to the taxpayers of Canada to

pay that interest next year — in one year. What happens, Mr. Speaker,

is that the impact on the financial institutions and the impact on

industry and on commerce because of that policy, which changed within

five days of the Canada savings bonds sales closing off.... The rate

dropped by the Bank of Canada — an arm of the federal government

administration — was a drop of over 3 percent, and as a result the cost

next year will be substantial. That policy, Mr. Speaker, was

short-sighted, it was poor planning, and some economist in Ottawa

should get his walking papers. It was inflationary, because the outflow

of that $10 billion came out of the banking system — banks, trust

companies, credit unions. They all lost those savings dollars when they

came out of the accounts to go to the Canada savings bond because of

its high interest rate. It made the financial institutions in British

Columbia and in other parts of Canada maintain their high interest

rates on savings, and therefore they had to maintain high loan rates.

That, Mr. Speaker, was very damaging and will continue to be damaging

for the next year or so to the economy of British Columbia and the rest

of Canada.

Consider the multiplying factor with regard to

the impact on the banks, the trust companies and the credit union

policies in maintaining high interest. Consider the impact on B.C.

businesses when they made decisions as to whether or not to buy, to

expand or to finance their operations. In some cases they would have to

turn their decision around for expansion. They couldn't afford

operating capital, some got into difficulties and some went out of

business because of the high rates.

I'd suggest that if you

apply the multiplying factor to that $10 billion of Canada savings

bonds at 19.5 per cent, we in Canada have probably lost over a billion

dollars in economic activity because of higher costs to industry,

because of decisions of businesses not to proceed with expansion, just

due to that one federal fiscal policy that happened a few weeks ago.

One other part of that problem — the federal problem dealing with financing — is that the federal budget which

[ Page 6713 ]

came

down a few weeks ago stated that 22 cents of every taxpayer's dollar —

or every dollar of revenue — would be required to service debt. Next

year over $16 billion out of the federal budget will go to service debt

for past spending, for goods we've consumed as a government — an

increase of 57 per cent over last year because of higher interest

rates. That's the interest on debt. It has no productivity; it's paying

for what we've already consumed. I can only say that one thing this

government has done since 1975, when we were elected, is have a policy,

advocated by the Premier of this province when he took office, that we

will pay as we go and not mortgage the future. We will not mortgage the

income of those people or our children coming on in days ahead. We've

maintained that pledge, Mr. Speaker, and we have not run into a deficit

position. We haven't had to pay out of revenues for services on

government debt, as the federal government has.

We're

fortunate because of that government policy. In good times we basically

paid our way — we haven't incurred debt — and we are in good, sound

financial position as we come into 1982, which because of those

inflationary fiscal practices of the federal government will be

difficult. I'd like the people of this province to think where we would

be had the NDP carried on in the past six years as they did in the

three years when they were in office between 1972 and 1975.

MR. MACDONALD: We wouldn't be shutting down Panco, that's for sure.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East again comments about

his philosophy, to the effect that they wouldn't be shutting down Panco

if they were in power. He, of course, is endorsing what I've just said

about him: that government's role, as he sees it, is to get involved in

all sectors of the business community. I'd like the people of this

province to recognize the master plan of that party. It's total

government involvement. You will be a tenant on your land, and you will

be working for government. If they're in power, they will have all the

power, and there will not be the opportunities for people to make their

own way, to expand on an idea, or a theory, to become successful,

because basically they would like to see everybody working for the

government and everybody being "under control."

Mr. Speaker,

this throne speech sets out the guidelines for British Columbia, not

only in the area of economic activity but also in the area of services

to people. As I said before, a government cannot provide services to

people if the economy of that province or of that country doesn't

provide the funds to provide those services that government is asked to

supply to the people of the province or the country.

There

is no question that 1982 will be a difficult year. We've seen the

start, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. But we are

feeling, in great respect, the impact of policies over which we have

little or no control: those high interest rates that I mentioned and

the financing of federal debt, to name a few. But we are better off

than many of our fellow Canadians and people in other parts of the

world. And we're better off because we've allowed the marketplace to

work.

We've created a political climate that allows the

industry of this province and the business of this province to operate

within guidelines. Those operations are a result of the guidelines that

were presented in previous throne speeches. Because of this November

23, 1981, throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we have a plan of action which,

in my opinion, will deal with the challenge that faces all of us in

1982. So I am very pleased and proud to support the throne speech.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker. I know that in taking my place in this debate on the

throne speech, I should first of all make some comments about the

constituency I represent, Burnaby-Edmonds. I want to start off by

saying that if the minister who just took his seat is correct and the

throne speech does, in fact, lay out the plan of strategy for the

future, then Burnaby-Edmonds is indeed in trouble.

What the

throne speech brings to a focus in our attention is that there is

nothing in it for the people of British Columbia and that the people of

Burnaby-Edmonds, as everywhere else, are the victims of the policies

and some of the decisions made by this government. Nowhere in the

throne speech do we see any relief for the homeowners in Burnaby. There

are something in the vicinity of 3,500 senior citizens on a waiting

list for housing, and nothing in the throne speech indicates that the

government is even aware of this, much less that it is going to do

anything about it. The unemployment statistics for September and

October indicate that when unemployment in the rest of Canada is going

down, British Columbia is still on the increase. Certainly those

constituents of Burnaby-Edmonds who work in the forest industry or are

involved in small business know what the policies of this government

mean to the increase in their unemployment. They are feeling the pinch

of the decisions and some of the policies of this government.

There

is no relief from impact of inflation. As a matter of fact, the senior

citizens and people on fixed incomes are the victims of some of the

inflation brought on by some of the policies of this government. I'll

be speaking more about the increase in the cost of bus passes, which

touches no one else but the senior citizens and the people who depend

on it.

The government continues to shift the burden of

education costs away from the provincial government and onto the

homeowners. Certainly that's what the homeowners in Burnaby are finding.

see also that the policies of this government continue to exploit that

municipality as a transportation corridor for the people of the lower

mainland, since there is no commitment whatsoever to improve public

transit in that municipality. There was one statement made in the

speech about the government's commitment to the Annacis crossing, which

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) later denied. It is very

clear that the architect of the throne speech did not consult with the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), because he

has said since that the Annacis crossing is going to be on the back

burner and is not going to be dealt with, as was suggested in the

throne speech.

The throne speech holds no benefits for the

people of Burnaby. Instead, the people of Burnaby are going to be

exploited so that this government can get on with its megaprojects, and

the ones who cannot be exploited will either be ignored, as in the case

of the senior citizens, or punished and abused, as in the case of

single parents on welfare, the disabled and children of the poor.

But

I think the thing that a number of people in my constituency are going

to focus on is a statement on page 14 of the throne speech, in which

the Lieutenant-Governor read: "No single element in our democratic

system of government is as important as our electoral process." I'm

quite sure that the people in Burnaby-Edmonds are wondering what the

government had in mind when it made that particular comment,

[ Page 6714 ]

because

one of the things that we've become aware of quite recently is one of

the newest dirty tricks which this government has planned for the

particular constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds.

I want to give you some background information into that, Mr. Speaker. In the Globe and Mail

of March 30, 1979, there was a story about Ian Deans, who was, as you

may have known, a very popular New Democratic member of the provincial

Legislature who resigned his Wentworth seat to enter the House of

Commons. So a by-election was called. In that by-election the Tories

nominated a person by the name of Mr. Gordon Deans to be their

candidate, and prominently displayed the name of this candidate on

leaflets. The leaflets did not mention, or certainly downplayed the

fact, that he was a Tory candidate. They also printed all of the

leaflets in the NDP party colours, not the Tory party colours. When Mr.

Kinsella was asked about this, his response was: "We are taking

advantage of all of these subtleties; we are not running away from

them, because the name of the game is to win."

Approximately

two or three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from one

of my constituents to inform me that at a meeting of the Social Credit

executive the decision was made that in Burnaby-Edmonds they were going

to find and ask to be the candidate someone by the name of Brown.

Because, of course, the assumption was that in Burnaby all Browns look

alike. So in fact they had found a candidate, a Mr. Brown, who is

presently an alderman in the constituency of Burnaby itself. They have

asked him whether he would consider running as the candidate in Burnaby

Edmonds, and explained to him that this would confuse the voters and

result in his election.

Well, Burnaby-Edmonds is not like

Ontario. So when I ran into Alderman Brown at a meeting, I asked him

whether this was correct or not. He assured me that it was. He had not

considered running as a candidate until he was approached by the Social

Credit party organization. He was asked to join the party, asked to be

the candidate, and told that he had to make his decision by the first

week in December, because that was the deadline. I have no doubt

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that what we are about to witness is a

candidate by the name of Brown, whose literature and leaflets and

everything, as happened in the by-election for the Wentworth seat in

Ontario, are going to be in the NDP colours. Presumably all of the

voters of Burnaby-Edmonds will be confused and not know which Brown is

Brown.

At first I thought the whole idea was ridiculous. But

that was prior to having some understanding of the kinds of political

decisions and the political tactics made by the deputy minister in the

Premier's office. Again, when this was pointed out in the Globe and Mail , Mr. Kinsella's response was that all of these subtleties were to be taken advantage of because the name of the game is to win.

am certainly not new to the area of Socred dirty tricks. I have been

the victim of their tricks before. Burnaby Edmonds isn't. I want to

assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that we look forward to this

new Kinsella-type of dirty trick in Burnaby-Edmonds, and we've already

started to prepare ourselves to welcome the other Brown, who will be

running in that constituency in the next election. Incidentally, he

hasn't given his final word yet, but he is certainly being pressured.

The other comment made in the throne speech which I'd like to speak on is the one on page 7:

"Perhaps

no single change has had as great an impact on the work world and on

society in general as the growth in the female labour-force

participation. Today, one of every two women of working age is in the

labour force, comprising nearly 42 percent of workers. Two-income

families are becoming prevalent in our society. The rapidity with which

this change is occurring is presenting governments everywhere with an

obligation to act to enrich and to support these developments so as to

benefit fully from the skills, energies and productivity of all our

people."

I would have welcomed that comment, and certainly

seen it as a beginning of a brave new world for British Columbia, were

it not for the fact that just the day before this happened the Premier

himself reneged on a commitment to the principle in this province of

women being paid equally when they performed work of equal value to the

work performed by a male.

The other thing that raised some

doubts in my mind was the fact that the federal government waited for

some time for this government to ratify the United Nations convention

which was committed to the elimination of the discrimination against

women in all areas. In fact, when the provincial government did make a

move to affix its signature to that ratification, it did so with the

understanding that the

section dealing with equal value was not to be

included. In this respect, of course, it was no different than the

federal government and all the provinces, but it certainly did not

support the throne speech commitment to women in terms of enriching and

supporting the rights and development of women.

When we talk

about equal pay for work of equal value, Mr. Speaker, I don't want you

to think that we're discussing principles. That's not what we're

discussing at all. What we talk about when we talk about equal pay for

work of equal value is money; we're talking about economics. We're

talking about poverty when we talk about discrimination in this area.

We're talking about the statistics that show that most of the poor

people in this country, as in this province, are women: poor when

they're young, poor when they're middle-aged and certainly poor when

they're old. In fact, the welfare rolls at all levels consist of more

women and their children than of any other group. We've got to be able

to make the link — and surely the government can make the link — between poverty and lack of decent wages.

The

economist David Gordon tells us that women are segregated in their work

life into four categories of jobs: (1) the peripheral industries, which

include manufacturing and those kinds of jobs; (2) the clerical

occupations; (3) the health and education sector; (4) domestic service.

Those are the job ghettos where women are concentrated. He goes on to

say that in the first category, manufacturing, profit margins are so

slim that women are hired in the first place because they are prepared

to work for less; they are cheap labour. Any attempt made by any

government to improve their wages or working conditions would erode

that profit margin, and the industries would collapse. This is a story

we've certainly been hearing for a number of years from the

manufacturing sector. In the category of clerical work, he says that to

upgrade clerical workers — the government should be interested in that,

since they are major employers in this area — would be to threaten the

hierarchical structure of an organization. This would have devastating

results. First, discrimination in income is justified on the basis that

it is going to erode profit margins;

[ Page 6715 ]

secondly,

it's justified on the basis that it's going to interfere with the

hierarchical structure of an organization. He explains (3) and (4) by

saying that working in health and education and in the domestic sector

is just carrying on in terms of what women's work is anyway — the kind

of work that women do in the home — and that is the reason why it's

accepted by a basically patriarchal society.

What a

government has to do when it makes a commitment to equal pay for work

of equal value is to say and to decide, when the solution involves the

exploitation of women, in terms of profit margin, that it is too

profound and too destructive a solution to continue. There have to be

different ways of dealing with marginal job areas, marginal

manufacturing areas and those kinds of things, other than through

exploiting women. Of course, the hierarchical structure is one that

should be changed anyway.

We have to accept and recognize,

Mr. Speaker — and I know the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) knows this — that in the long run we pay anyway for this

exploitation: we pay through the income-assistance rolls before they

are age 60; after the age of 60 we pay through the old-age pension, the

guaranteed income supplement and GAIN. We pay in the long run for that

exploitation. So it's a matter of deciding whether we're going to

eliminate that exploitation and then really deal with the whole area of

poverty and women, or whether we're going to carry on, as this

government has decided, to entrench this discrimination against women,

so that the whole question of poverty continues for them.

The

cost of carrying on the discrimination in income against women is one

that, I think, no government has accurately computed today. Instead we

hear from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and other

ministers that it's not possible to compute value. How do you measure

it? How do you decide what it is? But it has been done in other

jurisdictions, and if the minister is committed to finding out, in

Washington state in 1974 the entire education system embarked on trying

to evaluate all of its employees in terms of the concept of equal

value, tried to eliminate the biases and to come on stream with a pay

scale that took into account the value of the work that everyone did.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is trying to do this. So for the

Minister of Labour and for the government to say that it's not possible

to deal with this is to say that they don't want to deal with it; it's

to say that the economics are such and the costs are such in the

beginning that they are consciously making a decision to perpetuate

poverty among women and pay for it in the end with their GAIN payments

or income assistance — at the same time, of course, as the whole

question of women on welfare is one which another ministry is dealing

with.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

stood up and said: "You can't have services unless you have good

business going on." Well, part of the income generated from that good

business comes out of the exploitation of women through not paying them

the value of their work in terms of the salaries that reflect that

value. For the government to talk about being committed to women and

enriching them, when at the same time it is entrenching exploitation

and discrimination in this area, is hypocritical, and it does not begin

to address itself to that very real problem which women have, namely

poverty.

The throne speech then goes on to tell us.... First of all, I want to say

that a hint of this came earlier from the meeting of the women's auxiliary

at the Social Credit convention, when they said: "As the family goes, so

goes the nation." I want to endorse that; I believe that was a very accurate

statement. So the throne speech tells us that the role of the family as the

basic foundation of our society cannot be overemphasized. "This has been

a consistent view of my government, and one which underlies and gives focus

to its many programs." Well, if one had the time to itemize, detail and

analyze the way in which the policies of this government threaten, undermine

and destroy the family, Mr. Speaker, it would take days — whether it's through

the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Education, Labour or the Attorney-General.

Wherever you look, the policy of this government goes counter to the commitment

made in the throne speech. It does not support the family; it threatens the

family, it undermines the family. The family is in clear and imminent danger

as a result of some of the policies of this government.

When,

at the end of August of this year, the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) introduced a new policy which was a direct and

unmitigated attack on infants and single parents in this province, that

was an attack on the family. I'm appalled that the members of the

ladies' auxiliary at their convention did not take the minister to task

on that. Certainly, that the deputy minister from Ontario would dare to

include that in the throne speech — reclassifying people based on

whether they're employable or unemployable, based on the age of an

infant and on whether it's being breast-fed or not — is the most

ludicrous comment I've ever heard.

But what in fact do we

find? The minister tells us that the reason for doing this is research

done in her ministry which indicates that single parents are better

educated, better skilled than everyone else and stay on welfare because

they lack — I don't know — the nerve to get off. So I decided to read

the research. I have a copy of the dependency report done for the

ministry, based on 1976 research, and I don't know why the minister

hasn't released that report, because the findings in that report are so

interesting. The first thing that the dependency survey found was that

94 percent of the employable people and 86 percent of the unemployable

people presently in receipt of income assistance have work histories.

They are people who have worked. In fact, what the report goes on to

say is that when they interviewed the income assistance recipients,

they said: "What would be your first choice? What do you see as the

number one priority of the Ministry of Human Resources?" A total of

70.6 percent of the employables and 41.6 of the unemployables said that

its first policy should be the creation of jobs. That's what it should

be dealing with. It was not, as the myth continues to circulate, that

the recipients would rather sit on income assistance. Of course, they

went on then to explain that it's hard to find work when there is no

work, when the unemployment figures in this province continue to

increase and when other provinces' unemployment figures are going down.

case you don't know, Mr. Speaker, the migration from this province is

now larger than the migration coming into it for the first time in a

great many years. There are more people leaving British Columbia,

including senior citizens, than there are people coming into this

province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Then the

report goes on to say: "We have established that the social assistance

caseload is really sensitive and dependent on the labour market. It has

nothing to do with whether

[ Page 6716 ]

the

recipient needs counselling in terms of self-esteem or lack of

self-esteem." The report very clearly says that when there is work, the

caseload goes down. When there is no work, it increases. It says: "B.C.

at present has the highest rate of unemployment west of Quebec." That

is why there is an increase in the income assistance rolls. It also

goes on to say that recipients prefer to work, rather than to continue

in idleness on social assistance. The general desirability to work

among the unemployed on social assistance challenges the orthodox

notion of laziness as induced by subsidies.

It was only the

second choice, after employment, that the recipients then said that

there should be an increase. But it says that very few recipients ever

leave their jobs in favour of establishing recipient-dependency status.

I don't understand why the Minister of Human Resources would have had

this report all of this time and not released it. If the truth will set

you free, why doesn't everyone in British Columbia have an opportunity

to know what the truth is in terms of the income assistant recipient,

rather than all these myths which the minister continues to perpetuate

about the people in receipt of income assistance?

We were told there was an alternative. Now there are going to be jobs. There is going to be training.

When

I wrote to the Minister of Human Resources and asked how much money was

put in the budget for the individual opportunities programs, I received

a letter back from her telling me.... She thanked me first of all for

my letter, and then went on: "As you may be aware, the intent of the

plan is to provide employment-related services and to enhance the

cooperation among the government agencies working to assist income

assistance recipients. To achieve these goals, we have not increased

the budget but have attempted to make the most efficient use of

existing resources, which are oriented towards increasing our clients'

abilities to become self-sufficient."

First, I want to

compare the individual opportunities program with some of the other

programs used by this government over the years in terms of income

assistance recipients. You've heard of Zoom. You've heard of PREP.

You've heard of the alliance for businessmen — all of these catch

names. The deputy minister received a memo on an assessment done by a

research economist in the ministry, Mr. Robin Handvelt, about the

income assistance savings which were made by one of these programs —

PREP. It says: "The published statistics on PREP establishes that PREP

has placed very few income assistance recipients in jobs." It goes on

to say that the reduced caseload depends upon whether clients placed in

a job by PREP are in addition to the normal outflow of clients to be

employed. It is possible that the PREP job placement represents jobs

that would have been filled by other clients anyway. The report goes on

to state — as I stated earlier and as was found in the dependency study

of 1976 — that the only thing that accurately reflects what goes on the

caseload is the labour market in the whole, the unemployment situation.

The

report says: "We therefore conclude that the PREP program has had

little or no effect on the total number of income assistance cases." He

tries to explain why it probably worked in Surrey, where it was done as

a pilot project, and why it isn't working anywhere else.

"The notion of slack periods of employment opportunity require

that the ministry acknowledge that many clients cannot get jobs. Extensive

efforts to place clients in jobs may simply set up a rival process to the normal

job finding process. The consequences of the total impact on the caseload will

be limited or negligible, depending on the available jobs."

This is what happened with PREP.

"In any

effort to find jobs for clients it is paramount that the nature of the

job market open to the clients be kept in mind. The income assistance

survey clearly locates the majority of income assistance plans in

seasonal and casual labour markets."

That's the same thing that the dependency survey found — that

they are primarily casual workers, and when there are jobs, they do go

to work. They, themselves, when asked the question, said that that was

what they would rather do, then went on to itemize that because there

were no jobs, because there was no daycare — those kind of support

things — they were forced, Mr. Speaker, in some instances to stay on

income assistance, by the ministry's own statistics, for as long as

four months.

The Victoria experiment on which the minister

has based her new policy.... David P. Ross, a consultant on income

security with the Canadian Council on Social Development, in a letter

to Ms. Gus Long, explained: "After looking at the experiment, I find

the experiment shoddy — it proves nothing." In conclusion, he says:

"This is a very poor time to introduce short-term experiments designed

to encourage the hard-to-employ to move into the labour market, because

of the critical unemployment situation in the province."

The

other thing the minister has committed herself to is the whole business

of education and counselling. I don't know if you know this, Mr.

Speaker, but the ministry is going to be contracting out to the private

sector counselling for income assistant recipients, to help them deal

with their self-image. One of these groups, MESI — Merit Employment

Success Inc.; MESI for short.... Really, it should be MESS, because

when we checked, we found they were not incorporated. Anyway, the

minister is going to be contracting out for them to deal with the

"deeply discouraged"; $875 out of ministry funds is going to help them

deal with the deeply discouraged. When I passed this information on to

one of the recipients and said, "Well, you can always apply for

assistance through MESI if you're deeply discouraged, " he asked if

there was a program for the "deeply pissed off." Really, Mr. Speaker,

that is what the department is dealing with at this time.

Again,

on the timing, if I go to the minister's own reports, it says: "The

winter months are exactly when marginal workers and those with limited

UIC insurance exhaust their benefits and come back onto income

assistance." Yet this is the time that the ministry has decided....

"The slowest months for people to leave social assistance come from

December through April." The information is here. The ministry has

those results and knows the facts. This is the worst possible time to

be forcing people without skills to get into the job market and start

fighting for jobs, because they're just not there, Mr. Speaker. The

statistics coming out of the Ministry of Labour would certainly tend to

support this. The Minister's statement that the past 20 years have seen

a major change in the income assistance recipient, and that the women

on income assistance now have higher educations and higher job

aspirations than in the past, her reason and justification for

decreasing their income assistance if they're not redefined as being

employable, I think needs some questioning.

[ Page 6717 ]

have gone through this report. I have contacted the minister's

department and asked that they share with me some of the other research

which they have done and which they refer to — not just their

dependency study, but some of the other studies which they have done

which they say claims that this is true — and I have to date not

received any of this. So I have decided it is time we hear from the

income assistance recipients themselves.

In consultation

with a number of other people who work with single-parent families and

with people involved in the system, I have designed a questionnaire to

the single parent herself, or himself as the case may be, to find out

whether this is in fact true, why it is, and what kind of impact this

new policy is having on the single parent with a child over the age of

six months or with two children, one of which is over the age of 12.

a statement in the press on the weekend, the minister stated that it

was nonsense about the impact of this policy on children. But we have

two school principals, Mr. Pat Mitchell from Thunderbird School and Mr.

Claus Spiekermann from a school in North Vancouver, both of whom have

documented evidence of the impact of this new policy. Just now, when

inflation and unemployment is on the increase, when the cost of

everything, including programs sponsored by the ministry itself — and

I'm speaking about Restaurant 44, where a number of recipients buy

their meals — is on the increase, the ministry has decided to cut back

the income of these recipients by $55 and $35 respectively. And the

ministry says: "Well, the only thing that stands in the way of these

people working is daycare."

I want to tell you about one

person who is working and is not on income assistance. She has two

children — one 15 and one 5, so she is employable, and is employed. She

would like some assistance with her daycare. She wrote a letter which

said:

"I went to the daycare information centre this morning

to apply for a subsidy. To begin with, I was told that if one grossed more than

$1,000 a month, one could no longer be given a subsidy based on the needs test.

They'd have to fill out the needs test, but it would then have to be taken

to a higher authority. Anyhow, as I definitely did not qualify for a subsidy

on the first form, we filled out the second form in the hope that if there was

anything left over, the higher authority would okay it.

"The

new rule No. 1 is that only one-third of your income is allowed for

shelter. If you're on income assistance, one-half is allocated for

shelter. This means that while my shelter cost is actually: rent, $500

a month, lights, $38; telephone, $9; heat, $45; and cablevision, $6 —

for a total cost of $598 — I am allowed, according to this form, a

maximum of $432.

"The second rule was that

while I have a loan payment, I cannot use it as a deduction, because I

did not secure the loan for the purpose of buying household

furnishings. I explained that I had borrowed the money three years ago

to hire a lawyer and run away from home when I was severely beaten by

my ex-husband. I was told that that kind of loan was not allowed as an

acceptable deduction.

"MHR therefore allowed

me the following deductions: shelter, $432, and the cost of running a

car, $100 — for a total of $532 — when, again, my actual costs are:

shelter, $598; car, $100; the loan, which I am still paying off, is at

the rate of $140 a month; and daycare, $220 — for a total of $1,030 a

month in expenses.

"I actually earn $1,342 a month. Therefore I have $302

left over each month to cover the cost of food, clothing and activities for

a 15-year-old son, a 5-year-old daughter and myself.

"Pardon me; I forgot my family allowance...."

She went on to talk about the fact that she actually had $344 left over.

Mr.

Speaker, when we look at the nutrition guide handed out by the Ministry of Health,

we find that she should have been spending in June, as a minimum, $364 a month

to feed her family.

Well, my time is running out, and I don't want to make the same

mistake that the throne speech made of not recognizing that this is the

International Year of Disabled Persons. There was no mention in the

throne speech of that. The fact is that what the disabled have asked

for, they have not received. They've asked for an amendment to the

Human Rights Code so that discrimination based on disability could be

outlawed, and that has not happened. There has been no aggressive job

creation program developed and no recommendations or whatever on a

provincewide basis to deal with the severely disabled child. In fact,

the only statement we've heard in the throne speech was that there was

going to be a shift from large institutions to a range of

community-based options. The opposition intends to watch that closely

to make sure that the large institutions are not replaced by small

institutions, as is happening in Alberta.

Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say on behalf of the senior citizens, who again

were ignored by this throne speech.... The Council of Senior Citizens

of British Columbia passed a resolution asking that SAFER be reexamined

and reconstructed so that it would kick in when the rent was 25

percent, rather than 30 percent, and that it be changed where SAFER is

presently terminated for the under-65 spouse when the spouse dies. In

fact, the only thing that happened for the seniors was that they had

their bus passes increased and the places where a number of them buy

their meals — that was increased too. We're finding for the first time

in a number of years that there are more senior citizens leaving the

province of British Columbia than coming in. This is certainly a new

phenomenon, and one which has never happened in the history of this

province before.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, and speaking in

opposition to the throne speech, I would be remiss if I did not say

that certainly on behalf of the people of British Columbia I am very

disappointed that in this Speech from the Throne the government

continues to speak out only on behalf of its megaprojects and on behalf

of big spending in terms of political gains, and not on behalf of the

infants, single-parent mothers or senior citizens who are leaving the

province and certainly not on behalf of the disabled....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The time for completion of the member's speech was expended some time ago....

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought the light went out. I was waiting for the light to go out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The light did go out, hon. member, but....

[ Page 6718 ]

MS. BROWN:

The light did go out. It certainly did, Mr. Speaker, for the single

parents and the disabled and the senior citizens of this province.

Thank you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the

member who has just sat down said that she was waiting for the light to

go out. I think it went out for the NDP in 1972. It went on for the

people of British Columbia in 1975.

Let me just respond to

some of the remarks. Before I do, I would just like to say that it's a

great pleasure to be speaking on the throne speech. I am going to be

voting for the throne speech in this debate, and I'm really pleased

that we have before us a document.... I would say that the throne

speech of today is a throne speech unlike many throne speeches that

have been quite vague over the years in their content, and appreciably

so. However, I think that it has been a throne speech which has given a

great deal of leadership in a time when leadership in this country has

been questioned.

The kind of economic initiatives that have

been seen across this country in province after province has certainly

left a fair amount to be desired. Thank goodness we live in a province

which has had the kind of economic initiatives that can give the people

of British Columbia the kind of opportunity and hope and inspiration

which people today need right across this country. The throne speech

had a great deal of emphasis on the recent constitutional debate. I

think it's just about time, and I'm delighted that the Premier's

efforts on behalf of the constitutional debate have at last made sure

that this country will stop the preoccupation with a matter which does

not do a thing to reduce interest rates in this country, with a

preoccupation that does nothing to give the average person in Canada a

better hope and way of life.

I'm hoping that now that the

constitutional debate is hopefully behind us, we can now get on to

doing what the Premier of this province has asked the Prime Minister of

this country on occasion after occasion to do, and that is to address

the economic concerns of Canada at last. We all look forward to the

economic debate and the debate on finances, which will hopefully be

before the country approximately at the beginning of January or

February of this coming year.

The, member who has just taken

her place, who represents the opposition party as a critic on social

services in this province, has made some comments, Mr. Speaker, which

really require some explanation.

First of all, let me just

say that when she addressed the senior citizens of this province, I was

sorry that she didn't mention, for example, that right in the throne

speech we are providing a new service for senior citizens which

obviously she chose to ignore. She also chose to ignore the information

service which many senior citizens need. Our senior citizen

counsellors, initiated by the Social Credit administration, has been a

tremendous program over the years, has been extremely popular, and will

continue under our administration, but it does need more help in terms

of bolstering assistance and communications to the senior citizens in

the province. I am very pleased that the throne speech highlighted that

new service, and I'm hoping that as the days go on in the debate on the

throne speech and the budget next year, all members of this House will

see fit to support that program, because it's going to be a very good

one.

I was surprised that the member, in speaking on senior

citizens, did not tell of some of the tremendous things that we are

already doing. The member makes mention of senior citizens housing. We

do have a senior citizens' housing construction program in the

province, and it has been highly successful. The member that represents

the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) should be ever so

pleased about the kinds of services we have in Burnaby-Edmonds alone,

but we do have it throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, we

can talk too about the other avenues of help to homeowners and renters

in this province who are senior citizens. I'd just like to remind the

people of the province and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that a total

of $630 for homeowner grants is available to those senior citizens 65

years of age or over. It's interesting that she left that out of her

address. It's interesting, too, that she failed to mention the renter's

tax credit. The shelter aid for elderly renters, SAFER, program has

been hailed across this country, and people have come from all over the

world to study it. It was initiated by this province and this

government. It gives senior citizens a hedge against increasing rents,

and it's a wonderful program. It's strange that she does not know about

that, or that she doesn't mention it.

I'd also like to point

out that those people who are senior citizens have other services which

are some of the very best of senior citizens' services in the whole

country. I'd like just to give some reference to the services offered

under the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the services that give a

tax deferment to senior citizens, the health care given to senior

citizens, the hospital programs, home care, long-term care. The kind of

services that have been initiated by this government, and that were

never able to be obtained by senior citizens before in this province,

in terms of long-term care, are available because of the actions of

this government.

This government has provided dental care,

out-patient services for senior citizens, and all of the other types of

senior citizens programs, not the least of which is the Pharmacare

program and the various programs in terms of comfort allowances and

GAIN for people 65 years and older. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the kinds

of services that are given at the community level in terms of senior

citizen counsellors, senior centres and community involvement are all

services that are the most sophisticated in the country.

talked about bus passes in just these last few minutes. It's

interesting that the member should address herself to bus passes. Not

only do we give free transportation on the ferry service, Mr. Speaker,

but in the very bus passes she is speaking about there is for the first

time an increase. You'll recall that the person who initiated the bus

passes in this province was a colleague of ours in the former Social

Credit administration, Hon. Isabel Dawson. You'll recall that that was

in 1967. Do you know that those bus passes haven't been raised since

1967? In the past few weeks we raised the bus passes by 50 cents a

month. Big deal for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come

in here and complain about the senior citizens' services being cut by a

50-cents-a-month increase in bus passes that haven't been increased

while raises have been given to all bus drivers and there have been

increases in fuel costs and increases in all services that have

anything to do with the bus service.

Big deal for the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds. As a matter of fact, in all of the things she

talked about in her address today this member, who has been so

outspoken all through the province, comes in the House with an

opportunity to tell everybody just how it is, and the only thing she

truly has to complain about is the 50-cent increase in bus passes.

Well, I'm going to tell you: all the other services that we have for

senior citizens, which over that time have grown

[ Page 6719 ]

under

this administration, make British Columbia the most generous to senior

citizens of any province in this nation. It is true that we have more

people in this province who require the services; a lot of that is

because of the great province in which we live, but it also has a lot

to do with the great services which we provide. We welcome them to this

province. We will continue to give them good service and the kind of

support they need in their aging years.

Let's not have the

kind of distortion we've had on the floor of this House today in regard

to senior citizens. It isn't deserving of the calibre of people who

should be sitting in this House to be scaring and frightening and

trying to upset the senior citizens of this province. It is not the

kind of thing we should do.

The member talked about

megaprojects too. She talked about megaprojects as if they were some

nasty thing which everybody should be very ashamed of. Let me tell you

right here and now, Mr. Speaker, the megaprojects, so-called.... Let's

tell everybody what these people across the way call megaprojects. They

call northeast coal a megaproject. Northeast coal will open up 25

percent of the province, which has only 2 percent of our total

population, to jobs, jobs, jobs for the people of British Columbia.

That's what it will do.

Let's look at another megaproject,

B.C. Place. It will revitalize, enhance and bring a whole new kind of

look to the city of Vancouver. It will clean up an absolutely

incredibly black and miserable-looking place and rehabilitate that area

of the beautiful city of Vancouver, so that it will really be an

attractive place for people to live in and visit. That same B.C. Place

will provide thousands upon thousands of jobs in the future. It will

also provide millions and millions of dollars in the future to provide

initiative not just in the city of Vancouver but also in the various

communities around this province, because it is a very viable economic

investment. Those aren't tax dollars that will be going to provide

things like the trade and convention centre, but it will be the benefit

from the B.C. Place project which will give a heart to the city of

Vancouver for the first time. It will be the envy of all of North

America. Instead of complaining about megaprojects, that party should

be lauding the government of British Columbia for the largest

redevelopment in all of North America, which is taking place in

Vancouver today.

Let me address the trade and convention

centre, which I know rather well. The trade and convention centre has

already sold $320 million worth of trade shows and convention business,

starting in early 1984. In 1985, the first 12-month year of operation,

there will be an event every two weeks in the trade and convention

centre on Pier B-C in the city of Vancouver. It will leave millions and

millions of dollars. What will the millions of dollars be left for?

People will come from all over the Pacific Rim, from Europe and from

all over the North American continent. After they have spent their

money and all the dollars are left in the city of Vancouver, they go on

to spend in the city of Victoria and Penticton in pre- and

post-convention tours. They will leave the money here, and go back to

their own part of the world for health and social services. We the

people of British Columbia will benefit from that $320 million worth of

business here in this province. It will benefit us in paying for our

schooling and paying for our health services and social services.

Let's

remember the other megaproject which they talk about with derision, and

that is the first transit service that any government has addressed

itself to — the proper kind of transit service for the city of

Vancouver. The LRT is being addressed by my colleague the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). For the first time we're

going to have the kind of light rapid transit that is going to bring

housing onstream. Megaprojects, dollars, housing and jobs — that's what

they mean. It's about time the people of British Columbia understood

that and were not led to misunderstand it by that socialist group over

there that wants to deride anything that's positive and put anything

that's positive in a bad and a negative light.

Mr. Speaker,

let me just say that all of the myths that are perpetrated by that

party opposite.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds talks about myths.

Let me just talk about the myth that they have perpetrated there, and

I'm just going to address the new policy which this member wants to

have misunderstood by the single parents, the single people and the

families of this province, I'm going to say that in all of the debate

the people of British Columbia have had in the past two months....

Thank goodness for the debate; I welcome the debate, and I'll tell you

why. You know, it wasn't until the debate on the new policy that the

Individual Opportunity Plan was truly understood by the people of

British Columbia. Much as I tried, much as I communicated and much as I

announced that the Individual Opportunity Plan was available, there was

no possibility, it seemed, that these people on the other side of the

House would give credit for it; there was no possibility that the

people of British Columbia were going to know about it. But now they

know about it and now they laud it. Even those people who are part of

the fellow travellers of the critic for Human Resources, the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, and the fellow travellers of the socialist opposition

opposite say that the Individual Opportunity Plan is a good idea. It's

been in this province now for a year and a half.

For a year

and a half we've had a plan and a program for any individual who wishes

to come into our office and make out a kind of a contract, if you like.

It's nothing legal, but something where they can sit down and work out

some direction for their life. We talk about the single parents — and

that direction is there for them too. The direction is there for the

families, and it's there for the single person on welfare. Let's put it

all in its right perspective. There are 60,000 people in the province

of British Columbia on income assistance, of which 30,000 are

employable. Now what does the opposition say about those employable

people?

MR. BARRETT: Secret police force.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The Leader of the Opposition, who wants to interrupt continually on

this address and seems to have a preoccupation to do so, will want to

hear what his Minister of Human Resources said about employable people

in the years when they were government. The Minister of Human Resources

was the colleague or the seatmate of the member for Burnaby- Edmonds.

This is from September 27, 1974, and Mr. Levi was Human Resources

minister. This is what he said:

"'The B.C.

government is beginning extensive efforts designed to get employable

welfare recipients off the welfare rolls,' Human Resources minister

Norman Levi said. 'In most cases employables will have to accept jobs

found for them or face the loss of their welfare. Nobody will be denied

welfare unless they actually refuse to accept a job without showing

what we consider to be a good reason.'"

[ Page 6720 ]

Two

reasons cited by Levi were unhealthy working conditions and the

employer not paying the minimum wage. Well, that's law in the province,

Mr. Speaker, so that was almost needless to say.

Vancouver the emphasis had been "too much on financing, too little on

rehabilitation," and his department wants to reverse that trend. That's

fascinating. Why didn't they do it? They didn't get around to doing it

at all.

MR. MACDONALD: They didn't get around to cutting mothers' allowances. That's what we're talking about.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, come on now, you're not talking about that at all. You're talking....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. During the speech of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) the member was allowed to continue without interruption, and I

would assume that all members would afford the minister the same

courtesy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you know, the former NDP Minister of Human Resources said that he

wanted to make everybody employable and go to work. In fact, it wasn't

"accept jobs"; they were going to make them get to work. That was what

he said. But funnily enough, he didn't do that. Funnily enough, he

didn't make any efforts for rehabilitation to allow that to happen.

That's the difference.

We talk about single parents. In

1974, when that statement was made by Mr. Levi, the people who took

income assistance, who had children and were single parents...their

children today would certainly be of school age at this point in time.

And yet, those people would still be on income assistance today because

of the very policies of the socialists across from us. You see, if you

don't have the opportunity when that child is small, and when you don't

give the opportunity to that mother while she still has a tiny

youngster in her home — if you don't give her that opportunity to see

her way out of that — you're going to have her on income assistance year after year after year.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who doesn't have the courtesy to stay in

the House while I'm responding to her address, knows full well that the

longer a person is on income assistance the longer he or she will stay

on. That is what our policy is all about. It's turning around the

dependency of social welfare. It's turning it around so that that child

— the youngster that was born in 1974.... At least the child born in

1981, 1982 and 1983 will get the opportunity. The rehabilitation

programs that are in place might take two years, might take 18 months —

and that's what the Individual Opportunity Plan is all about. At least

today in this province, when a child is born to someone on income

assistance, or when someone goes on income assistance because he or she

is a single parent, at least that opportunity will be there. For the

first time in this province they will be given that opportunity.

You

know, the member can talk about PREP all she wants. Members opposite

can get a little bit cynical about the kinds of programs that have come

down the way, over many Ministry of Human Resources appointments. Just

as there is a new appointment in the Ministry of Human Resources,

there's always been another way to get people jobs. And it is true that

some of them have worked and some of them have not. But let me tell you

the reason that PREP and all of the other job-finding programs don't

work — and the very reason why the one announced by Mr. Levi, the hope

that he had, that he would make people take jobs....

The

point is, Mr. Speaker, that you don't make people take jobs that they

don't want to stay at. If you do make people take jobs, they won't stay

at them. It's just as simple as that. That's why the Individual

Opportunity Plan and the job action program embodied in the Individual

Opportunity Plan are so different. It is true that if you do try to

find a person a job and it isn't what they want, they'll quit it within

a very short time. Or if they do stay, they stay under very difficult

circumstances.

Let me share with you some statistics that I

have in just a couple of examples from the job action program. This

program comes to us from the Vancouver area. I'll just read you a

couple of the examples. This is a three-week job action program. It is

for long-term income assistance recipients. They have experienced a

wide spectrum of barriers to employment. And there is a unique and

often heart-warming story behind each and every one of them.

There's

a 51-year-old family man who had been on income assistance for three

years. He was totally humiliated at being on welfare. After many

employer rejections, he had virtually given up hope of ever returning

to his occupation. He has now, and he recently phoned to advise that he

has successfully completed three months of probation and is a permanent

employee earning a good five-figure income.

Then there is

the 31-year-old single woman, on income assistance for almost two

years, with extensive training and study to become a recording

audio-technician. She was completely devastated by repeated rejection

because she had no previous work experience in her field. Today she is

working in a recording studio.

Then there was the

27-year-old handicapped allowance recipient planning to attend college

part-time in the fall towards courses and a career goal, and was

wanting a job after that. He began working in a position that required

full-time work during July and August, and then reverted to permanent

half-time in September. The position was a block from the school he

planned to attend, and hours worked out that he could continue both the

job and the school.

A 28-eight-year-old male, for three and a half years on income assistance.... And so it goes; there are many, many of them,

24-year-old single male, and a 32-year-old single parent with two

children, who has been unemployed since 1977.... After the three-week

job action program, she persevered, and today she is working for a

print company, has a good financial future as a press person, the trade

that she wanted but didn't believe that she could get.

could give you example after example. The kind of work that we are

doing in the Ministry of Human Resources is the kind of work that

should have been going on across this nation for some years. It's the

kind of thing that addresses itself to what income assistance is really

all about. It's temporary help in time of need. It is not something

that one should be counting on as a lifetime pension. It is temporary

help in time of need. If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who has been

talking about the single parents, thinks that they cannot rise to that

challenge, let me say that there are already 36,000 single parents in

this province. We talk about women and their place in the workplace and

their place in the home. On the floor of this House, we talk about the

independence of women and how women want to have careers and have their

independence

[ Page 6721 ]

and

their place in society. They have made that choice to have that place

in society, and they don't want to deny their children that place

either. They want the independence that comes from looking after

themselves. They don't want the socialist view of being kept down and

under the thumb of the state forever.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You

know, Mr. Speaker, we have so many positive things in our program, and

I'd like to tell you that all of the myths and misunderstandings that

have been perpetrated, I think, truly have been a great disservice to

the women in the province. For every woman who has a child, for every

single person who is a dropout from school, for every family man who

has been on income assistance and is still on it, there is some help at

the Ministry of Human Resources office. There is a place for them. I

have said before and I will repeat that anyone who is in need will get

all of the help from this province, this government and the people of

B.C. when they are in need. One of the things that we have to give

them, which apparently the socialists.... I didn't think it was going

to be a partisan issue at all, but funnily enough, the socialists don't

seem to believe in the kind of initiative and that feeling of

self-worth that comes from having your economics and your home all

together. That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing they want for every

person in this province.

They want a law for one and then

something different for others. That might be all right in other

countries, but in this rich country of Canada, and in this province of

British Columbia, where there are opportunities for people, we can give

them that sense of self-worth and that independence through a proper

kind of rehabilitation program.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, if you want to talk about Russia, Mr. Member, let me just quote

again from the NDP Minister of Human Resources. He said on September

27, 1974: "The new program, which carries a 'refuse to work and you

lose your benefits' clause, comes hard on the heels of overexpenditures

in Levi's department of $103 million. 'Those people who are employable,

and who are offered work that is appropriate must accept the work.'"

That's a dictate from the Minister of Human Resources in 1974. "If they

refuse to accept the work, then they will not be given welfare."

Nowhere in the series of articles does Levi's program mention single

mothers being unemployable, and nowhere is the mention of daycare

assistance.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is very critical

of our daycare program. I don't know why she should be so critical of

it, because in 1975 the same Minister of Human Resources, Norman Levi —

and she should have known this awfully well, because she was his

seat-mate at the time — said: "There will be no increase" — this is

October 20, 1975 — "in the provincial subsidy for daycare this fiscal

year. And there will be little expansion of the government daycare

program due to the current austerity program and the prospect of

unionization of daycare workers." Isn't that interesting? It's really

interesting the kinds of misinformation that party over there will

perpetrate in order to gain their political ends.

It's

interesting about daycare, because just a few days ago in the city of

Victoria we took a reading as to daycare vacancies, and as of November

15, 1981, there were 1,466 family daycare spaces, and 90 were vacant.

Thirty of those would take children under two years of age, and 20 of

those vacancies would take infants under one year old. In group daycare

there are 931 spaces, making a total of almost 2,400 spaces, and in

group daycare there were 30 vacancies, making a total of 120 vacancies

on that one day. You and I both know that goes up and down. It

increases and decreases by supply and demand, as it should. But it's

interesting that they never say anything about those vacancies, Mr.

Speaker. They only talk about the shortage.

Since the first

announcement of daycare subsidy increases in August, where there was

over three-quarters of a million dollars added.... We have already

initiated over 450 spaces since August with that $750,000, and that was

an expansion. Above and beyond that, the Treasury Board has increased

daycare programs and subsidies, as of September of this year, and has

also added to the support for rehabilitation programs, for job action

programs and that kind of program, which will now bring something close

to $1.5 million to the end of the fiscal year and a further $6 million

beyond that.

What do all of the other people in the province

think about the new program? Well, let me tell you something. For all

of the letters I get that say that they believe in the socialist kind

of philosophy — that is, keep everybody on income assistance, beholden

to the state and give the child that is born today no kind of

opportunity or inspiration in the years ahead, but keep them at one

economic level....

Why, the member is talking about a woman

who is becrying the fact that she's having a very tough time on $1,035

a month. But you have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the same woman who

has the two children would be getting around $700 a month on income

assistance. She's still getting more by going into the workplace, and

she will be getting faster increases in the workplace setting than we

will ever be able to give in once-a-year increases under the Ministry

of Human Resources, using the tax system. Because it wouldn't matter if

I were to get all of the Treasury Board's dollars in the next year; it

still would not be enough.

May I just say this: a country, a

province or a nation that continues to have the kind of philosophy that

a welfare way of life is the best way of life for people, I suggest to

you, is not a nation that we are wanting for our children or our

children's children.

As a matter of fact, I'd like to quote

the serious consequences that do come to young people. Just the other

day I heard — and all of us have examples.... The single parent issue

is a very large one in the province because there are very many single

parents in the province. They're a very large, growing number of people.

the present time in the province of British Columbia the total number

of people who have children six months of age is around 650. There are

650 single parents with a child who will turn six months old this

month. What are we talking about? How many are under 18 months of age?

About another 600 or 700. A total number of about 1,300 or 1,400 single

parents are going to face the fact that they are going to have to start

to plan for that child and themselves. If a child is six months of age

today, and if it takes two years to train that mother for a skilled job

of some kind, the child will be two and a half before she ever goes out

to work. If her child is 18 months before she ever goes into the

workplace to care for that child for the rest of her life — which is

her responsibility

[ Page 6722 ]

and her commitment by bringing that child into this world — then she will go out to work when that child is approximately three and a half or four years of age.

Just

the other day there was a young unmarried girl in the city of Vancouver

who gave birth to a baby. Her mother was on income assistance for all

the years that child had ever known; she had given birth to her when

she was 16 years of age, and had been on income assistance all the rest

of this child's life. She was 16, a dropout from school, and now she

has a child to look after, a baby that she would like to keep. Her

grandmother has been on income assistance. So there we have the fourth

generation on welfare, on income assistance — born last week in the

city of Vancouver. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that today there

is difference, however, for that girl who is living in the city of

Vancouver; she will be given help, retraining and rehabilitation, and

hopefully her child will grow up in a far different atmosphere than she

ever had. That will be the change.

In addressing my remarks

to the throne speech, I want to say that I am extremely pleased with

the kinds of economic initiatives that are in the throne speech. They

are going to provide opportunities and help to just such young people

as we have in trouble in the province of British Columbia. I support

the throne speech with the greatest of enthusiasm, because it's a

darned good one for the people of the province.

MR. KING:

When this minister gives her rather simplistic outline of what the

policy of this government is, I'm reminded of the classic saying of

Tommy Douglas: "'Every man for himself,' said the elephant, 'as he

danced among the chickens.'" That's precisely the attitude that this

minister and this government have. They have this simplistic way of

judging the circumstances of people by their own relative affluence.

They want to talk down, and they want to dispense their values and

experiences in society to people who have had it less opportune than

have the minister herself and many of us in this Legislature. For the

minister and that government to take the view that they are the only

ones who pay homage to the moral of working and earning a living is a

bit repugnant. It certainly is not borne out by the facts.

wasn't socialists who invented the Ministry of Human Resources and the

programs it underwrites on behalf of taxpayers. It was the excesses of

the system that that government supports blindly. It was the excesses

of the ultra-conservative economic policies of previous governments and

of this one. Certainly we as a party would rather see every British

Columbian who is capable of making a contribution gainfully employed.

That has always been our policy. But we're not so simplistic and naive

as to believe that everyone has equal opportunity. For various reasons,

be it the cyclical dilemma of a family imbued with the welfare

mentality that the minister referred to, a whole variety of social

circumstances or a lack of educational opportunities, I think we are

intelligent enough to recognize that you can't hold out the same

standard of motivation to every citizen. That's unrealistic and

simplistic. It makes me a little bit angry to hear the minister talk

down in the way she does to people who have had very difficult times.

She

talked about my colleague the former Minister of Human Resources doing

something that was apparently a major surprise to her: saying to people

on assistance: "If there is a job available and you turn that job down,

then you're going to be cut off." She talked about that as a major

revelation. I don't know where that minister has been. She was a member

of the W.A.C. Bennett government in 1969. I was in the opposition at

that time, and certainly from 1968-69 onward it was always the policy

that if a job was available in any area of this province, and a person

on assistance did not take it, then they were obliged to either move

from the area or have their assistance cut off. That has been the

policy of the Social Credit government which preceded this one, and I

don't argue too much with that. Certainly, if there's a job available,

one should take it.

What I do argue with is the rather cruel

way in which this particular minister has said to women who have a

small infant, "You must go out and seek employment," on the assumption

that employment is there, when the facts belie that proposition. And

while you're out tramping the streets, and spending your meagre

allowance in transportation costs and false leads in trying to find a

job, your assistance is going to be cut; it's going to be reduced.

That's what we object to. The minister euphemistically refers to that

as incentive. I categorize it as outright cruelty. That's what it is.

don't want to spend too much time on that. The minister talked about

northeast coal and B.C. Place, and jobs, jobs, jobs: she said that that

is what they stand for. I'd just like to refer very briefly to the

budget speech for 1981. I just want to draw a picture of what this

government has been saying over the past few years. The conclusion of

last March's budget speech had this to say:

"Objective British Columbians will recognize this as a realistic and responsible

budget. At a time when a storm of economic turmoil is battering the world, we

in British Columbia sail in relative calm. We have a standard of living, a level

of government services, and resources which are the envy of the world. Having

escaped this storm, we enter a new year clearly able to maintain and expand a

healthy, vigorous and forward-looking economy.

"Earlier

today I mentioned pride. That word is used in its correct sense, not

boastfully or with arrogance, but quietly recognizing what we have,

what we enjoy and what the future promises all of us. Every British

Columbian, if he or she thoughtfully looks around, takes stock and

recognizes what we have, will readily acknowledge our good fortune.

"Societies

are judged by history on the basis of social equity and justice. May we

today move forward together with pride, ensuring that history will

judge us well."

That was the budget of just last spring.

It's interesting to know what the previous budget of 1980 had to say

about some of the big megaprojects that the minister has referred to.

It's interesting to notice what it said about the federal policies and

their impact on the province of British Columbia. I'm not going to

quote it all, but I've gone through the 1980 and 1981 budgets in a

perfunctory way, and I find this government consistently, for the last

two years, condemning the federal government for their heavy deficit,

for their overspending, and drawing a comparison between their own

fiscal management of allegedly balanced budgets, as opposed to the

alleged spendthrift attitude of the federal government. At one and the

same time they were doing that, Mr. Speaker, they were running down to

Ottawa with their hand out, asking for contributions to an increasing

array of megaprojects: B.C. Place, the trade and convention centre and

northeast coal.

But the irony is that the federal government, to a degree,

apparently listened to them. The federal government said: "Okay, we are

going to bow to the increasing pressure from the provinces and from

industry to start cutting our deficit, to start cutting our spending,

because it's been categorized as the primary cause of inflation. Lo and

behold, this government in western Canada, on the furthest extremity of

our

[ Page 6723 ]

nation,

is caught in the horns of its own dilemma. They've been talking out of

two sides of their mouth at the same time. They've been saying, "Cut

your spending, cut your deficit, but give us more, shovel more out at

the same time to the Social Credit government of British Columbia so we

can allocate the taxpayers' money to the pet projects of the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)," who for some strange reason

has the administrative responsibility for a project that should

properly reside under the Ministry of Tourism.

I don't know

how the minister answers that, but I do know that it's fraught with

inconsistency. And this minister, you know, whether it's by accident or

design, likes to distort what the opposition stands for, to distort the

policy of the opposition, when opposition members, I think, are all in

fact capable of articulating, interpreting and presenting their own

policy. When is the government of the province — and that minister

particularly — going to stand up and try to explain the grave and gross

inconsistencies in their own policies? That's what we'd like to hear

from the minister.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've had an interesting kind of development

in this session, in my view. We had a bit of a pattern, a bit of a

trend set, when the mover and the shaker — I mean the mover and the

seconder — of the motion that Her Majesty's motion be accepted got up

on a strategy. A strategy by the government became obvious — rather

clumsily initiated, rather amateurishly pursued, but nevertheless

initiated by those two members. That strategy seemed to be: keep the

focus of attention on the opposition; deal with things in the past and

try to break the Social Credit Party's identity with the Liberal Party

and with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They have some problems with that last

one, because the cabinet of this government is populated mainly by

renegade Liberals, if I may use that term — and it's not a personal

suggestion, Mr. Speaker, but rather in the political sense. That was

the obvious strategy.

can understand why they want to do that, because this government is

really in trouble throughout the province of British Columbia. The

economy, which only a year ago they prophesied would be strong and

buoyant with major growth, is obviously in trouble. It's obvious that

it's in trouble when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is

issuing secret memos to his colleagues with notations at the top, "For

ministerial eyes only," urging them to cut programs, urging them to cut

spending allocations that were approved by the Legislature and

contained in the previous year's budget. It's obvious that they're in

trouble; it's obvious that they misjudged the economy.

Mr.

Speaker, we think that the government could be doing some things to

come to grips with what is indeed a stormy and difficult time — not

only in British Columbia, but around the world and certainly in Canada.

We don't blame the government for the depressed housing market in the

U.S. They blamed us in 1975 when things were about the same, but that's

a little bit shallow and it's a little bit foolish. We know, and I

think the citizens of British Columbia are certainly astute and

sophisticated enough to understand, that partisan politics should not

try to cloud what is a very difficult time internationally. But simply

because the causes of our dilemma may be to a large extent external is

no justification for inertia on the part of this particular government.

I must ask these questions, Mr. Speaker. What have we got in the throne speech?

What have we had out of this government over the past year that would assist

British Columbians in meeting ever-increasingly difficult times with respect

to interest rates and their impact on housing and mortgage renewal, with respect

to diminishing employment opportunity because investment is down, and with respect

to all of the social problems that flow from a depressed economic situation?

I suggest that this is not a time for punitive measures against the population

of British Columbia, the kind of rigid policy that the Minister of Human Resources

has brought in. I suggest it's a time when the government of our province

should take some leadership and sit down and talk about programs that should

be introduced to create some employment over the course of this winter. We have

12,000 forest workers unemployed at the present time.

have predictions from the Premier's own constituency. I like to quote

the source, because this government is fond of saying: "Well, if you

criticize us you're a prophet of doom and gloom, and that's just a

partisan approach of the NDP." In one of the Okanagan papers is a

commentary by the vice-president of Crown Zellerbach in Kelowna.

"'It

will be a bloody disaster,' he said, 'if interest rates don't drop

soon.' Currently Crown Zellerbach has laid off 125 of 900 employees at

its three major operations in Kelowna, Armstrong and Lumby. The plywood

operation in Kelowna has been cut back to four days a week. The lumber

is only working one shift, Neighbour said.

"In

the Kelowna area, Neighbour said, housing starts are way down, and

consequently demand for lumber and plywood has also sharply decreased.

This is also true for the Penticton and Vernon housing market, he said.

"The

one place things are still moving is in the Calgary and Red Deer areas,

Neighbour said. The market there is down a little, but not to the same

extent as it is here."

It's interesting to note that most of

the plywood manufactured in that interior area is destined, under

normal circumstances, for our own market here in British Columbia.

That's an area where we're not as reliant on the U.S. market as we are

for general forest products. There is a senior executive of Crown

Zellerbach suggesting that we're going to have a disaster this winter

unless something is done. We find not one initiative taken by this

government whatsoever.

It's not good enough for the

government just to come up with a political strategy to deal with this,

and to try to divert and deflect the attention from them and to blame

the NDP in some way. This is the situation that we're living in now.

The Social Credit Party happens to be the government of the province of

British Columbia now, and they should have the foresight and the

fortitude to deal with the economic needs of the province now.

don't mind seeing a few political games played by the members on that

side. We all know how it works. They try to make themselves look good

at the expense of just about anyone else, and they have a long way to

go in that respect. They like to put forward their leader as being some

kind of knight in shining armour. They tell us in the throne speech

about all the wonderful things our Premier did when he was down east at

the constitutional debates.

Somebody over there the other

day read a letter that one of the premiers had written, thanking our

Premier for his chairmanship of the constitutional undertaking down in

eastern Canada. I don't know which premier it was. I suppose that was a

nice little gesture, but I think perhaps more appropriate

[ Page 6724 ]

and

perhaps a bit more objective might be the assessment of a newspaper

that is very much a part of political life down in eastern Canada, a

newspaper that certainly isn't socialist — at least I don't think it is

— the Toronto Star . Is that a socialist newspaper?

AN HON. MEMBER: Red Liberal.

MR. KING:

Red Liberal. Well, here's what they had to say. They have a beautiful

portrait of our Premier; he looks a little down in the mouth on that

occasion. It has this to say:

"Bennett Entered as Lion and Left as Lamb, Say His Critics.

"Ottawa

— British Columbia Premier Bill Bennett came into this week's

constitutional conference tabbed as a lion, but went out with a

reputation among other provincial delegations as an ineffective lamb."

Is that the person they were writing about?

"Bennett

was seen as a linchpin in the delicate bargaining because of his triple

role as this year's chairman of the ten premiers, chairman of the gang

of eight premiers who oppose Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's plans, and

B.C. Premier. But when it came down to the nitty-gritty, he was shunted

aside, one official from another province said.

"Bennett's

performance was reportedly so shaky that Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed

took over as chairman of the final breakfast meeting of the eight

opposing premiers, sources said."

I've heard of the Last Supper, Mr. Speaker. Now we've heard of the last breakfast.

don't know whether anything further is going to happen to our Premier

or not, but he certainly didn't seem to be appreciated too greatly down

there. It goes on to quote:

"The other

premiers felt Bennett was off-track, according to the sources.

Criticisms of Bennett must be tempered in light of grudges and

ill-feeling that developed as each province tried to present its

performance in the best possible light at the conference. Saskatchewan

and Ontario were known to be especially upset with the B.C. Premier

because they felt he had blocked initiatives by the three provinces in

Toronto last week to work out a compromise. But officials from four

provinces among the eight original allies gave Bennett bad reviews as

the conference ended Thursday. Hall Leiren, Bennett's press secretary,

countered criticisms by saying the Premier had played a key role in

setting up meetings between Premiers and preparing the ground for a

compromise."

Well, we've got a very effective guy down

there. I think we could have sent along one of the office couriers to

actually set up the meetings. But nevertheless, Hall Leiren, a

high-paid staff member from the Premier's office, I guess a colleague

of Mr. Kinsella, said the Premier played a key role in setting up those

meetings. It continues:

"Early to Bed." "But

Bennett, who has a reputation of rising early and going to bed early,

did not attend late-night talks, which eventually led to Thursday's

compromise. Both he and Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed sent

representatives, while the Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan,

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were involved

personally. One provincial official suggested Bennett had failed to

keep the eight together and had exposed the weaknesses of the common

front by appearing open to Ottawa's proposed compromises. He certainly

wavered and allowed the Prime Minister to pluck certain people off on

certain issues, he added.

"Lacked Clarity." "A

delegate from another province said Bennett and B.C. Attorney General

Garde Gardom didn't seem to have a clear grip on the issues and

couldn't seem to decide exactly what it was they wanted. Feeling in

need of rest after the constitutional marathon, Bennett left Victoria

yesterday for an undisclosed location in the sun, somewhere south of

the B.C. border. The spokesman said he'll be away for ten days."

Mr.

Speaker, this is hardly the picture of a dynamic leader who did the

great things for the province of British Columbia that members on that

side have led us to believe. I read another report which suggested the

Premier of British Columbia was actually incoherent before the meetings

of the first ministers was completed in terms of obtaining a

constitution. I can say that I could give some credibility to that

report, because certainly the policies and objectives of this

government are incoherent. The difficulty is that we see things

differently than that government in terms of what priorities should be,

and that's what the argument is about.

We are not, per se,

against development of any of the projects that we refer to as

megaprojects. We are not against them, per se, when they are affordable

and when they fit into the proper priorities of this province. But we

are opposed to the expenditure of that kind of taxpayers' dollars when

social programs are being eroded and destroyed by this government.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has had a

vote of non-confidence expressed in him by the community which he

serves, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, is very vocal here. Perhaps

if he had more to say on behalf of the farmers he is supposed to

represent, he would have their confidence.

We are here to

debate what priorities should be. Our members have put forward our

thoughts on what priorities are. I think it's wrong to go ahead with

B.C. Place. I think it's wrong to go ahead with the football stadium

when we're seeing home-care programs and homemaker programs curtailed

and cut back throughout the length and breadth of this province. I

think that's wrong. I think people are more important than the kinds of

projects that may give the Minister of Human Resources a personal

edifice. It may be a kind of historical epitaph to that minister — and

I mean a political epitaph. It may be that, but I think it's a

misappropriation of the people's money when other more pressing,

fundamental human services are being eroded and cut back. That's what

we think is wrong with it.

By all means, let's proceed when

we can afford it. But we don't think we can afford it when 10,000

people are unemployed in the forest industry and this government has

yet to come up with one program to create employment and put them to

work in a positive way. That minister talks about incentive and

initiative. Why is it that her government will not talk about some

intensive silvicultural programs to put those 10,000 unemployed IWA

people back to work, rather than have them sit home idle and collect

unemployment

[ Page 6725 ]

insurance?

Where is Social Credit morality in that respect, Mr. Speaker? It's

totally inconsistent with the proposition that she was putting forward

to try to justify her tender mercies to the poor people of the province.

Sure,

unemployment insurance is paid by the federal government. Perhaps

that's why she and her colleagues are prepared to sit back and see that

money expended to maintain people in idleness. I want to say that those

forest workers have dignity too. They have worked all their lives, and

they're proud of the industry they work in. They would much prefer to

be positively and productively engaged in the long-term betterment of

that resource than sitting idly at home.

If the minister

believes in the kind of policy she espouses, why not be consistent? We

think it is wrong to expend millions of dollars on B.C. Place and the

stadium — and, yes, B.C. Coal, unaccounted-for dollars — when we have

highways, and bridges on highways in this province, that are totally

unsafe. We have a highway to Squamish that people have to travel at

their own risk. The public safety is jeopardized, but there are no

moneys to repair that highway so people have the most fundamental

service, that of transportation.

In my own riding we have a

bridge on the periphery of the village of Enderby, and I've been after

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the last three years to

renew that bridge. The minister hides behind a conflict with the local

native Indian band, which is a sham and not a valid excuse any more.

The Indian band is prepared to have the minister proceed with the

construction and negotiate any land claims after. Nothing could be more

reasonable that that, but the ministry hasn't got the money. The result

was that a school bus travelling on that bridge was in an accident just

in the last two months — a school bus containing about 45 young

students. Because it's a derelict bridge, because it's unsafe for

public transportation — for a vehicle of that size at least — the

minister has now put a load restriction on, and the school bus can't

travel on it any more. It has to travel about seven or eight miles

around on a detour, which means that young children have to get up an

hour earlier in the morning and they are an hour later getting home.

Their extracurricular activities in school are adversely affected.

There are no dollars for that, but we're throwing money at B.C. Place

because it's the pet project of a certain minister who seems to have an

insatiable appetite for political notoriety at the expense of

fundamental services to people. That's the kind of lack of proper

perspective and lack of respect for fundamental services to people that

we disagree on.

We have a kind of surplus lying around?

After good services are provided for people, that allows for those

kinds of exotic projects. By all means, be our guest; we'll support

them too. It gives B.C. something to be proud of — but not at the

expense of fundamental services to people. It's your priorities we

object to, and your priorities are vicious.

Mr. Speaker,

that's not the only area, and the members know these things are true.

I've had letters from the union board of health at Vernon, directed to

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), pointing out that they

cannot afford to engage enough staff to carry out health inspections

within their jurisdiction, to the point where recreational beaches are

having to be closed because the coliform count can't be monitored by

the health inspector.

Mr. Speaker, we have the very serious

situation where there are not adequate health inspectors to carry out

the inspections of food establishments in that area of the province.

The chairman of the union board of health at Vernon, for the North

Okanagan area, has written to the minister and pleaded for more staff

and pointed out that the neglect of proper inspections holds out the

prospect of a major epidemic of disease taking place. Does any

politician or any individual in his right mind, on either side of the

house, agree that we should be shovelling money into B.C. Place when

the fundamental health needs of British Columbians are being ignored in

that fashion? That's where our priorities are different.

The

minister wrote a letter back and said, well, you could have had a third

of another inspector. What do they do with a third of that inspector,

when one-third of him is in Revelstoke and the other third is in Salmon

Arm? It's an area that contains hundreds of thousands of square miles.

It's a shameful performance, and totally unacceptable.

What

about the homemaker service? It's been cut 15 percent in Revelstoke and

15 percent in Chase. We outlined last year the cuts that were taking

place right across this province in the homemaker service to

individuals who need a bit of help so they can remain in their own

home. Rather than being driven out and into expensive acute-care

facilities, with a little bit of a hand in terms of doing the daily

chores, a little bit of support in the home. they can remain there

longer at a cheaper cost to the public and, above all, with more

psychological security and peace of mind for themselves.

Our

priorities say to us that we don't agree with pouring billions of

dollars into megaprojects, millions that are unaccounted for into

northeast coal, millions into B.C. Place and football stadiums, when

the indigent and the elderly are being deprived of the fundamental home

care they deserve. We think that priority is wrong, and we oppose that.

I've

got a situation in my riding in Revelstoke where we have a large school

and a very small gym. Parents, the school board and the local MLA have

written to the minister requesting a full-size gymnasium. The

government wrote back and said: "We can't afford it." Well, that would

be fine too. I don't consider a gymnasium a "frill"; I consider that

part and parcel of a healthy education system for the students of this

province. But if we can't afford a gymnasium for our school children,

then I don't know how in heaven's name we can afford a football stadium

to titillate the people of this province in terms of going to

professional sports activities,

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against the stadium?

MR. KING: I don't believe in those kinds of priorities, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against the stadium? Yes or no.

MR. KING:

Am I against the stadium at this time? By all means, I'm against the

stadium at this time. If the Minister had been in the House he would

have heard very clearly what I am opposed to and the circumstances and

conditions upon which I am opposed to it. But that minister was over

attending to his functions at UBC and that experimental laboratory he

has over there. That's what he was doing, and he just flew back on Air

B.C. Now he thinks this is the first speech of the session today, you

see, so he comes in and wants to heckle. The minister should attend the

session once in a while and he'd know what was said, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6726 ]

These

are the kinds of things we're against. We think it's totally

unacceptable for the northern part of the province and the interior of

the province to be deprived of fundamental human services while frill

items, which the stadium certainly is.... We're expending millions of

the taxpayers' dollars on that kind of edifice in the city of

Vancouver. We think it's wrong, not only in terms of balanced

priorities; we think it's a bit wrong, too, because a great deal of the

wealth in terms of resources in this province comes from the interior