[ Page 19 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Blood alcohol tests. Ms, Brown 19

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 19

Mr. Barrett

Pay increase by order-in-council. Mr. Stupich 21

Throne speech debate

Mrs. Dailly –– 21

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 25

Mr. Skelly –– 29

Mr. Pelton –– 31

Ms. Brown –– 33

Mr. Reid –– 37

Mrs. Wallace –– 41

MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1983

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to bid a very cordial welcome to two cabinet ministers from our great sister province of Alberta: Hon. James Horsman, Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Hon. Fred Bradley, Minister of Environment.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a good friend of this House and of British Columbia, Mr. Ron Price, whose father was a long-time member of this Legislature. He ran for the Social Credit Party in Vancouver-Burrard in 1975. I'd ask this House to bid him welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have in the gallery today a group of young students who are members of the Cowichan Indian Band and who are this year graduating from the Lake Cowichan Secondary School. I would ask them to stand as I name them: John Wilson, Jonathan Joe, Carl Williams, Sharon Joe and Francine Alphonse. They are accompanied by Dawn MacIntyre-Just and Ron George, their home-school coordinators. Please join me in congratulating these guests.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to welcome a very good friend of our government and a constituent of mine. He's Pastor Wiebe of the Sevenoaks Alliance Church.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is a group of mothers who belong to a group known as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They are accompanied by the president of their Vancouver chapter, Sally Gribble, and also the president of the Victoria chapter, Jan Greenwood. I'd like the House to join me in recognizing their presence.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome today Larry Kuehn, president of the BCTF, and Doug Smart, first vice-president of BCTF. We have just concluded our second meeting since I have assumed this portfolio — the second meeting of many to come. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General. In October of last year this assembly unanimously passed legislation to require blood alcohol tests for accident injury victims suspected of drunk driving. That was Bill 69; I think the minister is aware of it. In view of the recent information that approximately 1,000 cases a year would require such a test, at a total cost of only $35,000 to the government — less than five desks, incidentally — can the minister advise the government why on Wednesday the 22nd, in an interview on television, he stated that the government was not prepared to proclaim this piece of legislation at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I have stated several times, and again today, that I would be recommending the proclamation of the mandatory-blood-testing bill, but that bill is part of a package of three bills — another Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, and amendments to the Offence Act — and they must be dealt with together as a package. I will be making recommendations to them as a package, but my recommendation on the compulsory blood testing is clearly that it will be proclaimed and that we will be in the forefront in Canada with that kind of legislation.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. One of the most important positions of public employees in British Columbia is that of the government agent. The government agent, as you know, relates to all government ministries and represents the government to the public in all areas of the province. It's a career job, based on merit and open competition. Can the minister advise why the appointment of Tony Tozer as government agent in Kelowna did not follow normal procedures for the appointment of such agents, and will he confirm to the House that this appointment was done on instructions of the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the second part of the question, the Premier and I did indeed discuss this particular appointment. I will, at the appropriate time in the weeks ahead, indicate to the Legislative Assembly the proposals I have with respect to government agents. I cannot give a time when that will occur. The whole position of government agent is under review. We want to retain government agents as an important extension of government throughout the province. I will be speaking later about that.

MR. HANSON: As the Minister of Finance would be aware, this is cause for considerable concern among the career public employees — your own employees. Can you advise us when the Premier contacted you with respect to Mr. Tozer's appointment to this position?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question has some difficulty inasmuch as I disagree with the preamble.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister deny that the Premier contacted him and asked that Mr. Tozer be hired?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that in answering the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in the first part of his question, I indicated that the Premier and I did indeed discuss the position of government agent in Kelowna. The answer is yes.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell this House whether or not, during his period of tenure as Minister of Finance, any other appointment to this position of government agent was discussed with the Premier?

HON, MR. CURTIS: I discuss a lot of matters with the Premier, and indeed we have spoken of positions relating to government agency offices throughout the province on more than one occasion over the last three years at least.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister inform this House whether or not names were mentioned and designated in

[ Page 20 ]

conversations, prior to this admitted conversation with the Premier? Were any other government agents mentioned by name prior to appointment in conversation between you and the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question intrudes into an area of confidentiality between a member of cabinet and another member of cabinet, but I did attempt to assist the present Leader of the Opposition when I indicated that the Premier and I have discussed the position of government agent on a number of occasions.

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: Since the Minister of Finance chose to break a confidentiality, admitting that he discussed Mr. Tozer, is he not now prepared to admit that other names were discussed? Or is this indeed the first time such a travesty of the civil service has occurred here in the province of British Columbia? The job description of a government agent says: "The role of the government agent is unique in that it has no comparative position in Canada. The incumbent is required to have an intimate knowledge of the statutes of British Columbia." Can the minister assure this House that Mr. Tozer gained an intimate knowledge of the 70 statutes outlined in the job description — it takes most people 20 years, experience in working up through the ranks to get to this position — in the brief period of time he has had in the public service?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have no hesitation in commending to this House the qualifications of Mr. Tozer for the position to which he has been appointed, government agent in the Kelowna office.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell this House how many other competitors there were for that posting in Kelowna?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would have to take that as notice. There were several others; I cannot be precise as to the exact number. I can report back.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister recall the names of any of the other applicants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I do.

MR. BARRETT: Can you tell us some of those names here and now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That would fit under the heading.... I would be quite willing to come back to the member with the precise number who applied for the position, which ones were considered for the position, and other details associated with that.

MR. BARRETT: My question to the minister was: can he tell the House some of those names now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've taken it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: I submit that the minister doesn't remember one single name of any other applicant and that this is the only name discussed with him for this job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: This is the first time in some thirty years...

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question, please?

MR. BARRETT: ...that the normal practice of non-political appointments through the civil service take place.... We have an admission today that this is broken. I want to know....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, as we know, we will have an opportunity for a wide scope of debate in the very near future. This, however, is not that time, and we must stick with the rules that bind us all in this House, particularly at question period — rules with which the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, is very familiar.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the definition.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time in 30 years that a non-political civil service post has been made political, is it a signal that it is now permanent government policy to name people to high civil service posts on the advice of the Premier, who should not even be discussing names — and they have never been discussed before in the history of British Columbia — in such competitions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that that member, who has served briefly as Premier of this province, would admit to not discussing names of candidates for positions within government. Of course names are discussed, and the member knows that. It is a travesty, sir, to attempt to use question period to suggest otherwise. Clearly, in the course of carrying out day-to-day responsibilities, all ministers discuss names of appropriate individuals for a variety of positions. What an admission for the Leader of the Opposition, a former Premier, to suggest that this does not occur! Indeed, for it not to occur, I think, is for us to be very derelict in our duty.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no one denies that order-in-council appointments by name are the prerogative of government. The distinction is that this is a direct appointment with political interference into a non-political civil service that must abide by the normal hiring processes of panels and selections. There are people who have spent 30 years of their lives waiting for jobs like this, and they are not relatives of the Premier, and they are not appointed by that interference.

Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of this government, through the Minister of Finance, to now do away with all panels and appoint people to civil service positions not through order-in-council, but without competition purely on the basis of a conversation between a minister and the Premier? Is that now going to be policy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if the question relates to existing government policy, the answer is no, it is not government policy.

[ Page 21 ]

MR. BARRETT: Then how did this appointment take place if it is not government policy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a matter of public record, long before question period this afternoon, as to how this appointment took place; the member knows that. The member has material available to him, as a member of this House and, indeed, as a British Columbian, with respect to how the appointment took place. I've assisted the member to the fullest extent possible this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has said this is not a normal appointment, and the minister has said I have public knowledge; both are correct. It is a straight pork-barrel appointment — a violation of everything we know in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must again remind the member that we are not entering into debate; this is question period. The member is entitled to ask a question, but argumentation and debate are not permitted in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I agree, but the argumentative answers avoid dealing with the specific questions.

The last question, Mr. Speaker: Is it your impression that restraint does not apply to relatives, or indirect relatives of the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Questions addressed to the Chair are not in order.

MR. BARRETT: How do you deal with your brother's brother-in-law?

PAY INCREASE BY ORDER-IN-COUNCIL

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise whether the 50 percent pay increase awarded by order-in-council to Mr. Mike Bailey of the Premier's office will be referred to the compensation stabilization committee for review?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Nanaimo would know that the appointment as announced represents a significant change in job and in position, rather than a promotion. The duties assigned to Mr. Bailey prior to the appointment versus those which apply now are entirely different.

MR. STUPICH: I have a supplementary question to the same minister. Can the minister advise whether all branches of government are entitled to use this form of transparent reclassification to award salary increases that are denied other government employees?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty in accepting the thesis that "transparent" reassignment applies in this instance. I indicated to the member that the responsibilities and duties of the individual concerned changed significantly. That is why I earlier rejected the use of the word "promotion," suggesting simply more money within the same position with no change in responsibilities or duties.

MRS. WALLACE: I rise under standing order 35 and ask leave to introduce a matter of urgent public importance. The matter relates to the recently announced permanent closure of the Chemainus sawmill, with a layoff of 600 people, followed almost immediately by another permanent closure at the veneer plant at Youbou, with 150 people. That veneer plant is owned by B.C. Forest Products, which is a co-owner of Western Forest Products, which owned Honeymoon Bay, which closed down a year or so ago with 300 people laid off.

Mr. Speaker, this question has reached a magnitude that is beyond normal proportions. It has reached a magnitude where it is a matter of urgent public importance, not only to the Cowichan Valley but to the province generally, and to the forest industry. The minister has made some statements relative to the MacMillan Bloedel closure. I believe we should discuss that in this Legislature, and I believe we should relate it to B.C. Forest Products as well. I have a motion, Mr. Speaker, if in fact I have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As has been the practice, I will review the matter without prejudice to the member's argument and return with a decision.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you, once more, on your election as Speaker. I also would like to welcome all the new members to the House. May I congratulate the ones we have already heard from. I think their speeches were done with great confidence and smoothness, and I will compare them with my first speech in this Legislature some 17 years ago when I almost had to be held up, I was so nervous.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I remember that.

MRS. DAILLY: You remember that, don't you? He's even older, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, I am going to address, specifically as I am in a position to do so today, the first reply of the official opposition to the throne speech of 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I read it very carefully after listening to it being read, and I must congratulate the government on the fact that it is one of the most clear and explicit throne speeches that I have had the opportunity to listen to in many years. It is very clear in pointing out to the public of British Columbia exactly what philosophy, finally, the Social Credit government is telling us that they are going to base the next four years of government on in the province of British Columbia. It is most clear that the philosophy which the Social Credit Party has now come right out, openly, and told everyone about is simply an ultra-conservative Thatcher-Reagan approach to economic planning — a Milton Friedman approach, a Reagan approach and a Thatcher approach.

The thing that's frightening about that approach is that we simply have to took at what has happened in England and in the United States under this very ultra-conservative fiscal approach to the economic situation that we face today. Let's look at what has happened. I'm then going to go into detail and apply it to the province of British Columbia and tell you why I and so many other people are, frankly, very, very

[ Page 22 ]

concerned. If this approach is truly going to be followed, the people of British Columbia, instead of looking forward to improvements in the economy, unfortunately are going to find themselves moving further into recession.

[2:30]

Under the Thatcher-Reagan approach, which the Social Credit government now openly espouses, we can see that we are going to have increased unemployment in this province. We're going to have increased youth unemployment, which already is far too high for any province. We're going to have growing social tensions. All this we now see in England and the United States because of the policies which are being followed by these governments. We have increased crime. We have massive cutbacks in needed people services. We have a return of Crown corporations, which were created by the people and for the people of British Columbia, into private monopolistic hands.

We also have a continued obsession with inflation. Now that does not mean that anyone wants to continue to live under high inflation, but we find that governments such as the Social Credit-Reagan-Thatcher-type governments have an obsession with the matter of inflation. The public of B.C. has been sold on the selective cutbacks in the wages of certain people in this province — cutbacks in public services, in education and in health. I am sure you can name them with me, Mr. Speaker. Your constituents must talk to you about them too. We have found that this has all been done in the name of reducing inflation. Yet we look at the inflation rate today right across Canada and in the province of British Columbia, and while it may have gone down slightly, one has to ask whether it has improved the economy. Has it improved the lot of the people of British Columbia? I think we would have to answer that the record shows that this obsession with inflation has not worked positively and for the benefit of the people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On this very matter of inflation many people have stated.... I am going to quote from a Catholic bishop in the United States, who recently stated in the Catholic Reporter: "I represent a religious tradition which believes it is immoral to use unemployment to quell inflation." This was declared by Cleveland Auxiliary Bishop James Lyke as he delivered one of the Catholic Church's harshest critiques to date of the Reagan administration. I am concerned that our Premier in British Columbia and his cabinet seem to be embarked on this same trail of obsession with keeping inflation down, thinking that this is going to solve all the evils of our society today.

Let's look at the public control program that has been brought in by the Liberal government. Their 6-and-5 plan, which they brought in with such fanfare that they were even going to have a special dinner, I understand, to celebrate the bringing in of it — an anniversary dinner.... I am sure all the public servants and the people who have suffered from this would not be invited to that dinner. This was going to be a dinner of politicians clapping each other on the back, saying: "Aren't we great? We've kept down the public service wages, and look at the great results." My point, and my question to everyone in this House, is: what are the results? Yes, maybe the wages have been kept down, but what's happening to the economy? Our own Premier stated in the throne speech that the whole area of control of certain wages has certainly helped to improve the economy and has brought down inflation.

The interesting thing is that I think most people would agree today with the chief economist of the Conference Board in Canada, Thomas Maxwell, who recently estimated that the federal 6-and-5 program contributed directly to only about 3 percent of the fall in inflation over the last year. He said similar provincial programs should have contributed more to the fall in inflation, but even these, Mr. Maxwell said, were probably not a major factor in the price decline. So what was the major factor? The thing that really brought down the consumer price index, which is of course a measure of inflation, is the worldwide recession.

I am suggesting to the government that it's about time they started reassessing and looking at this obsession with bringing down inflation, and saying: "What is really happening in this province? Is it improving? Are these selective controls on certain people in our society and all the suffering that goes along because of it — loss of employment, etc. — truly helping the economy and the people of British Columbia? I say that it is not. The record shows it.

In the throne speech, there is a statement that I find very callous and cruel. I want to quote from the throne speech regarding unemployment: "For those who are unemployed, there are no quick fixes, no magical solutions. My government believes that we must earn our way out of the recession because we cannot spend our way out of it."

The unemployed of British Columbia, if we judge by this throne speech, are being given no hope. Although we are told there are no quick fixes and no magical solutions for the unemployed, we want to know — and I'm sure many other people in British Columbia want to know — why that statement does not apply to people who are being hired in the Premier's office, who we suddenly find are promoted, with increased salaries. Special appointments are being made. The czar of all public relations, now Mr. Heal, is spending we have no idea how many thousands and thousands of dollars — probably going into the millions before we are through — in hiring a retinue of people around him. For what purpose? Everywhere else there are cutbacks. Everywhere else teachers, nurses, etc. are being told: "You cannot expect to get out of the terrible recession we are in unless you accept cutbacks in services and cutbacks in your employment." Yet Mr. Heal, for some strange reason, has been selected for an enormous increase in staff and in money. For what purpose, Mr. Speaker? The purpose is apparently to coordinate all public information under one man. I'm sure that the unemployed of British Columbia are going to be so pleased to know that this new function is taking place. I'm sure it has a great relation to their position of being unemployed. So more employment is being created for the PR flacks in the Social Credit government at the expense of services elsewhere in the province which are far more valuable.

If Mr. Heal, the czar of public relations, could come out and announce in one big brochure — even with the Premier's name on it, even with all the cabinet's pictures on it — that unemployment in British Columbia is going down and that they have positive, realistic programs to improve employment, none of us would care if Mr. Heal used his office for something positive in that vein.

We know that the only thing that will be coming out of this unnecessary expenditure in Mr. Heal's office will be some very fine-tuned political partisan propaganda, starting

[ Page 23 ]

now to control public opinion in preparation for the next election four years from now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Five.

MRS. DAILLY: Five years. Yes, unfortunately it could almost be forever, if this government takes unto itself the taxpayers' money to perpetuate themselves through Social Credit propaganda. It becomes very questionably close to a dictatorship. When you have the money and you abuse it in that manner, I can only say to you that in time the people of British Columbia will say enough is enough. Whether some of us will be here or not, that time will come.

I would like to go on and discuss some of the other areas of unemployment that concern me, particularly the government's attitude to it. I was recently reading — and this seemed to tie in so much with what was in the throne speech — that three centuries ago, an English economist, Sir William Petty, advocated a new and daring approach to the growing problems of unemployment in England. In contrast to the actual practice in seventeenth century England, Petty was convinced "that the unemployed ought neither to be starved nor hanged nor given away." That idea seemed absurd to the wealthy Englishmen at the time of the onset of capitalism, as did his belief that the lack of employment, rather than innate laziness, might be the real cause of the miserable condition of the unemployed.

As you read that statement of the throne speech, there appears to be an almost supercilious attitude developing in the Socred government. They're throwing up their hands and saying: "Look, if you're unemployed, don't look to us for help." When you say that, there is an implication to the unemployed that it is their fault they are unemployed. As long as there is a government with that attitude — which doesn't seem to differ much from that of 300 years ago in England — I would say that the people of British Columbia have much to fear from the Social Credit government and their so-called new mandate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and everyone else not to interrupt.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One thing one learns throughout the years in this Legislature is patience, even with that minister. One thing one also learns politically, especially if one is a member of the democratic socialist party, is that patience usually pays off. Naturally the NDP, the democratic socialist party of this province, is somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, that it did not become the government. But we tried. We know that 45 percent of the people in British Columbia believe in us and supported our principles.

We will continue to put forward those principles of democratic socialism in this Legislature, across the country and elsewhere in the world because we believe in them. They have succeeded in the countries and provinces which have them. They are governments which rule with compassion for and understanding of people. As we can see by this throne speech, I'm afraid the Social Credit government is becoming very removed from the true needs of the people of this province.

1 think the government must really take a second look at saying they are going to throw up their hands, do nothing about unemployment and just leave it to the private sector. Many government members who are going to do this are, I'm sure, not going to be here eight, ten years down the road. The policy they are bringing in today — or their lack of policies — is going to come out and be shown in future years. We are going to see children who today are being brought up in families where the parents are unemployed growing up with some definite psychological harm. We are going to see the young mothers of today, who are denied the services they should have because of the economic recession, end up in more serious difficulty in future years. Because this government is so short-sighted in not providing funds now for the needs in these areas, the irony is that future governments are going to have to pick up the pieces left by the Social Credit government.

[2:45]

Having worked out of our offices as MLAs, we all know that there is nothing more devastating than meeting people who are unemployed and who have been trying for months — for years in some cases — to get a job. I've had people in my office who literally break down — and I'm sure you have too. I'm not saying that you are so hard-hearted, Mr. Speaker, that you are not concerned about that. But what I am concerned about is that your policy — a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude to government intervention with respect to unemployment is simply not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware that the results of unemployment can be physical violence, increased sexual problems, white-collar crime, increased stress; children of the unemployed often become withdrawn, performing poorly in school; deserted families, etc.

I think one of the most devastating things of all, one we will discuss in much more detail later, is the attitude of this government to medicare. I want to state now that the democratic socialist party in British Columbia and right across Canada will fight to the end to keep medicare, which was brought in by the democratic socialist party in Canada. We will make sure that our voice is heard, and the voices of thousands of other people, if this government makes any attempt to break up and thwart the original purpose of medicare. Much more will be said about that matter as we move on into the session and into estimates.

Another result of this Reagan-Thatcher economic philosophy approach to our problems today is the general overall cut in basic services to people. I believe I've already pointed out how short-sighted it is in a time of recession, when people need more and more services, that the government is cutting those services. This shows all of us how removed this government is becoming from the people of this province who truly need care. They are simply saying, in other words, that their concern is more with the people who have it now. The Social Credit government of this province is becoming a government that leans far more toward the concerns of the affluent of this society, to the neglect of the poor. This has been seen in the United States and in England, and if this philosophy continues in the province it is going to become increasingly evident in British Columbia.

This matter of unemployed teachers, unemployed social workers, unemployed nurses, really is very ironic when you know that these services, the demands for these people's services, are essential. These people, once working again,

[ Page 24 ]

would of course bring taxes back into the community, wherever they may live, and they would keep the cycle, the economy, moving and revitalized. Yet every sign in the throne speech is that the Social Credit government is taking us in exactly the opposite direction, and I say shame on you. Many of you, as I said earlier, will be long gone before the really detrimental effects of your stupid policies are felt in this province.

One thing we keep hearing from the Social Credit government, which now seems to be coming out in the open, is very strong attacks on Crown corporations in British Columbia. In analyzing that, perhaps we should look at why British Columbia embarked on having Crown corporations at all. For those of you who remember, it was the first Social Credit president — well, we think of the Premier today as president — the first Social Credit premier in this province, W.A.C. Bennett, who created the Crown corporation of B.C. Hydro. I hope those Social Credit members who are going blithely along with the suggestion that many of these Crown corporations should be broken up and returned to private industry would give thought to why these Crown corporations were created in the first place. B.C. Hydro was created when the old B.C. Electric refused to cooperate with the Peace River power development corporation, which was a vision at that time of the first Social Credit premier to develop power in this province. It was because this private company would put its own basic profit motive interests ahead of the people of British Columbia that former Premier W.A.C. Bennett moved, took it over and created the Crown corporation of B.C. Hydro. If you really stop and think of the basic purposes of Crown corporations and why governments move into them, I cannot see why this government has so many of its members who are just going along on the myth that to divest the province of all Crown corporations, or at least some, will be for the betterment of the province.

Let's go through some of the few points of value of Crown corporations. First of all, the Crown corporation will allow the public to collect 100 percent of the resource revenues. Secondly, the Crown corporations supply the public with accurate information on the cost of production and the availability of resources — information that is crucial to the public interest and for the setting of fair tax rates for private corporations. Now that's pretty important.

Having been on the Crown Corporations Committee and studied some of the Crown corporations, I know that some of these Social Credit members have had interesting debates on the breakup of certain facets of Crown corporations. For example, many of the Social Credit members obviously believed that the autobody shop that was established by the NDP under ICBC should go, with the result that they managed to get the government to agree. The government has attempted to break up the ICBC autobody shop and sell it back to private hands. Yet when you ask them why, all you get out of them is: "Well, it's better in the hands of private industry." They completely ignore the fact that that autobody shop, Mr. Speaker, has been able to monitor prices and in the long run to keep prices more stable in that area than if it were in the hands of a private company. It has also provided an apprenticeship training program. These are all positive things.

What concerns me is that the Social Credit government is embarking on policies that are dogmatic, inflexible and irrational, simply because somehow they have it in their heads that Crown corporations are bad and private industry can do a better job. Mr. Speaker, what they must say to themselves is: "Well, if the Crown corporations are bad, perhaps we'd better look at the management and accountability of the Crown corporations." I give the government credit for setting up the Crown Corporations Committee, whose purpose was to check on that accountability. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I regret that there are rumours around suggesting that that committee may find itself emasculated. Can you explain to me why they would want to eliminate a committee that can be a watchdog and keep accountability on those massive Crown corporations? It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, and there is no rationale to those moves.

I also want to point out that the Crown corporations have another asset. Thirdly and most importantly, Crown corporations can give us an important bargaining position with the large private corporations. You know, when you turn everything over to the private companies, you don't have any bargaining any more. You can't ensure that the investment will be for the betterment of the public and not strictly on a profit-motive basis. You have a responsibility as a government to serve the people of British Columbia. I say to you that if you all sit back and preside over the breakup of these Crown corporations and turn everything back to private industry, I can tell you right now that you'll have lost your accountability. You'll no longer have control over some of the major economic decisions that will be made in this province. Instead they will be made on the basis of moves such as General Electric in the United States.

Let me give you an example of what happens with large corporations — private corporations, not Crown. I think perhaps some of you have heard that General Electric plans a shutdown of a large plant section in the United States. They cite high labour costs and say they are going to move to Mexico. Yet other people are saying that if they do it is an immoral, un-American and illegal move. Some of their critics state this: "It is immoral to move jobs from one location simply to increase profits." What I want to point out is that once you start turning everything over to the private companies, this is the kind of thing that you'd better accept will happen. You have no control. If profits can't be made in this province, they will go to other Third World countries where they can make more profits. The people of B.C. become the losers, and there is more and more unemployment in this province. So I say to the Social Credit government, tread very carefully on this move to disassemble Crown corporations. You may not see the immediate effects of it, but your children and your grandchildren are the ones who are going to suffer and pay for these stupid, inflexible moves which the Premier and the cabinet seem determined to make.

Earlier I mentioned my concern over the cutbacks in public services. I know people say: "Well, do we need all those public servants?" What we are trying to say to the government is that the question is: what public services are needed? If the public services are needed and essential for the health and welfare of the people of British Columbia, this government has no right to cut back on those services, especially when they can find money willy-nilly for their pet projects.

For example, I recall hearing a discussion recently on the exorbitant cost of the ALRT. People are becoming increasingly concerned that this could come in at far more money than was originally expected — over $800 million is, I believe, the latest figure. What concerned me is that when the former Deputy Premier, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is now in charge of ALRT, was

[ Page 25 ]

asked, "Is it going to come in over another $125 million?" she said: "Well, there is a possibility." She was asked: "Where will you get the money?" Do you know what the Minister of Human Resources, a cabinet minister in the Social Credit government, replied? Her reply was: "Oh, we will borrow from future revenues." Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? I want to repeat the Social Credit fiscal policy for solving their debt right now and for solving the problem of an ALRT system which has obviously become far too expensive: "We will borrow from future revenues."

[3:00]

This is the government that talks about being fiscally responsible. It is simply another myth that we have all had to face. Unfortunately it is the job of many people out there in the province of British Columbia — and it is a job of the NDP — to educate people as to the fact that we cannot afford to have governments running this province who do not base their policies on any planning, who are inflexible, and who base themselves on a dogma that is simply not working.

The matter of wage controls. Selective wage controls, which this government has embarked on, is a thing which they are very proud of. I pointed out to them earlier that it has not brought down inflation. It is the recession that has brought it down.

I also want to make a major point here on another reason why this whole idea of selecting certain people in our society for wage controls is, to my mind, so unjust. You know, people will go along with things by and large, whether they like them or not, if they think they are fair. But let's really look at the state of the world today, in Canada particularly, and let's look at what is happening in private industry when it comes to controls on salaries. You know we always hear that public servants have to be dropped down because out there the private sector is really suffering too. Let us look at some of the recent salary settlements for some of our leading executive positions in Canada. There is an annual survey of what major companies provided their five best-paid officers in base pay and bonuses, including house loans, club memberships and free cars during the year. Just within the last year 135 executives at 27 corporations received a total package worth $290,000 on average — up from $258,000 in 1981. In other words, they received an increase of 12 percent. They can receive an increase of 12 percent. Yet everyone else in British Columbia, particularly the public servants, are being told: "You just be glad to stay where you are." All we are saying is: how about some fairness in this? Why should these people be able to receive these kinds of increases today and yet hold their own employees down? Is it fair?

If I read you some of the perks that go with these jobs and how much they make a year it is simply unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, we have here Victor Rice, chairman and chief executive officer of Massey-Ferguson Ltd. Massey-Ferguson — isn't that a company that had a bit of trouble, Mr. Speaker, if I remember? Well, it's interesting that their chief executive officer received 40 percent more pay and benefits, for a total of $554,000, even though that firm — the Toronto farm equipment manufacturer — ended 1982 with a loss six times greater than Alcan — they're referring to another company.

Well, when we hear these things one can't help but say, look, what happened to the sharing? What happened to basic equality, which we thought was supposed to be created by governments? That's your responsibility. And yet somehow or other the Social Credit government seem to have decided to ally themselves with this kind of philosophy, Mr. Speaker.

1 was hoping, if time had allowed, to go into some of the very positive things that have been happening in the New Democratic Party province of Manitoba, which shows, apparently, an exceptionally healthy economy, based on many of the policies that the NDP believe in. Mr. Speaker, it does show you that with the right policies governments today cannot create immediate positive change, as we know, because of the world situation, but it shows you that one government — one province — has been able to keep the economy very, very viable because of its policies. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through them. I have them here, and I hope I'll have an opportunity to go through them step by step at another time.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I note the reference in the throne speech to reliance and the way people in British Columbia are working harder and more competitively, but there is another side to this recession and the way it is being handled by the Social Credit government. They say that at the same time the people of British Columbia are becoming meaner; they're becoming less tolerant of minorities. What is happening here is something that I think the Social Credit government must look at very, very carefully, because you are the ones who set the examples. You should be setting an example of cooperation between labour, management, business; you should be setting a whole atmosphere of cooperation and sharing and working together, and fairness and justice. If you did that, the people of B.C. would be more inclined to accept some of your policies. But unfortunately, the examples that you are setting out of the Premier's office, the things that you are allowing to happen when you talk about disembowelling Crown corporations, when you cut back needed services, are giving very little hope to the people of British Columbia.

The Social Credit government won the election; they have their mandate. What I am saying to the Social Credit government is: please look very carefully at the economic road that you intend, apparently, by this throne speech, to set us on in this province. It is disastrous. It is going to be done, unfortunately, with little compassion for the people who need the most help. Mr. Speaker, I must say it is not easy to run any province today, but I had great hopes that perhaps after coming back, having a mandate before you, the Social Credit government would have said: "All right, it is now time to deal with the people of this province who are suffering the most, particularly the unemployed." And the tragedy of this throne speech is they are not being looked after. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, and I most certainly cannot support the motion on this throne speech.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Before speaking to the throne speech, may I offer my congratulations to the Speaker of the House, and to yourself as Deputy Speaker, on being re-elected to those positions. I trust that you will enjoy your stay in office.

It's interesting to hear comments on and responses to the throne speech that was offered to us last week. The concluding remarks by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) deserve an immediate response, because it seems that we're being subjected to a certain amount of déjà vu. If you put your policies before the people, the people may accept them. The people of British Columbia will provide you with an opportunity of knowing if your policies are acceptable. It seems to me that that occurred a very short time ago and the people of British Columbia indicated to the

[ Page 26 ]

Social Credit Party that they would accept their policies. The policies outlined in the throne speech were very much a part of the policies of the Social Credit Party during the election campaign and its platform offered to the citizens of British Columbia.

The members opposite have made comments with respect to the government's intent, as outlined in the throne speech, to eliminate many commissions, boards and, as referred to in the throne speech, layers of bureaucracy and interference in the system. The same theme was very prominent during the election campaign. It was the Social Credit Party's belief that a lot of the commissions, boards, some corporations, and layers of bureaucracy were counter-productive to stimulating the economy, thus addressing what the member for Burnaby North identified as perhaps the most serious problem, and that is unemployment.

It was the belief during the election campaign, and the belief is outlined in the throne speech by this government, that unemployment can be attacked when government — for want of a better phrase — simply stands out of the way of the citizens and stops blocking any capability and progress to develop industry. I'm sure we are going to see specifics brought before this House to suggest how government can, by elimination and change, assist citizens in our province to take their place in the economy without government interfering or, even more devastating, competing with those who have the responsibility and the obligation to provide employment on the private side for those citizens of British Columbia.

I think many people during the election campaign were quite willing to accept that there are direct alternatives to working directly for a government at any level. Not every person has a desire to be a civil servant. Not every person feels they must depend directly upon government for employment. Many people believe — and particularly the young people I spoke to during the campaign — that they should have the opportunity of working in the private sector if the private sector can be stimulated to the point of creating those positions.

We have hundreds of thousands of citizens in our province who are employed directly or indirectly by government. To the most degree they are employed because of their choice. But there are an equal number or more who choose not to work directly or indirectly for government, and there are many people who simply will not accept the concept that government can best supply employment. Government, in my opinion, cannot best supply employment. Government can, however, ensure that employment opportunities are created and do exist if government itself examines its role, particularly in encouraging investment and development of opportunities, rather than attempting to compete, replace, or frequently, as we witness, interfere by way of regulations and bureaucracy, which makes it virtually impossible for the private sector to develop the employment we all seek.

To a very large degree the evolution of governments has occurred without a master plan. I think it is healthy for any government to sit back and take stock of the role it is playing in our society. I don't think that it is a condemnation of government to simply take stock of those boards, commissions or layers of bureaucracy which are in place and to do an audit to determine how useful or necessary any of those may be. If the service can be provided by the private sector, without the added costs of government, then what is wrong with attempting to do that? Government will always retain the capability of responding in the event that a situation is not working or a situation is not providing the services required by the citizens. Government can always respond. But there is nothing written in stone that government can do better than the private sector.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made mention of President Reagan of the U.S. and Prime Minister Thatcher of Britain. It's interesting that Prime Minister Thatcher of Britain was returned with the strongest mandate since the war, and the leader of the Labour Party in Britain was expressing comments similar to those expressed by the NDP during our election. Mr. Foot is out because the people of Britain would not buy that. The people of B.C. would not buy that. How many other jurisdictions will have to go through the same process" I find it very difficult to listen to those who still espouse the opposition's platform of the last election and will simply not recognize that those ideas put forward were rejected by the people of B.C. Those ideas as duplicated in Britain were rejected by the people of the United Kingdom in no uncertain terms.

[3:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to point out flaws in any government, any program, any system; not difficult at all to point out flaws. And of course flaws will exist as long as men and women are responsible for governing any jurisdiction and number of people.

The member for Burnaby North also mentioned Milton Friedman, but since he's an economist I don't think it really matters too much what his opinion is, because he simply would disagree with another economist. Whatever answer you may want, an economist will oblige you. None of them seem to have the answers for the problems unless it's an academic exercise.

Mr. Speaker, if our government, as it mentions and outlines in the throne speech, can eliminate some of the layers of bureaucracy and nonsense that have grown up over the years; if we can eliminate some of the commissions and some of the committees, task forces, that seem to go on endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion other than to recommend that further study take place; if we can at least eliminate some of the duplication that takes place at the local level through regional districts and municipalities — and even beyond that, some of the other subcommittees which have been established recently — we will allow people who would build and develop the opportunity to get on with the job, rather than to find themselves completely frustrated with a system that seems completely insensitive to the legitimate aspirations of the citizens of the province.

Interest rates and inflation not long back were uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada and in British Columbia. I would dissociate myself from any person who would suggest that inflation is not damaging to the individual and that inflation should not be fought with all possible effort, because we have witnessed what inflation and the interest rates over the past few years have done to many citizens. The capability of governments to modify inflation rates, I think, is most important. We have witnessed a decline in inflation and in the interest rates. We have seen, accompanying that, an increase in housing starts, an increase in other business activities and an increase in net employment.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Burnaby North very clearly enunciated the difference between the two parties of

[ Page 27 ]

the NDP and the Social Credit. And I think that was enunciated most carefully and clearly during the election campaign. It may come down to a difference of opinion and philosophy. I think our government enunciated during the election campaign that we do not believe government should be responsible for all employment opportunities in our society, nor should government attempt to take on all responsibilities. There is a combination that has served our country and our province well: a combination of responsible government, responsible industry and self-responsibility. If the day should come, with 1984 looming, when government is going to be given all responsibility over each member of our society; when you are advised by government that you need not be concerned about yourself because Big Brother government will take care of you — it will make the decisions, it will decide what is best for you and you need not worry, but please remember when election time comes, vote for the party that's going to take care of you in everything — there will be no need for you to think, because government can think for you.

Mr. Speaker, it's been the wisdom of North America particularly for some years, the wisdom of many philosophers and others that the least government is the best government. There has been a change over the years because government has involved itself in many areas of commerce, industry and other aspects of our society. In some instances it has benefited society generally; in others it has created incredible costs to citizens. If we compare the percentage of the gross national product which represented government spending 30 years ago to what it is today, we can see the tremendous cost of government interfering in the lives of citizens.

We can look at the abysmal record of the Liberal government's massive deficit and debt. We can look at the abysmal record of what this philosophy of giant socialism and Big Brother is costing Canadians and in particular what it is costing British Columbians directly and indirectly.

Crown corporations have been mentioned by many, as though simply because of the term "Crown" they can do no wrong. Crown corporations can serve a useful purpose, but they are not immune from that which is common to any monopoly organization. They can become very fat. They can become very self-preserving and have a great capacity to rationalize their need. I think if a government really wishes to take itself seriously on behalf of the people it represents, it not only has a requirement to examine Crown corporations but also it has an absolute duty to determine their value to our society. If they are not functioning as they should be functioning, then changes must be made. One of the changes that is always available to free-thinking people is the elimination, not just modification, of a corporation. Frequently the best answer is simply to see that it no longer exists, because it is no longer serving a useful function, although the costs are certainly there.

We were distressed, Mr. Speaker, as were the citizens of the province of B.C., upon examining the amount of interference which can and does take place with respect to the agencies, boards and commissions that have grown up around government over many years. Even the government which was responsible for the creation of some boards, commissions or agencies need not apologize if they identify that the use is no longer legitimate or no longer there. If something's time has come, then maybe it's time to make that change and get rid of it.

The municipalities and the regional districts are coming under increasing attack by citizens with respect to the period of time it takes to process even a relatively simple application. It has been a habit of local municipalities and regional districts to pass the buck to the province. They say: "It's because of provincial regulations that we can't do the job for you." I think the throne speech has indicated in reasonably clear terms that that challenge has been accepted by the provincial government and that if it is a provincial problem perhaps something can be done.

I had a most interesting conversation with an elected representative of a municipality who was speaking some time back with me about the possibility of seeing the introduction of the variable mill rate. The greatest concern he had was: "If you introduce a variable mill rate, then we of the municipality will be blamed for taxes rather than the province. Wouldn't it be better to stay with one single mill rate? Then we could blame taxes on the provincial assessment authority rather than the municipalities" — taxes which are used solely for the municipality to provide services to their people. One day, Mr. Speaker, enlightened minds in this province will shine and an entirely new system will come forth, as the Attorney-General is most familiar not contained in the throne speech at this time.

The member for Burnaby North — and I welcome her most sincerely as the Health critic — mentioned the medicare situation in Canada, but without details. May I for just a moment respond to the invitation to discuss that matter? The federal Minister of Health, Hon. Monique Bégin, visited our province prior to the beginning of the weekend, and had statements to make. I didn't have the opportunity of meeting her during that period of time, but I listened with great interest to what she was saying. I also found it most interesting that the federal Minister of Health took the opportunity of making a speech in New York City, advising New Yorkers what Canadians might expect in their health care system come this fall — I understand the people from Brooklyn were particularly interested. Unfortunately the Ministers of Health across Canada were not made privy to the information. I spoke with five last week, and they were completely in the dark as to what the federal minister has in mind. At the present time no one has seen a draft of the legislation; nor have we been advised as to what some of the details may be. We may have to find a New Yorker to fill us in.

I have written to the federal minister asking if she would provide me with specific information as to what her plan is, so we might be in a position to respond to it. We can only presume that her plan is similar to that which she enunciated a year or so ago; that is, it was her belief at that time that there should be complete universality and access to everything with respect to health care — not the program which exists in Canada today but everything: complete access, total universality, without additional funding.

The ten ministers of health representing the provinces and the two ministers representing the territories, in conference last September in Vancouver, unanimously disagreed with the federal minister and advised her in no uncertain terms that they felt she was grossly in error and, more than anything, represents the biggest threat to the medicare system in Canada if that act is brought forward in Ottawa and passed.

Historically the provinces have had the responsibility, as the constitution provides, to deliver the health-care system in our country. And historically the provinces have provided a very good health-care system. But the program differs from province to province as the needs differ. For example, in British Columbia we provide additional programs as insured

[ Page 28 ]

benefits under our medical system; they are not available in all provinces. Some provinces provide other programs which British Columbia does not, but usually British Columbia has offered under the program a larger number of services, medical and non-medical, than other provinces. From the very beginning British Columbia has had a per diem for hospital care and a premium for the Medical Services Plan; it has served us very well. No one in this province should be in a position of hardship because of premiums, per diems or any other fee.

The revenues derived from British Columbia's health care system, and in other provinces, allow the provincial government the opportunity to provide additional services which are not cost-shared with the federal government. The federal minister would have some of those services included in the federal-provincial agreement but without additional funding. It means that you have several options: first, you reduce or eliminate services which are optional, such as chiropractic services, podiatry, some optometry, or other insured services now under our plan which are not part of the agreement; secondly, if you choose to do so, you can eliminate the long-term care program, which is not required by agreement; and if you so desire, you can eliminate the homemaker program and a lot of other programs which British Columbia introduced on its own, paid for in part by some of the revenues generated by the system.

[3:30]

This morning I had the delightful opportunity of speaking with the CBC on the same topic. They were as confused as many of the critics of the medical system. They felt that the people in British Columbia were rising against the $7.50 per day for hospital care, the premium and some of the other fees. That area is perhaps the one about which the Ministry of Health receives the fewest complaints. People are becoming sophisticated and educated; they know what's going on. Thankfully, today our society is becoming very realistic. Most of us have an opportunity to travel to other countries, particularly the United States, and are familiar with the costs of being ill in such countries. We know full well what the per them rate to us would be if we were in a hospital in the United States. For acute-care facilities in B.C. which cost the program approximately $550 to $600 per day per patient the person is asked to pay $7.50. It's a token amount, which is considered by some within the system to be a discipline. It is certainly not a revenue-generating program of any magnitude.

The concept of our Medical Services Plan is that of group insurance. Group insurance suggests premiums. Our premiums are considerably lower than those charged in our sister province of Ontario. During our provincial election, for some reason Alberta came under fire about what they intend to do. They, as well as the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the territories, disagree with the federal Minister of Health about what she feels would be necessary.

My government is very concerned about the future of health care in Canada because we wish to see it preserved. We are concerned that the federal government, through lack of consultation, and I think really through lack of any thinking at all, is attempting to bring forward its version of health Utopia 1984 style, without thinking of the damage it could do. Each province has emphasized in its own particular way to the federal minister why it feels she is moving in the wrong direction. I hope to have the opportunity soon of speaking with Monique Bégin once again, and with the other ministers, to see if we can't at least attempt, through some type of consultative program, to modify her views.

We happen to have a good program of health care in Canada. We don't wish to see it abused; we don't wish to see it deteriorate. I commend the throne speech to the citizens of our province. Though it may be vague, in the tradition of throne speeches, I think it sets out in no uncertain terms that which the government believes must occur if we are to maintain some type of recovery in the economy and produce the necessary environment to attract industry and commerce, to create employment and opportunities for our citizens.

I think the statements of the throne speech indicate in no uncertain terms that our policies will remain as they have been over the past number of years; that is, they will continue to recognize social services as a top priority of the government. As the budget has indicated every year that this government has been in office, health care has constantly been the largest expenditure, followed by education, human resources and the attorney general's ministry. The throne speech indicated that this would be retained and those priorities continued. However, it is becoming very, very clear to the citizens of our country, and particularly of our province, that government revenues and expenditures are not the result of smoke and mirrors, but the result of a reflection of reality in the economy.

Nobody wishes to see unemployment numbers as they are today. There are those who believe there is a simple answer, a quick fix: that is, government hires everybody, forgetting, of course, where government gets the necessary funding to pay those people. And you have the choice. You can go into debt; you can borrow money; you can borrow against revenues from B.C. Petroleum Corporation in years to come; you can raise taxes. You can do all of these things and create government jobs which may be short-lived, which may be very low in productivity, which may have minimum influence on stimulation of the economy. That is one way.

An additional way — a companion way, if you like — is to attempt to attract private capital into British Columbia. You can do that in a number of ways, one of which is to relieve those who would invest and develop commerce from the onerous burden of government regulation, bureaucracy and delay. It became common to hear stories of people who were quite prepared to invest in our province, only to turn away because they couldn't keep up the fight with the bureaucracy. It is not the bureaucrats' fault or responsibility; it is those who make the laws, regulations, rules and policy. Therefore I think it is quite proper for the throne speech to refer to the need to examine those layers of bureaucracy and regulation. I don't think the people who have the responsibility of administering those acts or series of regulations can be blamed, because they are simply doing what the law says they should do. It is too convenient for governments to write laws or regulations and then leave them on the books without ever giving consideration to what effect they are having in reality. Time is well past when it must be done.

Rather than dwelling on the negatives that we heard all during the election campaign, rather than dwelling on the negatives almost forever, perhaps it is time for British Columbians, our citizens, the government — and who knows, even the opposition — to look at that which is good in our province, that which we can all be proud of. We have had tremendous growth in our province over the past three decades. We have suffered from the recession, as have other

[ Page 29 ]

areas of Canada and all countries. We have seen the beginning of a recovery process, because British Columbia was the first province in the country to try, at least, to do something about it. Certainly a program was introduced and examined. Some fault was found by certain people and modifications may be required, but it was an attempt to do something about our problem, and we see some results. The federal government came in with its restraint program. I agree, I don't think they should be having a party to celebrate it, because who wants to celebrate recessions. Nonetheless, they saw some wisdom in at least attempting to do something about it, and there has been a decline in inflation and in the interest rates, I can't agree with any member who says offhandedly: "Oh, three points or so." Three points on inflation and interest rates are very significant. At least the British Columbia government attempted to do something and brought in a program which has been hailed as a model across Canada by other provinces.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Manitoba. Who else?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Speech from the Throne indicates clearly that a re-examination is due for all of these programs, and I know that in the days to come details will be offered to the House for their examination and consideration.

The people of British Columbia were offered a choice not long ago. They were given the opportunity to review the details and facts of the matter, and they made a choice in very clear terms. That choice is now represented by the Speech from the Throne, and by the subsequent legislation and budget to be introduced by this government. I believe that which comes before this House will clearly reflect the attitude of the people of British Columbia, and we can look forward to a stimulating 1983 and great forward progress for the people of our province. Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate today as the representative of the citizens of the Alberni constituency for the fourth time. I'd like to thank those constituents, the thinking people of the province, who re-elected me for the fourth time to represent them in the Legislative Assembly of B.C.

The minister said throne speeches are traditionally vague and lacking in detail, and are meant to set out the government's general direction and intent, rather than to outline specific programs. That's certainly true of this throne speech. It doesn't say how the government plans to serve its citizens, but in its choices of slogans, jargon and catch-phrases of the new right, it's perfectly clear which citizens it plans to serve. I've read the throne speech a number of times since it was presented in the House last Thursday, and it contains the usual passing references to the issues this government generally pays lip service to: parks, the environment, native rights, housing, health care and the needs of senior citizens. But where it's most clear and most specific is in its attack on the role of government in a democratic and pluralistic society, and in its use of buzzwords of the corporate-dominated right wing to articulate that attack.

Since it uses so many of these catch-phrases, I think it would have been appropriate for the government to provide the House with a list of definitions prior to the reading of the speech, in the same way that most bills presented into this House contain a definition section. For example, what is the real meaning of "public sector," which is always characterized in the throne speech as something negative, or intrusive and overweight? What are the definitions of "private sector" and "private sector confidence?" What is meant by the terms "downsizing" and "privatization," "cost-competitiveness" and "productivity," and "high technology?"

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll tell you, Mr. Minister. And how does the elimination of such bad things — clearly bad things, as the throne speech indicates — as "regulatory roadblocks" contribute to good things such as "the stable investment climate" and "the free play of market forces?" All of these phrases have become common currency through the publications of organizations such as the Fraser Institute, which pose as economics brain trusts but which are nothing more than propagators of an economic newspeak financed by the largest and most powerful corporations and corporate organizations in the country. Their objective in popularizing these slogans is to gain public acceptance for a type of government which increases the burdens on and curtails the rights of ordinary citizens, and at the same time enhances the rights and benefits of the rich and powerful who control the corporate sector. What do you call a government that deprives some citizens of their rights while increasing the rights and benefits of others? You certainly don't call it democratic.

[3:45]

Let me proceed with a few definitions. First of all, private sector. What does the term "private sector" mean? Obviously, it describes that sector of the economy which is engaged in business for private profit. It is dominated by large multinational corporate entities involved in resources, energy, utilities and finance. Over the last few decades mergers and other mechanisms have concentrated the assets of these huge corporations into fewer and fewer hands, and their political and economic power, as well as their ability to influence and persuade the public, has increased. How effectively the private sector operates is easily measured: by the profits and the increased assets enjoyed by that limited number of private owners.

The second buzzword used in the throne speech is "public sector." What does the public sector mean? Clearly, the public sector is the government and the various instruments it uses to serve those who appoint it. In a totalitarian society it's usually a strongman, the police and the army. In a democratic, pluralistic society such as ours it is more complex and more difficult to describe. It consists of all those public agencies, boards, commissions and institutions through which government balances the powers and obligations of its citizens, to make certain that no individual or group is able to take advantage of other individuals or groups through the unregulated exercise of greater wealth or power.

It is more difficult to measure the effectiveness of the public sector since its benefits cannot be quantified in dollar terms. The measure of the success of the public sector is quality of life, which describes notions such as freedom, equality of opportunity, and equality of access to services such as health, education, housing, transportation and social security benefits. In a totalitarian society unlimited freedom, opportunity and service are enjoyed by the few — the rich

[ Page 30 ]

and the powerful. In our society freedom, opportunity and access to services are enjoyed equally by all citizens. This is only achieved by the action of government in limiting the benefits of the wealthy and powerful, and in distributing power and benefits equally to those who lack wealth and power. Needless to say, in a democratic society the few whose wealth and power are regulated by government in the interests of the majority always complain about that regulation. Those complaints are a price that we pay in a democracy for equal access to services and for equal opportunity.

What then is private-sector confidence? If the public sector in a democracy is always at war with the private sector, whose wealth and power must be regulated in the interests of the majority, how does the government gain private-sector confidence? The answer is simple. It gains private-sector confidence by losing the war. A government which has private-sector confidence attains it by reducing regulation on the private sector and allowing the owners of business corporations freedom of action to increase profits and amass wealth. This is done, of course, by eliminating regulatory roadblocks — another buzzword in the throne speech. These are roadblocks such as environmental regulations, occupational health and safety regulations, land use regulations, human rights legislation and legislation which protects the rights of labour to organize and bargain collectively in order to increase benefits for its members — and also to eliminate corporate tax or progressive tax legislation. All these mechanisms which are designed to guarantee a fairer distribution of power and wealth in a democratic society also add to the cost of doing business. To the extent that regulation increases the cost of labour or increases the cost of a unit of production of goods or services, then those regulations also limit productivity.

This brings me to another buzzword in the throne speech: productivity. Productivity is simply defined as the labour costs involved in producing goods and services of a certain value. I once had an opportunity to speak with a Panamanian Jesuit economist named Xavier Gorostiaga. I asked him why agricultural productivity decreased so dramatically in Nicaragua after July 1979, when the Sandinista government took over. His answers shed some light on the nature of productivity as a measurement. He said that when fieldworkers in Nicaragua were compelled to work for virtually nothing and under fear of death by the Somoza government, they would work all year round under the most indescribable conditions of misery. But when they were liberated from that compulsion in July of 1979, and when minimum-wage legislation and working conditions were established for fieldworkers, they would only work to provide for their own requirements. The result was a precipitous drop in the productivity of agricultural labour. In other words, what Xavier Gorostiago was saying was that slaves are, by definition, more productive than workers who are free to work for their own subsistence requirements. As governments increase the rights of workers to bargain for benefits, or improve minimum wages and labour standards, productivity must decrease because there is a cost to those wages, there is a cost to those labour standards, and those costs become a part of the cost of delivering goods and services.

What about "high technology, " another buzzword in the Social Credit throne speech? Well, since slaves are, by definition, more productive than free men, it follows that machines which substitute for labour also increase productivity. Programmable machines — that is, high technology — which eliminate skilled labour are even more productive than simple machines which replace cheap unskilled labour. High-technology equipment, of course, costs money, and is only of value to the private sector if it reduces the costs and increases profits. To achieve this, some governments which have the confidence of the private sector have agreed to limit the power of organized labour in high-technology industries so that labour in those industries will be — to use another buzzword of the Social Credit government — "cost-competitive" with labourers in Taiwan or Hong Kong, where productivity is high because those workers work at wages approaching slave labour rates: about $1.57 an hour.

What, then, does "downsizing," another buzzword that appears in the Social Credit throne speech, mean? Well, people in my constituency are only too well aware of what downsizing means. It means that one in four employees of the company that operates in my riding has been eliminated from the forest industry — 25 percent of all the workers in that riding. It means that thousands of people have ended up on welfare and unemployment insurance. It means that the money they formerly circulated in the regional economy of Port Alberni has dried up, and as a result businesses close, bankruptcy ensues and foreclosures take place for hundreds and thousands of people. In government it means precisely the same thing, because teachers, health workers, care workers and other government workers whose salaries formerly contributed to the regional economy also end up on unemployment and welfare rolls. Their salaries no longer circulate in the economy, and the effect on spinoff jobs and businesses is exactly the same: "market controls," as the government calls them — bankruptcies, foreclosures, business closures.

Downsizing of government operations by cutting government services does reduce corporate taxes and increase profits. It also reduces personal taxes. But of course these reductions are ultimately wiped out by the increased user fees for health, education and other government services to individuals. So downsizing benefits the corporate sector of the economy by reducing their taxes; it provides no net benefits whatsoever to individual taxpayers in our society.

When taken together, these buzzwords and catch phrases represent a radical departure from the traditional role of government in a democratic society. For the first time in the history of this province government has made a conscious decision to support the few who are rich and powerful by freeing them from restraints and forcing individuals and the poor to bear the costs. It is a clear abandonment of democratic pluralism, and in its total submission to corporate power it demonstrates this government's lack of the courage required to defend the weak against the strong. It is easy. It's the easy way, the way the Premier has always taken — the easy way, the submissive way — because it avoids the challenge to big business and guarantees the re-election of governments, because right-wing propagandists have already softened up the public to accept these slogans, buzzwords and catch-phrases as real economic analysis, without understanding their ultimate consequences in terms of unemployment, high cost of services, lower income, and fewer benefits for those fortunate enough to work.

The Roman Catholic bishops, on January I of this year, attempted to stimulate debate around the consequences of such an economic policy as the one that was revealed in this current throne speech, which emphasizes the value of capital over labour. I'll simply quote a few passages, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the statement of the Roman Catholic bishops in

[ Page 31 ]

Canada, which was made on January 1 this year, under the heading of "A Moral Crisis."

"The current structural changes in the global economy reveal a deepening moral crisis. Through these structural changes capital is reasserted as the dominant organizing principle of economic life. This orientation directly contradicts the ethical principle that labour, not capital, must be given priority in the development of an economy based on justice. There is, in other words, an ethical order in which human labour, the subject of production, takes precedence over capital and technology. This is the priority-of-labour principle."

The bishops go on to discuss what the government in its throne speech calls the "free play of market forces" and which they call "the survival of the fittest."

"In addition, the renewed emphasis on the survival of the fittest as the supreme law of economics is likely to increase the domination of the weak by the strong, both at home and abroad. The survival-of-the-fittest theory has often been used to rationalize the increased concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Within Canada itself the top 20 percent receive 42.5 percent of total personal income, while the bottom 20 percent receive only 4.1 percent of total personal income. These patterns of domination and inequality are likely to further intensify as the survival-of-the-fittest or free-play-of-market-forces doctrine is applied more rigorously to the economic order.

"While these Darwinian theories partly explain the rules that govern the animal world, they are, in our view, morally unacceptable as a rule of life for the human community."

The bishops also comment on the restraint program of the type that the Premier likes to brag about and describe in his throne speech.

"At the same time, working people, the unemployed, young people and those on fixed incomes are increasingly called upon to make the most sacrifice for economic recovery, for it is these people who suffer most from layoffs, wage restraints and cutbacks in social services. The recent tax changes, which have the effect of raising taxes for working people and lowering them for the wealthy, add to this burden, and these conditions in turn are reinforced by the existence of large-scale unemployment, which tends to generate a climate of social fear and passive acceptance. Moreover, the federal and provincial wage-control programs are inequitable, imposing the same control rate on lower incomes as on upper incomes. If successfully implemented, these programs could have the effect of transferring income from wages to profits; yet there are no clear reasons to believe that working people will ever really benefit from these and any other sacrifices they are called upon to make. For even if companies recover and increase their profit margins, the additional revenues are likely to be reinvested in more labour-saving technology, exported to other countries, or spent on market speculation or luxury goods."

[4:00]

What the Social Credit government is talking about is not necessarily the key to economic recovery in this province or anywhere else. It is certainly the key to economic recovery for that very large sector of our economy concentrated in the ownership of few hands — the corporate sector, the rich and the powerful. The bishops do state economic alternatives as to how we can approach this economic crisis in a different way — a more ethical way, a way that is based more on moral principles — and I would commend the reading of the bishops' statement to the Socred members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the provincial Legislature for 11 years. In all those years I have never seen a throne speech which so blatantly submits the government to the service of one sector of our society, to the detriment of all others. By setting out to weaken and destroy the government sector, which acts as a countervailing power to that of large corporations, this government has abandoned one of the critical underpinnings of democratic government. Over the last decade organizations such as Amnesty International have documented the erosion of democratic institutions and respect for human rights around the world. My fear, after reading this throne speech, is that we have now taken the first step in that process here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

MR. PELTON: I would like to thank the people on the other side of the House for sticking around long enough to listen to me.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am honoured to join this distinguished assembly and that I consider it a privilege to address this House. As a newcomer to the Legislature, I anticipate eagerly, yet with a sense of the need to learn, the opportunities, challenges and responsibilities which 1, along with other members, have assumed with our election to this House. As the new member for Dewdney, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those British Columbians who have conferred upon me the responsibility of representing them in this House. I accept this responsibility, recognizing the honour that it represents; but, even more than this, I accept the responsibility with the full recognition of the obligations which it implies.

It is almost disarming to realize that we serve close to two and three-quarters million British Columbians. When I consider that the deliberations, decisions and actions of this Legislature may affect directly the dreams and aspirations of all British Columbians, I am compelled to emphasize that our duty is indeed to serve. Pursuing the same theme, I wish to advise the House that I will not lose sight of my responsibility to represent all the constituents of my riding.

As newly elected members of the Legislative Assembly, we must be ever-mindful of the contributions made by those who preceded us; specifically, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend, on behalf of my constituents, my warmest best wishes to Mr. George Mussallem. His past and continuing work on behalf of the constituency of Dewdney demonstrates clearly that this assembly's former Miracle Whip is indeed an "amayonnaising" public servant. [Laughter.] As with all organizations, the addition of new members can be expected to result in the generation of new ideas, fresh approaches and novel perspectives. The combination of newcomers and senior members of the House augurs well for this Legislature. I therefore look forward to the challenges of this session knowing that the future of British Columbia is very bright indeed.

As I suggested earlier, Mr. Speaker, I consider it vitally important that I represent in the House the interests of my

[ Page 32 ]

constituents. I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity to convey to the Legislature a few of the concerns we have in Dewdney. First, I would like to acknowledge those pioneers who worked for British Columbia and who contributed their skill, their energy, their experience and their wisdom to realize the potential of this most beautiful of provinces. I speak, of course, of our senior citizens. I realize that my appearance may suggest an element of self-interest in this tribute, but I assure you that none is intended.

In my private and public experience I have come to know many seniors. Most have given much and taken little. Most appreciate the meaning of restraint, because they have had to practise it for many years. With typical selflessness, these pioneers have supported the measures which became necessary during the recent months to bring the province through its difficult times. They supported these measures, even though they were themselves faced with additional burdens as a consequence. Through these difficult times many have given even more and taken even less. I believe that our seniors are entitled to the dignity and comfort afforded by financial security. I believe also that economic recovery is underway, and I would propose therefore that as we emerge from the recession, and as this recovery comes — after some time — to be reflected in a stronger provincial revenue picture, the House consider as a priority the reintroduction of those programs discontinued because of our inability to fund them during the lean years. It is my belief that these measures and programs will help to safeguard the dignity and comfort of our senior citizens. Recognizing the immense contribution they have made to the province of British Columbia, I believe it is our duty to do no less.

During the election campaign, I met and talked with many, many concerned people, and the single most significant topic of conversation was the creation of jobs. People want to work. People want to contribute. People want to play a role in the growth and development of this province. This government has expressed the same concerns, and this government has responded through programs and initiatives directed at the creation of new jobs. I would like to take these programs one step further by expressing publicly, on behalf of the riding of Dewdney, our interest in encouraging commercial and industrial expansion in our riding. We welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with business and industry toward our goal of a "jobs at home" policy.

Dewdney, in many respects, is a bedroom suburb of Vancouver. With the rising prices which have characterized the housing market in recent years, increasing numbers of people employed in the city of Vancouver and other urban core municipalities are driving increasing distances to work. But higher energy costs make commuting even more demanding in terms of the family budget. Our long-term objective, therefore, is to provide employment opportunities where people live — a jobs-at-home policy, if you will. One of the most interesting prospects offered by the new revolution in electronics, home computers and so on is a realistic possibility of more flexibility and decentralization of jobs in the future. While what we are talking about by jobs at home is much more immediately practical, I believe it is time that our communities began to think in terms of the likely future impacts of electronics and consider these impacts in their long-term planning. These are long-term responses, but short-term responses are also required — short-term responses directed at meeting the needs of commuters in our riding.

This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of transportation, an issue vital to Dewdney and important also to the economy of the region generally. My constituents want and need an effective and efficient commuter system reaching as far east as Mission. While I don't want to discuss the details of such a system, I would suggest that the utilization of existing rail lines, perhaps combined with an improved bus system, would meet the short-term needs. In the longer term, an extension of the automated light rapid transit system at least as far as the east side of the Pitt River is considered essential by my constituents. I wish to advise this House that I consider this to be among the most vital issues to the riding of Dewdney. My constituents count this among the most important of issues. I would emphasize that improved access to employment opportunities throughout the lower mainland renders this an essential issue to the continued improvement of the regional economy. I can assure you that I will be focusing the attention of this House on this important matter, and I will be doing so in a forceful and continuing manner.

In addition to the movement of people, we are concerned about the effective movement of goods and services to and from Dewdney. We recognize that the creation of jobs within our riding depends to a very large extent on efficient and reliable access to markets for those goods and services produced or processed in Dewdney. Our jobs-at-home policy would derive major benefits from the early completion of the Mary Hill bypass and the four-laning of the Lougheed Highway from Haney to Mission. The improvement of an integrated road transportation network would greatly increase the attractiveness of Dewdney as a place to live, to work and to play. I say "play," Mr. Speaker, because within our riding we offer some of the most attractive and enjoyable natural amenities to be found in the lower mainland. They provide unparalleled opportunities for development of the tourist industry and unique opportunities for both active and passive recreation,

I am proud to draw to the attention of the House the Iron Mountain golf course, currently nearing completion as a world-class golf course and recreational complex. We offer beautiful mountain country and an equestrian industry with an international reputation. This year we will be hosting the well-known B.C. Summer Games which, I am proud to say, were initiated under our Premier's leadership. On behalf of the constituents in Dewdney I tender a sincere invitation to all members of this House to visit Dewdney and enjoy the substantial and varied opportunities we have to offer.

With a background in municipal government, Mr. Speaker, and with responsibility for representing the local jurisdictions within my riding, you will understand my interest in policies, programs and legislative initiatives affecting local government. It is my belief that as a provincial government we must seek new innovative and imaginative methods to ensure their ability to deliver first-line services to the people of the riding and to do so quickly, efficiently and at the least possible cost to the municipality and the taxpayers. I would also mention that the assessment and taxation systems, subjects generating substantial public discussion in recent years, demand continuing review and improvement in the interest of equity to all groups of taxpayers.

I would also like to refer to proposals which have been offered to simplify land use legislation and procedures. It is my view that several excellent changes have come out of this process, changes which would significantly improve the circumstances in which local councils make planning and land

[ Page 33 ]

use decisions. As we look forward to the end of the recession, as we anticipate renewed activity in housing and commercial and recreational development, we will face renewed challenges, in some respects different from those we have faced before. We must provide the tools to guarantee the orderly and efficient development of our province in a way that is fair and cost-effective for all participants, including smaller developers and the average homebuyer. We must maintain a continuing re-evaluation of our legislation to ensure its responsiveness and sensitivity to changing circumstances and conditions. The development climate will continue to change, and the legislative framework within which development will occur must keep pace.

[4:15]

In a related way, our approach to the agricultural land reserve must be sensitive to current conditions. I believe the time is right for a new and cooperative working alliance between the Land Commission and local councils. I believe that local councils support the objectives of the Land Commission. I believe that the Land Commission appreciates the concerns of local government with respect to agricultural lands. In short, I believe we have entered an era in which this mutual understanding promises a realistic, credible and mature approach to the protection of this limited but vital provincial resource.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Finally, the issue of housing. We have gone through a series of crises in the housing industry: a crisis which witnessed a dramatic and unprecedented fall in the demand for housing; a crisis which witnessed a dramatic and unprecedented volatility in the price for housing; and a crisis which witnessed a dramatic and unprecedented failure rate for business responsible for the provision of housing.

While positive signs are beginning to suggest a recovery in the housing sector, I believe we must, through constructive government initiative, encourage alternative forms of housing and alternative land use concepts. Many countries, particularly in western Europe, have responded with imaginative success to challenges not unlike our own. We must do likewise. Current attitudes toward housing are no longer suitable. Current standards are no longer appropriate. There are viable alternatives, effective alternatives and necessary alternatives. I know that we have barely scratched the surface of appropriate responses to this significant problem. We must scratch deeper. We must respond with positive incentives.

In closing, I would like to share with the House some of my personal thoughts and perhaps a personal vision I bring with me to this prestigious institution. I realize that this may have escaped the attention of some, but I sit in this House as a government member. The implicit presumption in this startling revelation is that I carry with me a predictable set of philosophical baggage. That may in fact be the case, but that which is predictable need not be stated.

I do not share the view held by some that meaningful contribution can only be made at the cabinet level. Not all new members will become cabinet ministers, but all will have a fair chance to advance their ideas. I would suggest that this is how it should be. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that we are here to serve. We are here to improve the quality of life for all British Columbians. We are best able to do this in a spirit of cooperation, to do this as a team. I would emphasize that this team — I hope I'll be forgiven if I'm being a little naive — should be made up of all members on both sides of the House. We may, at times, differ in our perceptions as how best to serve, but we do not differ in our ultimate purpose: to promote the well-being of all British Columbians.

Consequently, I look forward eagerly to the forthcoming opportunity of contributing to the future of British Columbia. I welcome the adventure of participating in this process, and I see as a consequence of this adventure a bright future for the province and the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to congratulate you in achieving your position of Deputy Speaker, and to ask you to pass on to the Speaker my congratulations as well. I also want to welcome the new member for Dewdney, who just spoke. He's not nearly as pretty as the member I would have voted for, but here he is, and I hope he finds the House as interesting and exciting as he's expecting it to be, and I'm certainly going to do everything I can to make his life as miserable as possible.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Be nice, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: He's not as pretty as the person I would've voted for.

This is my second term, as you know, representing the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, although it is my fourth term in the House, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the residents and constituents of Burnaby-Edmonds for renewing my mandate and giving me another opportunity to be here to speak on their behalf and to represent them. One of the first ways in which I am going to do this, of course, is to look at the throne speech to see what kind of impact, if any, it's going to have on Burnaby-Edmonds.

I must start out by expressing disappointment, because the issues of main concern to us in Burnaby-Edmonds at this time have really not been touched on or dealt with by this particular throne speech. Burnaby, like so many other parts of the province, is experiencing an incredible increase in its unemployment rate. Every day we find more and more young people in particular, those between the ages of 15 and 24, who would like to work, who want to work, but who are unable to secure employment. Our unemployment insurance roll increased from 1,221 in 1982 to 3,400 in 1982 and by June of this year to 4,197. Unemployment has been severe not only for our young people but certainly for the women who live there and are now entering the labour force because they have to, in many instances because their spouses are unemployed or because they are single parents — widowed, deserted or single, never having married. We find that the throne speech really has not addressed itself in any meaningful way to the kinds of long-term, meaningful job creation that would relieve the unemployment situation in Burnaby-Edmonds. The other crisis we are facing is the continual high number of small businesses that are going bankrupt. The bankruptcy rate in Burnaby-Edmonds continues to escalate, and there is absolutely no indication in this throne speech that the government is aware of that situation or prepared to do anything to alleviate it.

So in those two instances, the throne speech has not been of any benefit and does not indicate that the plans of the government for the future would in any way benefit the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. At the same time we continue to see the erosion of services to people in Burnaby, and I want to deal specifically with a number of them.

[ Page 34 ]

The campership program, known as a campership program, which is funded by the Ministry of Human Resources, makes grants available to low-income families to assist their children during the summer vacation — to help them get out of the city, to go to camp, to get some relief. That budget does not exist any more. What we find is that individual offices have been borrowing from other funds to make these grants so that some of those children will have an opportunity to go away. It's not a large budget, it's not a major sum of money we are discussing, but it is large in the life of those children. It is important, and is a major part of their growth and development. That particular program has been eroded.

The Marguerite Dixon Transition House in that riding, which exists to deal with family violence directed specifically towards children and women, has not been told whether it is going to receive its grant so that it can continue its very important work. It has a two-month extension, but it has not heard from the Ministry of Health whether it is in fact going to get its extension so that it can carry on the very important job that it does. The house tried to expand its services so that it could be of assistance to the disabled people who use it, because apparently they are not excluded from battering. It appealed to the municipality and asked for funding, but the council found that it was not in a position financially to help them in that either. So they were not able to employ an additional person to work specifically with those victims of violence who were confined to wheelchairs or had to use crutches.

Not specifically in Burnaby-Edmonds, but in Burnaby and serving all of the lower mainland, we have a very special school program that runs out of The Maples. It addresses itself to a very special group of children with psychological and emotional problems. Although it's located in Burnaby-Willingdon, it really serves children throughout the lower mainland. We're finding that part of that school, not all of it, is going to be moved to the Donald Paterson School and that the lunchroom, the library, the psychologists, the principal and everyone are going to be fitted into four classrooms which are much smaller than is necessary for the program to be successful. Those students are going to be deprived of the kinds of services they were able to enjoy when they were a part of the Burnaby mental health unit at the comer of Willingdon and Canada Way — for example, the swimming pool and the gym, which were not frills but were part of the therapeutic program which those children used. To children without emotional or psychological problems, using a swimming pool or a gym is recreational; it's an additional kind of thing they do. But to children with emotional problems the swimming pool and gym were as much a part of their therapy as was the psychologist, psychiatrist or the counselling and other services. Now they're going to be deprived of that because of an ongoing debate between Health, Education and Human Resources as to who should pick up the tab for what. While this debate goes on, the children in need are the ones who really suffer.

The Burnaby General Hospital has to be a model for all other hospitals in terms of operating within its budget; it never has budget overruns. It lives within the confines of its budget. It limps along as best it can, giving the best possible service within its limited resources. It is now finding that it is almost impossible to give the kind of quality health care which they would like to give to the people of Burnaby because of the very stringent terms under which they have to live and work and operate. Like other hospitals, for example, Burnaby General cannot afford to have a resident anaesthetist on staff. I think we've just been lucky that Burnaby General has not yet experienced the kind of tragedy that another hospital went through as a result of not being able to have the services of a full-time resident anaesthetist on staff.

[4:30]

The other point is that because we are geographically located almost in the centre of transportation going everywhere on the lower mainland, traffic congestion continues to threaten the quality of life of the people of Burnaby-Edmonds. Under the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) I will be speaking in more detail and at greater length about the ways in which this government has failed to address itself to the fact that the residents of Burnaby are continually under attack from the automobile as a direct result of poor planning and bad planning on the part of the Ministry of Highways and this government. There's no mention of that in the speech.

As far as education is concerned, the threat to the education of the children of Burnaby is the same as it is to students throughout the rest of British Columbia. The restraint program to enhance productivity, to which the throne speech referred, really treats the children as though they are widgets in a widget factory. This whole business of suddenly finding funding for school boards prior to or in the middle of an election is the kind of crass cynicism which in the long run penalizes students. It may be of great benefit to the politicians and may ensure their re-election, but in the final analysis it's the children who pay. There is absolutely no indication that the programs implemented as a result of that infusion of money at that time are going to continue. The board has been trying to find out whether that same amount of money is going to be available in the future; to date there has been no indication of that.

As far as the throne speech is concerned, it has certainly not addressed itself to the needs of the people of Burnaby-Edmonds. I'm going to be discussing at greater length — and quite often, I'm sure — this failure on the part of the government. But I want to quote and deal with some of the statements made in the throne speech. On page 4 it talked about the government's mandate to downsize government by eliminating some programs which may be desirable, but are not essential. Who decides what program is essential?

One of the programs that this government has decided is not essential is the continued funding for a halfway house — the Lynda Williams Home — which operated exclusively on behalf of those women who were in the penal system and were being phased back into the community. It was the only house of its kind in existence in British Columbia. But you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? I went back and checked Hansard through the years and I found — and I'm glad that the then Attorney-General is still here — that every single year, without fail, I have had to stand on my feet in this House and appeal to the existing Attorney-General for continued funding for the Lynda Williams Home. The Lynda Williams Home exists only for women in the penal system. It's a halfway house. It is a house which helps them make the transition gradually back into the community at large. It's not a large facility. It's not an expensive facility. It's not one of many facilities. It's the only facility of its kind. That house is always full. There are always occupants there. There are always people using that facility. But the government in its wisdom has decided that on August 1 that house is to be

[ Page 35 ]

closed and that those women can go straight from the maximum security facilities of Lakeside or from the minimum security facilities of Twin Maples right into the community.

Do you know what they used to do in the Lynda Williams Home? They used to be able to go to school. They used to be able to pick up their grade 12 or whatever. They used to be able to do retraining programs so that when they were finally released back into the community, they had skills: social skills, academic skills or vocational skills. In its infinite wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the throne speech, the government has decided that in order to downsize the government this program is going to be eliminated because, although it may be desirable, it's not considered to be essential. The only facility of its kind for women coming out of prisons in this province is going to be closed on August 1 so that the government may downsize government.

That's the kind of thing they are talking about when they brag about "leaner, tighter public service" and "downsizing government." That's the kind of thing they're talking about. So after fighting since 1977 and struggling to keep a facility that, as I said, is full and has been full, and that serves the women coming out of prisons in this province, it's over. The axe has fallen, and on August 1 the Lynda Williams Home is going to be closed. I don't know what they're going to use that facility for — for something, I'm sure. The original Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is here, the past Attorney-General (Mr. Williams) is gone, the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) isn't here, but if that decision hasn't been written in stone, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible for the present Attorney-General to rethink it, because that is an essential facility that we need, especially when you consider that it's the only one of its kind in the province.

The throne speech went on to talk about some of the services that may have been desirable but not essential. Of course, legal aid is one of those services. Mr. Sweeney, the chairman of the Victoria criminal justice subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, tells us that cuts to legal aid services will result in chaos in the courts and will end up costing the taxpayers more in the final analysis. The decision really is a poor economy, Mr. Speaker, because it means that many people who cannot pay fines owed to the provincial government — and we are told it was something in the neighbourhood of $6.5 million last year — will end up going to jail because of their inability to pay their fines.

We are also told that it costs approximately $60 a day to keep a person in provincial jail. Yet the kind of legal service which the legal aid system provides to these people to help them deal with this dilemma so that they don't go to jail, so that they are somehow able to have their fines phased over a period of time in a manner that they can handle, is not going to be possible because this government in its infinite wisdom has decided to downsize government by cutting back on that very vital and important service. Although it may be desirable, they do not consider it essential. Of course, in its finest sense, eliminating legal assistance for those people who cannot afford to pay erodes the very ideal of the application of justice as we say we know it in a democracy.

Downsizing of government, eliminating services. Headlines in the Sun. There was another one today. The Richmond Association for Children's Services is having its budget cut. Do you know what this program does? This is a preventive program dealing specifically with children aged 3 to 12 years of age. That's what this program addressed itself to, and in 1982-83 something in the neighbourhood of 88 Richmond families used the service that this program provided. It was an outreach program. It tried to prevent children who gave an indication of heading straight for trouble from achieving that goal. But this government in its infinite wisdom has decided that that program, although desirable, is not essential. And so, in the interest of downsizing government, that program is going to be eliminated.

Do you know what it means? It's like the old ad that says: "You pay me now, or you pay me later." None of these programs directed to serve children, when they are eliminated, stop there. The children don't just die and disappear. They continue to grow, and if they are heading on the path of delinquency and getting into trouble, what we do is, rather than pay a little bit now to prevent that, end up paying a lot in the end, either through the court system or through the prison system or through our mental hospitals. It is short-sighted. It is bad economy. It doesn't make sense, and it's too expensive a price for young people to have to pay so that this government can achieve its goal of downsizing. Downsizing — that's the new word for child abuse. That's what that is.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech goes on to say — and honestly, I don't know how the Lieutenant-Governor was able to mention this without gagging on it — "I am advised that our people are extending a helping hand to the weakest members of our society." The infant development program was cut — they are some of the weakest members of our society. The children who use the infant development program are disabled from the moment of birth. You can't be weaker than that. They did not get a helping hand; they got a boot. The funding for the workshops to help people deal with children who are the victims of incest — they are the weakest members of society — didn't get a helping hand; it got the boot. Did the senior citizens and people on fixed incomes who depended on the provincial renter's tax credit get a helping hand? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker — they got the boot.

[4:45]

Did the disabled people in this province who asked that they be covered by the Human Rights Code get that? Did the farm workers and domestic workers who asked for the full coverage of labour legislation get that? As I said, the idea that this government extends a helping hand to the weakest member in our society is so ludicrous that the speech contradicted itself when it went on to say, on another page, that those who are unemployed must earn their way out of the recession. How does an unemployed person earn their way out of a recession? How does an unemployed person do that?

Let me tell you a little bit about unemployment and what it does to people. According to Dr. Harvey Brenner, a university researcher from Johns Hopkins, a 1 percent rise in unemployment in any community increases the suicide rate. It increases the number of admissions to mental health facilities and creates a legacy of stress, aggression and illness. That's what unemployment does to people. The crisis lines in British Columbia — one of our researchers made it her business to contact a number of these to get the statistics — all reported an alarming increase in suicide calls. Admissions to mental health facilities increased from 2,576 in 1981 to 8,542 in the first ten months of 1982. That's what government-created unemployment does. When you restrain and downsize, you throw people out of work. Downsizing and restraints are just euphemisms for throwing people out of work. That's all they are.

[ Page 36 ]

Communities fight back. They are now opening their food banks and soup kitchens — the first time since the 1930s — but they are fighting back. They are trying to help themselves. Even the Ministry of Human Resources, in its report, reports an increase of 30 percent in reported incidents of child abuse. Social service agencies throughout the province notice increased numbers of family break-ups. That's what unemployment does. Cutbacks cost us. As a society and as a community we pay. They cost us in terms of human suffering and in terms of long-term corrective measures. In times of economic decline, cutbacks to social services and health care are a false economy. While we have in this province a government which can find thousands of dollars to spend on advertising to remind us how great everything is, the reality of the situation is that nearly half a million British Columbians who want to work are not working. Many of them are facing dire poverty because their UIC is not enough or has run out, or they are caught between UIC and welfare. When the demand for services is greater than ever, the government has decided that this is the time to downsize and cut services, and this is the time to brag about it in a throne speech.

There is not going to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of the opposition about what this really means, because at the same time that the government is downsizing itself and eliminating programs, it is talking about taking away the regulatory roadblocks from the private sector in order to encourage confidence. The unemployed people would like to have their confidence encouraged too. The parents of those children who use the infant development program would like to have their confidence encouraged. They would like some regulatory roadblocks removed from them too. The inmates who depend on the Lynda Williams Home would like some regulatory roadblocks removed so that they can still have access to that facility. The people in this province who need the services of legal aid would like to have their confidence returned; they would like the regulatory roadblocks removed too, so that they can continue to have those services, in terms of real justice. Because, you know, social services are also job creative. As well as giving a service they are also job creative, and that's something that the government either does not or will not take into account.

Talking about the impact of the economy and the downsizing of the government, I have before me letters from just about every single transition house in this province, which have to this date still not heard whether they are going to be getting their funding so that they can continue the work they are doing. The Marguerite Dixon house in Burnaby — which I mentioned earlier — Chimo, and the Nova House in Richmond, which pointed out that in 1981 the transition house received and gave service to 86 families; in 1982 they gave service to 292 families. The Prince George crisis intervention society, Williams Lake Crisis and Counselling Centre, which talk about an increase in alcohol-related problems and problems related to child abuse and marital breakup. In Prince Rupert, the Maude Bevan House saw an increase of nearly 200 percent in the people using that facility. The Women's Emergency Shelter in Salmon Arm — not a word, to date, about their funding. Are they going to be downsized? Is the service provided by a transition house one of the services the government in its infinite wisdom decides that, although desirable, is not essential? Is that what's going to happen to them too? People in need from the crisis intervention society of Vernon; Aid, Nanaimo; the Thompson Valley; Greater Vancouver Information and Referral Service; single-parent resource centres.

The statistics coming out of Ottawa tell us that violence in the family directed towards children and towards women is on the increase. Part of the reason for that is the stress related to unemployment and the tight economic situation that many of these families find themselves in. At a time when this service is needed more than ever, is this service also going to be downsized so that the government can brag to all the world about its restraint program? Or is this a service which the government is going to address itself to?

Do you know what this throne speech said about the family? Everyone makes a big thing in our society about the importance of the family. It's the most important unit that we have; it's the basis of our society; it must be protected; everything must be done to strengthen it. Do you know what the throne speech said about the family? It was mentioned once on page 15 of a 16-page throne speech. The family was mentioned once, and do you know what it said?

"One of the more significant responsibilities of government is to provide for those who are most in need. At the same time, the role of the family and individual responsibility are cardinal features of our society. My government will institute measures to ensure that separated and divorced people bear their proper responsibility through regular payment of child and spouse support."

Is that the only commitment that this government has made to the most important institution in our society — to see to it that when there is a divorce they both pay support? That's it? That's the Social Credit spirit, is it?

MRS. WALLACE: That's the "Social Credit card."

MS. BROWN: Yes — all the money in the world to repaint SeaBuses that don't need repainting; all the money in the world for advertising; $7,000 for desks; all the money in the world for all kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, while the Premier is talking, I hope he's listening as well.

The only statement made in the throne speech, the only commitment made by the throne speech — made by this government — to the families of British Columbia is that in the event that they separate or divorce, this government's going to see to it that maintenance payments are made. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the other new members of the House who are not aware of the impact of unemployment and the economy on the family, who don't realize that now more than ever the families of British Columbia need services to strengthen and secure them, who don't recognize that violence in the family is escalating — violence directed both towards children and towards women — who are not concerned about the impact of poverty on the family.... I want to say to those members and to the government in general that it is a crying disgrace and a shame that the only commitment made by this government to the family is to ensure that when they separate and divorce, maintenance payments are made. That is the least — really the least — in terms of the needs of the families of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In Victoria alone there are two agencies — St. Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army Family Services — which report

[ Page 37 ]

an increase in the number of families seeking their assistance. They talk about the kinds of resources that they need because of the increase of abuse and violence in the family, and they're going to be disappointed that the only commitment made by the throne speech to the family is in terms of collecting maintenance.

My green light is on, and I have not had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the promises made by this government in the throne speech of 1982 in terms of women, who were totally ignored. But I'm going to have an opportunity to do that, either under the budget or under the Minister of Agriculture or somebody else. Not to worry, it's going to come; it's going to happen.

I just want to say, in conclusion — because my green light is on — that I had hoped that the Speech from the Throne would have included, among other things, the government's commitment to cover the disabled by the Human Rights Code; the government's commitment to include farm workers and domestics under the full spectrum of its labour legislation; some kind of commitment to mandatory seatbelt legislation for children. In fact, I would have hoped that the government would have given authority to the police to stop vehicles in which people are driving, where kids are standing in the front seat of the car, or sitting without a seatbelt on, or not secured in a safe car seat, and to give them either a warning or a ticket, or to deal with them in some kind of way. Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that Bill 69 would have been proclaimed, as well as section 8 of the GAIN Act.

My red light is on, and the Legislature is unfortunately going to be deprived of the other hopes which I had for this throne speech.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: What's happened to your Grecian Formula?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by again repeating how very disappointed I am in the contents of the throne speech.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your election to the position of Speaker. I appreciate receiving the loudest applause for the speakers of the day; maybe I should quit.

It is with great pride and honour that I rise as one of the newly elected members for Surrey. May I express my thanks and gratitude to the electorate of Surrey and White Rock and assure them that I intend to work hard in representing all of my constituents, regardless of their politics. I'd like at this time to express my gratitude and appreciation to the former MLAs, especially the former minister, Bill Vander Zalm, who represented the area of Surrey so ably and dynamically. It was with some extreme help during the course of the campaign from Bill Vander Zalm that the success of the two seats in Surrey were a reality. We thank him for that. I'd also like to offer best wishes to Ernest Hall on his retirement. I wish him the best.

I represent the area of Surrey, which is the largest municipality in British Columbia. It has an area of 142 square miles, from the Fraser River on the north to the border on the south. It has a diversity of land forms, a variety that is reflected in the economic base of the municipality and offers an explanation for very rapid development. We expect ten years of anticipated growth in that area. Surrey is the second most populous municipality in the metro area, and one of the fastest growing municipalities in Canada. In 1981 census figures showed that 160,903 inhabitants resided in Surrey, not including the 13,550 of White Rock. A striking characteristic of Surrey is the growth potential; projections range from exciting to dynamic. The Surrey municipal planning office indicates that, based on average growth rates, the 1986 population will be 199,345. With current proposed land densities, the area would not be saturated until the population reaches 447,774.

The economy of Surrey will experience the fastest increase in industrial growth over the next decade and it may well triple its industrial-based jobs by 1986. The traditional economic base was agriculture, which will continue to play an important role. Some fanning areas continue to be economically attractive. Agricultural activities include intensive vegetable cultivation, general fanning and stock rearing. The dramatic change in the economic base has been the growth of new industrial and commercial activities. The rate of growth has increased to the point where Surrey employment opportunities are outgrowing the population by two to one. Growth is projected to continue. B.C. Hydro's research development centre, which employs 86 people in research, and the engineering, industrial and manufacturing companies of Hawker Siddeley, which employs more than 500 people in Surrey, are examples of the growing sophistication of employment opportunities in the area. The municipality and private developers are developing four industrial areas: Port Kells, Newton, Cloverdale and East Surrey, and Bridgeview. In Port Kells alone, 77 industries have been established and the B.C. Development Corporation is undertaking feasibility studies for a high-tech industrial park in the Campbell River area.

One of the important developments has been the growth of extensive terminal facilities for overseas trade. The integrated terminal facilities on the Fraser River give Surrey a major role in importing and exporting manufactured products and raw materials. The location and proximity of this facility has encouraged further industrial development. Proposed channelling of the south arm of the Fraser River would allow ocean-going vessels to reach Surrey docks at all tide levels. The Annacis Island crossing and its feeder roads connect Surrey docks and the industrial area around Annacis Island to other industrial areas of Surrey.

Business and commercial activities have also become major segments of the economy. There are 17 large shopping centres in Surrey, and a further 60-acre site was bought recently. The federal income tax data centre close to Surrey Place, and a major shopping centre on King George Highway, provide thousands and thousands of jobs. Industry, business and commerce sectors all have been expanding. This rapid development has been encouraged by the philosophy of this government.

I take pleasure in discussing the subject of transit. I had the extreme pleasure this morning of being available when the ALRT line was unveiled by the illustrious Premier and Minister of Transit. The linear induction motor, which is the heart of this system, is the heart of the elevated light rapid transit system. It is a quiet operation; it is safe and reliable in performance; its performance is excellent under all weather conditions; it has no moving parts. Much like the rest of the line, the elevated guideway is scheduled for completion in

[ Page 38 ]

time for Expo 86, with extensions into Surrey. Commuters will be able to make the trip from Surrey to downtown Vancouver in just under 38 minutes. Because the system is elevated, it won't interfere with street traffic. While the current bus system can move 5,000 passengers per hour from New Westminster to Vancouver, the rapid transit system will initially be able to move 10,000 people per hour and eventually move 30,000 people per hour on the same route.

There are other advantages. Because the rapid transit system is electrically powered, it uses less energy per person than a bus or a private vehicle and will be more cost-effective in the long run than the bus system. But the bus system will still play a major role. The many routes that will feed into each of the 15 rapid transit stations along the line will be serviced by buses. The trains will run at intervals of from one and three-quarters of a minute to every five minutes, depending on the time of day. There won't be any drivers on any of the four-car trains; we have a state-of-the-art computer system with many backup aspects for passenger safety. Fare collection and tickets will be self-serve from automatic vending machines — a system which has been used by the SeaBus for the last three years; tickets will be good for transfers to and from buses, including the SeaBus, along with a monthly fare car pass. Each car can carry a total of 75 passengers, with 40 seated and 35 standing. It will cruise at 70 to 75 kilometres per hour or — for the unlearned — 43 to 47 miles per hour.

Might I convey that during the course of the unveiling today there were probably 3,000 or more people. We had the opportunity to watch some young students and children take the first ride, when the train was energized by the Premier. It must have carried more than 75 passengers. It was certainly a treat to see it.

Our system will mean a success in greater Vancouver for homeowners, transit users, investors and developers. We expect the rapid transit system will hasten and strengthen the redevelopment of small town centres. A study of the economic benefits from the line show that rapid transit has the potential over the next decade to act as a catalyst for the construction of up to 11,000 housing units around the stations. This project is a demonstration of what the future holds for British Columbia.

Relative to the question of cost, I might point out that at the moment the present system is under budget by 5 percent. I was told today by Mr. Davis that by the end of 1983 the whole project will still be under budget. We can thank the member for his information. Because of the diligence of his committee, we can also state that tenders are coming in under budget, and we appreciate that.

This represents the leading edge of a practical transformation in technology. The Spirit of B.C. is with us; the Spirit of B.C. is running. It is an exciting project which reflects the spirit of achievement we have in B.C. Thousands of people, both in government and in private industry, are involved in building the greater Vancouver transit system. Here's who they are and what they are doing: the Urban Transit Development Corporation, an Ontario company, designed the automatic light rapid transit system; Metro Canada Ltd., a subsidiary of UTDC, is the prime contractor for the project. Three Vancouver architectural firms: Thompson, Berwick, Pratt and Partners; Allen, Parker and Associates; Bain, Burroughs, Hanson are designing the stations, of which we can be extremely proud. Metro Canada Ltd. has contracted several architectural firms for the guideway design and related engineering, the principal firm being a consortium of DMJM-Thompson Ltd. of Victoria, and H.A. Simons International of Vancouver, which is another B.C. firm of which we can be extremely proud. Commonwealth Construction of Vancouver built the prebuild section of the line along Terminal Avenue, with an $11.2 million contract. Fabrication of the guideway beams was subcontracted to Genstar. Supercrete Inc. has a $419 million contract to supply 950 concrete guideways, beams for the remaining 13 kilometres of the elevated system. The Richmond firm of Bennett and Emmott Ltd. has the $5.1 million contract to build the 250 linear induction motors that will power these cars. These same linear engines will be sold, manufactured and processed for all other systems, which is going to take a leaf out of the book of this government, and similar systems will be implemented in North America and around the world.

[5:15]

RMS Industrial Controls Inc. of Port Moody has a $543,000 contract to supply monitoring units for the cars. The rapid transit system will have a tremendous impact on all communities in the region and will create a profound change in the travel habits of hundreds of thousands of lower mainland residents.

There is a reason for this system and there is a good reason for the extension to Surrey. This is the fastest-growing area of the country, both in population and economic potential. It has long passed the stage of serving Vancouver as a dormitory and has developed into a largely self-sustained area whose residents increasingly live, work and play within the area itself. One of the most important indicators of a potential in fact is that there is more designated, undeveloped business in industrial zoned land within this area than in the whole rest of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Another connection in the transit system which will bring the total system into reality is the completion of the Annacis Island Crossing. That will complement the system which has been opened today, because the Annacis Island Crossing will provide for the commuters of the area — from Langley, North Surrey, Surrey, White Rock and Delta — and members of the workforce from industry and commerce in the area to provide the ability to transport people, freight and goods, both north and south of the river. The Annacis Island Crossing is a transit service connector long overdue but to be completed by this government as indicated in the throne speech.

I am proud to be a member of Premier Bennett's team. Ours is a party which has a deep, abiding faith in people; it is a party which recognizes the limits that must be placed on governments in a free and democratic society; it is a government that recognizes that jobs, stability and prosperity are created through a healthy free market; and it is a party which believes that there is an extremely important role for compassion in its dealing with the less fortunate. The policies of this government show a deep understanding of what makes British Columbia go. That is the clear message of the election returns of May 5.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made some hard choices, particularly over the past two years. British Columbia's Social Credit government led Canada in its fight to face the harsh realities of recessionary times and brought in restraint programs capable of dealing with these difficult choices. And restraint is working today in B.C. The decline in revenues, the still high expectations of public service users and the increasing size of the bureaucracy which provides these services led to an inevitable conflict between the abilities to pay for non-essential services and the desire to deliver

[ Page 39 ]

them. All government services may be desirable, but only some of them are essential. In order to maintain the ability to pay for essential services, it has been necessary to restrict spending in other areas and to improve efficiency throughout government.

The introduction of the restraint program was a bold step. It indicated that we have, in this province a government that is willing to risk being unpopular in order to do what is right. Since the program was introduced it has come to be recognized by the people of Canada as the fairest, most positive restraint program in the country. People were and are well aware that British Columbia has been experiencing difficult times, and the leadership, courage and honesty shown by the Bennett government when it introduced the program has helped to win support for its maintenance throughout the province in all its sectors. This support has been manifested in the impressive levels of cooperation emanating from so many British Columbians. The program's flexibility and the inclusion of an emphasis on productivity has allowed a settlement between BCGEU and the government, and has resulted in an impressive cooperative effort to improve the delivery of public services.

In the health sector, doctors voluntarily voted to return 8 percent of their fees, or $30 million, to aid in the preservation and protection of our health care system. Other groups such as municipalities, hospital boards and many school boards have also been cooperative. This government appreciates their efforts and congratulates them for their success in meeting these restrictions imposed upon them in very difficult times. It is my sincere wish that this cooperative attitude can be maintained in the face of our common problems.

I want to commend the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) today for the $2.4 million contract for the first phase of the expansion of the Peace Arch District Hospital in White Rock. This contract is to complete shelled-in fifth and sixth floors at the hospital. Its $2 million cost of equipment and professional fees was also announced. Its 44 extended-care patients and physiotherapy and administrative services permit the demolition of the old hospital building, clearing the way for the second phase of the expansion, which involves a 150-bed, extended-care unit in the near future.

The leadership of this government has resulted in British Columbia's inflation rate falling from 4 percent in 1981 and 1982, so that it's now below the national average. The average public-sector wage settlement is once again in line with the private sector. In February 1982, when the compensation stabilization program was introduced, public-sector settlements averaged 17.4 percent, while the private sector was at 15 percent. A year later, in February 1983, public-sector settlements were at 5.4 percent, while the private sector averaged 5.9 percent. Effectiveness of the program is bringing wage settlements down and can hardly be understated. When it is considered that a recent study showed that broadly defined public-sector wage settlements can affect private sector salary agreements by an additional 2.6 to 5.3 percent, the importance of government leadership and the significance of British Columbia's policies can be readily appreciated.

Restraint is the basis of recovery, and it is the main concern of Premier Bennett's government. As Canada's Pacific province, we have a unique opportunity to contribute to our country's future in world trade. We will soon have two of the best ports in North America, and we have abundant resources, both natural and human, with which to grow. In support of the industries, and in support of the marine construction industry, our Premier has just encouraged us with a note which says we should ensure that British Columbians participate in fair regional distribution of the long-term industrial benefits flowing from major contracts awarded under the Canadian patrol frigate program. There should be equality between east and west coasts in this matter. The British Columbia shipyards and their employees have both a national and an international reputation for quality and performance, and deserve the support and understanding of the federal government in awarding of contracts under this program.

The delivery of essential services, the effective expression of compassion for those in need, can only be maintained or expanded from a base of economic strength. Our government recognizes that it is the free enterprise system which has demonstrated better than any other the ability to provide that strength. We live in what is in many ways still a resource frontier. We have a capacity to open up new areas of the province and thereby create new opportunities for British Columbians. We have the area to encourage foreign investment in this province, and it is necessary, if British Columbians are to enjoy economic health and ongoing prosperity, to promote that. If British Columbians are to enjoy economic health and continual prosperity it is necessary that we do all we can as government to encourage foreign investment in this province; hence, we need the private sector to lead that way. Governments must create a positive investment climate.

I would encourage this government to give consideration to a brand new industry, and that is CNG developments — a stronger involvement in natural gas development in both cars, trucks, buses and commercial vehicles. We have at our fingertips, and I guess at the threshold of the western world in any event, the highest potential for creating a natural gas avenue. I think a company developed within this province to encourage the conversion of vehicles from petroleum gas to natural gas would be a major industry and have a major impact upon the transportation field.

We want investors at home and abroad to know that this province is a good place to invest, and that this provincial government will work with entrepreneurs in building for that future. The foreign investors will continue to be welcomed as partners in the inevitable sharing of risks and returns which characterize major resource projects. We must set positive policies and simplified regulations. I take pride, on behalf of the minister involved, in saying that the northeast coal project is on time and on budget. Without foreign participation neither would be on the road to becoming a reality and providing thousands of new jobs for Canadians. The improved rail lines, new port facilities and the new and improved roads are a net result of the northeast coal project and are certainly a credit to this government. This government's attitude is creating investments in the future of British Columbia and building the foundation for our future, Investors large and small alike are encouraged by the business environment and government policy to encourage, as much as possible, an involvement in the industry of this province.

Social Credit has always encouraged resource development and is opening up these new economic frontiers through the construction of a first-class highway system — thanks to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — the development of potential low-cost hydro power, the development of health and educational services in resource communities, the expansion of the southeast coal port facilities at Roberts Bank, coal and other super port facilities at Prince Rupert, the

[ Page 40 ]

Duke Point development near Nanaimo, an aggressive expansion of our Pacific export markets and the expansion of the province's railway system, to name just a few over the many years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A review of the Labour Code and the body of the ruling pertaining to it indicate that a severe imbalance has been created between the rights of employers and the rights of employees. A subtle but serious doctrine of inequality has resulted. An objective examination of the Code and the results of its many interpretations by the Labour Relations Board leave little doubt that competition in the marketplace has been adversely affected, and the free enterprise system has paid a costly penalty as a result. There could be no better circumstance than the present economic conditions we are experiencing to question whether or not the public can continue to afford the effects of this imbalance. It is necessary to re-examine not only what rights should be granted to protect fair collective bargaining but also what rights must be preserved to protect our fundamental principles of democracy. The role of the public in this whole matter must be kept clearly in mind, as it is they who have ultimately paid the price for the system which has been created. It is awash in restrictive agreements, feather-bedding clauses, travel and accommodation giveaways, industrial funds, as well as paying higher wages than in any other area of North America. It can only get worse, and end up being passed on to the consumer, as long as the rules continue to permit economic blackmail to be perpetrated in the name of labour peace.

I would also submit that it's time that we maybe consider, in the event that parties reach a stalemate, the application of the final-offer technique. The final-offer plan is an alternative to strikes and lockouts if a stalemate is reached in the process of collective bargaining. In the event parties involved in bargaining for a collective agreement reach a stalemate and fail to reach an agreement, each party prepares a detailed final offer. The offers are presented to a neutral tribunal which would review both offers, study the facts and figures and arguments in support of both offers by both parties, and after considering all factors, including the interest of the public in general, select one or the other of the final offers as being the most equitable for all people concerned. The tribunal would not change any part of either offer; each would have to stand on its own merit as presented. That should be considered.

[5:30]

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has said that the role of government is to be a direct partner in resource ventures. It is a positive policy of simplified regulations, to cut red tape and, when required, to ensure adequate infrastructure is in place. In the area of resource development Social Credit is a creative government. We act to support individual initiative, not stifle it. Northeast coal is a prime example of this type of role. The government of British Columbia is actively involved in the development of northeast coal, not to the exclusion of the private sector but, rather, alongside of it. Of the $2.5 billion invested for over 15 years, $1 billion will come from the provincial and federal governments, while $1.5 billion will come from private-sector funds. Government investments will be repaid over the first two contracts. In fact, the 15-year life of the contract will contribute the staggering figure of $37 billion to the Canadian economy; $376 million in contracts have already been awarded to British Columbia firms. This development will create at least 18,000 jobs and have an impressive spin-off and multiplier effect that will help boost the British Columbia economy back into a healthy economic situation it is used to under this Social Credit government. This all will be a result of the leadership of the Premier, Bill Bennett.

This government also believes in the diversification of the British Columbia economy. Just as the economic expansion of our geographic frontiers creates jobs and opportunities, so does the diversification of secondary industry and small business.

B.C. has an image as a good place to invest. We have some good examples of recent times: B.C. Place, the stadium, Expo 86 — certainly the attraction of everywhere in the world right now — and of course our Spirit of B.C., which was unveiled today. All these are examples of an image of a good place to invest.

Small businesses account for 98 percent of all registered enterprisers and employ half the workforce of the province. Our government will encourage more small business ventures. In order to do that we have LIP, which comes under the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. We have 709 applications for loans so far. We have $61,518,000 granted to the industries, creating 7,856 jobs. It's a program we can be very proud of. There is a desire to organize and operate, knowing that risks and potential rewards of independent business stimulate this vital spirit aiding entrepreneurs. Business goals, resource exploration to manufacturing and retail are all industries of encouragement of this government.

To suggest that the Japanese auto imports are required to have 60 percent Canadian content is bordering — and I quote: "on the criminally insane." Sixty percent of all Canadian exports to Japan originate in this province. Japan is an important customer for our lumber, our plywood, manufactured goods including clothing, food, fish products and, of course, processed minerals. Cooperation of business, industry and government with the private sector is the way to lead. The government is providing a very healthy investment climate. Social Credit under Premier Bill Bennett's leadership has done a great deal to foster development in all these sectors. Largely due to our government's initiative, British Columbia now has a major communication research company, a biotechnical company, and the world's leading manufacturer of satellite ground-tracking stations. We have supported Dynatek Corp.'s plans to establish a major computer chip plant near Victoria, and we have a number of other major projects for developing and promoting British Columbia's high-tech industries, including the creation of a Discovery Foundation park and the establishment of the B.C. Science Council. We have been aggressively pursuing foreign markets and have been aiding British Columbia firms in their export initiatives. Last year alone, more than 360 British Columbia firms took advantage of our export assistance programs, garnering orders totalling $45 million in guaranteed export sales for 1982.

Employment was one of the major issues of the election campaign, as well it should have been. It is my belief that British Columbia's current employment needs, much greater now because of the worldwide recession, will not be met by temporary make-work projects that are nothing more than an onerous burden on the fragile economy. What the government is attempting to provide with its programs for economic

[ Page 41 ]

recovery is an improved economic base, which will create ongoing jobs for more people now and in the future. This program is designed to stimulate our provincial economy, to allow the private sector to lead us out of these recessionary times, and in doing so, to create thousands of jobs. Since 1975 approximately 200,000 jobs have been created in British Columbia under the Social Credit government. B.C. led in restraint and B.C. will lead in the recovery. Recovery has started, and British Columbia is leading the way.

As the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) indicated in his recently delivered economic outlook, some signs of recovery are evident in the rise of common stock prices and the increased levels of housing starts. Furthermore, the decline in interest rates is expected to have a stabilizing impact on business and consumer confidence, That is essential to an improved economic outlook. I hope and expect to see the recent declines in interest rates continuing modestly in the early months of 1983. Recovery in the U.S. is already having an impact on our lumber industry. The gross domestic product for B.C. is expected to be higher than the Canadian average this year. Lumber production is anticipated to increase by 16 to 18 percent by 1983, and inflation for 1983 is now forecast at 7.5, compared with the 1982 average of 10.8 percent.

Vancouver now has 4,472 rental units of all kinds which are vacant. Victoria has 800, the highest number on record. That should tell us in this government something relative to Crown corporations and the rentalsman's position. The effective demise of the rentalsman must be demonstrated by those numbers, I am sure. Rents are in a slump. There has been a continuous slowdown in rent increases in the past 15 months. Some incentives are still being offered by new buildings. An average increase will be well below 10 percent this year. Competition is very keen. Landlord and tenant relations are much improved. What do we need a rentalsman for?

As the recovery comes, B.C. will be in a position to take full advantage of the opportunities it offers. B.C. is on the road to recovery, but it is a long, winding road. To ensure B.C.'s position as a leader in the recovery, this government will have to continue to make tough decisions. Based on Social Credit policies, British Columbians can look to the future with confidence. This government looks to the future with optimism and faith. It is an optimism and faith based on the qualities of the people of British Columbia and the knowledge that where people are given the opportunity they will rise to the occasion and make their lives, and the lives around them, far better.

This government has faced many challenges over the past year, and I am proud to be a member of such a group. I believe that, based on the evidence of those years, this group of men and women is capable of dealing with whatever challenges the future can bring us. I look to that future with optimism. The people of this province have given Premier Bennett and Social Credit a mandate to continue to build this province as we have in this past. I believe that there is no better way to build a healthy, prosperous and secure future for British Columbia. The next four years along the road to recovery promise to be exciting and rewarding. Let us hope that all British Columbians will accept the invitation that this government continues to extend to work with us as we continue along the road to recovery.

My constituents in Surrey have given me their support to represent them in the Legislative Assembly. They have put a great deal of faith in me, and I feel that this is a grave and serious responsibility. I hope that I can count on the support and the consideration of this House as I strive to make those concerns heard and understood here. I would like to thank my constituents for their support and hope that I will merit their confidence in the years. to come. They have presented me with a wonderful opportunity to serve my community, and I hope to serve them well, both in my constituency and in this House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I am very pleased to see you and the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in your usual illustrious position, dispensing your even-handed justice in these chambers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll lose the guy's job.

MRS. WALLACE: It wouldn't be the same Legislature without your smiling face in that chair, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You really know how to make a guy feel bad.

MRS. WALLACE: The Deputy Speaker does very well too. Of course, the last Speaker.... We won't go into that. I'm sure he served this Legislature more adequately than he will serve the farmers of this province, but that remains to be seen.

I would like, just very quickly, to ask the House to join me in saying hello to my grandson, who happens to be in my office at the moment stuffing envelopes. I'm sure he's listening on the speaker. Let's welcome my grandson Jordan. He's doing it on a volunteer basis, I might say. Also, I would like to welcome the newly elected members to this assembly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We wish we could have welcomed the one from Cowichan-Malahat too.

[5:45]

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm sure you do, Mr. Minister. I'm sure the illustrious mayor would have loved to have been here, but that was just not to be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It would have been an appointment.

MRS. WALLACE: That's a matter of opinion, Mr. Minister.

To the throne speech. I'm looking at page 4, where they talk about the "mandate to downsize government by eliminating some programs that may be desirable but are not essential and by transferring other activities to the private sector." It's interesting to look at that particular section. "...reduce the duplication of government activities.... It is a mandate to improve our industrial relations, a mandate to encourage private-sector confidence."

I went back a year; in fact, I went back two years. I went back three, really, because we didn't have a throne speech in 1982. In 1980, on page 4 of the throne speech, we learned that the government "has established a firm financial basis on which to build our future and, as a major Canadian province...." And it went on to say that the government of British Columbia

[ Page 42 ]

"believes individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life: to enjoy the best possible health; to be protected by an even-handed, fair system of justice; to attain personal financial security, to enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment; and, finally, to have the freedom to lawfully pursue their individual lives without undue influence from either...."

That was 1980. By 1981 it was just a little different. "Prudent fiscal management, privatization of select government activities, wage restraint and greater efficiencies are required and will form the central underpinnings of the budgetary measures...." You know, the year before they had achieved financial improvement; things were doing fine. Now, a year later, it's time to retrench. The government "believes that now is not the time to retrench into pessimism," but as a result of their "foresight and stewardship" they will provide "the firm economic and social foundation of the British Columbia of today. We have programs in place to weather our temporary economic difficulties. Building upon this foundation to ensure future growth is the challenge that faces us today as British Columbians."

So in 1980 you had won the war against financial disaster, so you said. You had beaten the economic recession. You were on the way to recovery. Well, you sure didn't make it, and you admit it in this particular throne speech.

You have had, as a government, some seven or eight years to do the things that you are telling us you now have a mandate to do. You talked about them in previous throne speeches but you didn't accomplish your objectives; you didn't gain the ends you set for yourselves. Now you are telling us that it is mandatory to downsize government. I would like to remind you of the growth in the public service since you have been in office. Now you are telling us it is time to downsize. You are going to eliminate some programs that may be desirable but not essential. How do you decide what is desirable and what is essential? How do you make that decision, Mr. Speaker?

Obviously you must make it on the basis of your stated objectives, which are to curtail any expenditures on the part of government, to reduce services, to eliminate programs that are very much in demand at a time when people across the province are faced with the massive lack of jobs. You talk about transferring activities to the private sector, and we have seen that happen in the forest industry, with silviculture. What assurance do we have, if we transfer it to the private sector, that our forests will be renewed? We've had the reports that we cut twice as much as we renewed during the last year. We've had the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) tell us that the....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The hon. House Leader is indicating that he would like me to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, and I do so move.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) sought leave to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the closure of timber-processing facilities at Chemainus, Lake Cowichan and Youbou. The statement of the matter was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of standing order 35. The House is currently embarked on the consideration of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session, an order of the day which was provided a priority position by order of the House on the opening day of the session and which provides a wide scope of debate. Where an ordinary parliamentary opportunity for debate is available, the application under standing order 35 fails.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.