[ Page 55 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M201). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 55

Oral Questions

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 55

Ms. Sanford

Severance payments to deputy ministers. Mr. Hanson –– 56

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 56

Mr. Barrett –– 57

Throne speech debate

Mr. Mowat –– 58

Mrs. Johnston –– 59

Mr. Stupich –– 60

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 65

Mr. Davis –– 67

Mr. Nicolson –– 70

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 75

Mr. Lockstead –– 78

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1981-82.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 78

Liquor Distribution Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Trade Practices Act annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Liquor Control and Licensing Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the winner and two runners-up in the 1983 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship are with us in the members' gallery. As members are aware, this is the most prestigious scholarship awarded by the province, and was established by the government to commemorate Her Majesty's visit to British Columbia during our province's centenary. The scholarship is used to support a graduate student from a British Columbia university who wishes to continue studies at a university in Great Britain.

This year's winner of the $20,000 scholarship is Mr. Kevin Wright, a psychology graduate of the University of Victoria, who intends to pursue a law degree at Cambridge. We also have with us the two runners-up, who each receive $4,000. Mr. Richard Steeves, a physiology graduate of the University of British Columbia, is going on to pursue a degree in biochemistry at Cambridge, while Mr. Andrew Weaver, a mathematics graduate of the University of Victoria, will study math at Cambridge. These young men are joined by their justly proud families.

I would ask the House to join me in offering our best wishes as these very special guests prepare to continue their education in England.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to add my congratulations to all the winners today. Mr. Rick Steeves, one of the runners-up — his father Bob, who passed away three years ago, was one of my best friends, and I know he would be very proud today to see his son here in this Legislature. Rick's mother, Sharon, and his brother and sister are here today. I would just like to add my congratulations because their father was such a hard-working man and a good representative of the free enterprise field in this province. I just know he would be proud if I got up and said a few words about his son today, and to his mother, Sharon, who has done a great job with that family. I'm happy to add my words of congratulations.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to recognize and welcome a member of the Legislative Counsel of the State of Victoria, Australia, Hon. D.M. Evans, MLC member for Northeastern Province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some young people who have worked arduously for our caucus during the period, despite the fact that for much of the time we weren't here this year. But our legislative interns are leaving us today, and I would like to congratulate them for the work that they have done. They are: Mamie Shepherd, Rob Strandberg, Brent Whitty, Dorothy Holme and Peter Hertzberg.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the galleries today is my wife Joan, and with her, visiting from Sydney, Australia, is her father Arthur Smith. I hope that you will make the second visitor today from Down Under welcome.

MR. REE: Also in your gallery are three interns who worked for the government caucus the last few months. On behalf of the caucus, I would like to thank them for the job they have done. We had the pleasure of their company at lunch today when the government caucus hosted them. I would like the House to acknowledge the three interns: Dinah Verwolf, Gil Field and Greg James, who are in the caucus.

Missing is the fourth item, Don White, who also assisted during the year. I would ask the House to thank them.

I might also remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon there is a reception in the Ned DeBeck Lounge between 3:00 and 5:00 for all of the interns. All the members should go up and say hello.

MR. KEMPF: Also in the gallery this afternoon are two long-time friends of mine, His Worship Mayor Adrien Meeuwissen of Houston, and Mr. Charles Sullivan, chairman of the Houston health board. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to ask the House to extend a warm welcome to some of our partners in restraint. We have with us in the gallery today Her Worship Mayor Audrey Moore of Castlegar, president-elect of the UBCM; His Worship Mayor Don Ross of Surrey; His Worship Adrien Meeuwissen of Houston; Alderman Ralph Gallicano of Revelstoke; Alderman Fred Bryant of Chilliwack. Would the House please welcome these officials. We hope to spend some time this afternoon getting to know each other much better.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I see we have an old friend in the gallery — Mr. Gregg Smith, who is home on leave from Rome, where he is studying for the priesthood. Would the House please welcome him.

MS. SANFORD: It is not too often that constituents make the 140-mile drive from Courtenay to attend the Legislature, but today I spot a constituent in the public gallery. I would like the House to welcome Jack Goosen.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would add my welcome on behalf of the other member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Reid) and myself to Mayor Don Ross, who is with us this afternoon.

MR. MOWAT: I'd ask the members to welcome the first lady of my house; my wife Anne is in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M201, Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the appointment of Mr. Tozer as government agent in Kelowna. According to the Government Employee Relations Bureau job description for Mr. Tozer's new position, during an election period it would involve the supervision and direction of Deputy Registrar of Voters and election staff. In any free society, the apparatus of elections must be beyond partisan politics. Would the minister confirm that that is one of the aspects required by him in the nomination of Mr. Tozer for that position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. Mr. Tozer was selected by order-in-council because, in the government's view, he could

[ Page 56 ]

undertake the job of government agent in the best possible way. As you know, returning officers are appointed for each constituency, and they will carry out their traditional function.

MR. HANSON: It is clear from the job description that the function of registrar of voters is part of the government agent's position.

On a supplementary, the Premier has informed us that he is considering making all government agents political appointments through his office. Has the Premier decided that Socred Party apparatchiks will be government agents in the other 50 districts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is making an assumption. I've said it's possible that we could make order-in-council appointments. That member is suggesting that order-in-council appointments are political. A number of appointments are made.... I know you weren't there, but others were when the New Democratic Party was government and made order-in-council appointments. If they considered those appointments to be political, that would be their viewpoint. I consider those appointments as the government selecting the people whom they consider best able to serve the people of British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: To the Premier, that particular Kelowna government agent position was advertised in the Public Service Commission's Postings, with a closing date of March 23 of this year. Approximately 20 people put in applications. Then on April 14, 1983, in the middle of the election campaign, the competition was cancelled. Would you confirm to the House that you yourself intervened for the cancellation of that competition?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I won't confirm that to the House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Premier on this subject. In view of the fact that the position of government agent in Courtenay has been vacant since September 10 of last year, can the Premier advise us whether he has selected an appropriate party hack or a detached relative to fill this position?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Premier, if he cares to answer....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly I'd love to answer it. Without giving any credibility to the description and the assumption made by the member, I would say no — but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO DEPUTY MINISTERS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Premier on a different subject but generally the same theme. Just around the time the election was called, Mr. Norman Spector, who was working in the Premier's office, contacted the chairman of the Government Employee Relations Bureau and advised him that if any deputy minister was to be non-voluntarily terminated, the severance pay would be 18 months' salary — approximately $100,000 — without considering any length of service. The chairman of the Government Employee Relations Bureau was so incredulous that he required this in writing.

Can the Premier explain to the House how in a period of so-called restraint, when ordinary public servants are being asked to sacrifice, such a generous benefit could be offered to deputy ministers, including Norman Spector and Douglas Heal, who have worked less than two years for this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that the member would understand that Dr. Spector is a deputy to the Provincial Secretary as well, and if he undertook to write such a letter it would be in his capacity as Deputy Provincial Secretary. Therefore the question would more appropriately be placed to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). However, isn't it wonderful that nobody has been dismissed and nobody has to face those types of costs?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that it was at his request that this policy was made to the chairman of GERB and through him to all deputy ministers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't confirm that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier advising this House that Mr. Spector would have the authority to grant a $100,000 severance package to employees with 18 and 19 months' service?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I've already suggested that if he wrote such a letter it would be in his capacity as Deputy Provincial Secretary. You might want to pose the question to the Provincial Secretary, who has that responsibility.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the Provincial Secretary. What role did you play in this particular policy determination which the chairman of GERB was not aware of?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was the question again?

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary is fully aware that the chairman of GERB works in his ministry and that the chairman of GERB demanded of the Premier's office that that policy directive be in writing because he was so incredulous. He was not aware of such a generous settlement in any other jurisdiction. What role did you play in authorizing this particular policy change?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, you're making an assumption about the generosity of settlements for non-voluntary leaving of a position, which is an erroneous assumption, I might say. Secondly, I played no role.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier, again on Mr. Tozer. It is interesting that the salary level established for Mr. Tozer is at the very top of government agents' salaries. In fact, it is beyond any appraisal level. In the Government Employee Relations Bureau policy and in the Public Service Commission policy they cannot go beyond 96 percent of salary for any position. They have granted Mr. Tozer, through your instructions, 112 percent of salary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are in question period. I must insist that a question accompany the

[ Page 57 ]

member's seeking of the floor. There will be ample time for debate, but at this time we ask questions with a short preamble. That is the policy, hon. members, that you have instructed me to follow.

MR. HANSON: I was trying to indicate the public's confusion surrounding the establishment of this position. Will the Premier tell the House why Mr. Tozer was placed at the distinguished level of the top of the range without any experience in government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tozer has 7 1/2 years experience in a senior position in the Premier's office, and the decision was made by government.

MR. HANSON: Why is Mr. Tozer being paid $6,000 per year more than any other applicant could possibly have obtained under the public service policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the figure designated in the order-in-council.

MS. SANFORD: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent public importance, and I'll state the matter. The board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District meets tomorrow to consider rezoning of the former Spetifore property, now owned by Dawn Development Corp., from agricultural to urban use. This issue arises because the present government excluded the property from the agricultural land reserve, contrary to the recommendation of the Agricultural Land Commission and of independent experts such as the B.C. Institute of Agrologists. We need a full, clear debate in this House on the importance of preserving our shrinking agricultural land base prior to the discussion which will take place tomorrow in Vancouver. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move that this assembly do now adjourn to debate the establishment of a public inquiry, under the Inquiry Act, to examine the circumstances surrounding the exclusion of the Spetifore property from the agricultural land reserve and the desirability of rescinding order-in-council 3381.

MR. SPEAKER: I shall review the submission and bring a ruling back to the House. I must remind members that when we are canvassing under this particular section, the idea is to be somewhat brief and not to enter into argument on the matter.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. The motion calls for a public inquiry based on the fact that there's a decision to be made tomorrow. I would urge the Speaker to make his decision now, in order that the debate can transpire prior to a decision that may undo everything that would be done by this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I have given an undertaking to the House to return at the earliest opportunity, as I did yesterday, I believe.

MR. BARRETT: It has come to my attention that question period only took ten minutes today. We have another five minutes to deal with the government's arrogance.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. member may have....

Question period shall resume for a further five minutes. I apologize to the House on that matter, and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention.

ORAL QUESTIONS
(continued)

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. BARRETT: During the question period today, we have been attempting to determine whether or not it is now government policy to determine the selection of government agents through order-in-council or by competition through merit. Can the Premier inform this House and the people of the province whether or not from now on all government agents' positions will be appointed through order-in-council?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If we make a determination such as the one we've made about such a position, it will be made public after the cabinet decision.

MR. BARRETT: I am asking the Premier whether or not the policy now is for the appointments of all government agents to be made by order-in-council as the precedent, newly set, with the appointment of Mr. Tozer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm telling the Leader of the Opposition that if we make such a determination on any such position in the future, it will be made public in the same way, as all orders-in-council are public.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier is informing me and this House that from now on all appointments will be scrutinized politically and that announcements — after the political scrutiny — will be made by the cabinet. Is the Premier now confirming that we are in the process of destroying a merit-system-appointed civil service and setting up a political structure of appointments made directly from the Premier's office and cabinet meetings, with announcements to be made afterwards?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

[2:30]

MR. BARRETT: Then how did Mr. Tozer get appointed? It was by order-in-council, in violation of every practice of merit service in the civil service. I ask the Premier clearly: can he assure the people of British Columbia that we are not moving towards a system whereby order-in-council appointments will be made to key civil service positions such as government agents? Will he explain why the Kelowna government agent's position was different than every other appointment in that position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to make appointments in such manner as it considers best to serve the people of British Columbia. That may not satisfy the Leader of the Opposition, but our commitment and responsibility to the people of British Columbia is to put those people in positions of responsibility who we think can undertake to the best of their ability the very

[ Page 58 ]

necessary work that the people of British Columbia need at this time. The government will make decisions on this basis.

I reject the assumption made by the Leader of the Opposition that this government will make those decisions on a political, partisan basis. In our judgment, any decision we make on future appointments of any kind that require order-in-council — and that may be of any kind — will be made on our best efforts at finding suitable people to do an outstanding job for the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier would have us believe that there was a scrutiny of the applicants for the best possible person for this job, has the Premier personally perused the file of every other applicant? Does he remember their names? Would he give this House a resume of all the other applicants' backgrounds which led to him rejecting their applications and selecting by merit Mr. Tozer? Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Premier never read anybody else's file at all, and that there was no comparison or evaluation of merit. It was a selection of a relative and nothing else. Name the other ones.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I reject again what the Leader of the Opposition says, and he continues to perpetuate an untruth, which he knows to be untrue, about someone being a relative. I know he's made an error in that respect. It's quite clear, but I don't mind that. I've listened to it for seven years. The government will make our decisions, and when decisions are made we will make them public. But obviously we do not discuss in public all of the consideration that goes into making all cabinet decisions. Anyone who has ever chaired a cabinet effectively knows full well that while you announce decisions, you do not discuss all of the...

MR. BARRETT: What about the other applicants?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...aspects that go into discussions or into the considerations of making that decision.

MR. BARRETT: Arrogance! Unbelievable arrogance!

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I offered my congratulations to you this morning in your absence. It's my pleasure to do so when you are here today. This morning I had the pleasure of saying how honored and pleased I was to be elected as a representative, second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, and to be a member of the Bill Bennett team that's going to lead us to great things in the future.

I was speaking about the government's legislation in August 1979, when this government — the first government in Canada to so so — passed a part 10 building code bylaw for the design standards for accessibility for the physically disabled. I am pleased to say that this was passed in 1979 and has been the keynote legislation in Canada for accessibility and awareness of the disabled in our community, the access to jobs and education. We note now that this code is being revised with new legislation coming forward that will assist the visually and hearing impaired. I would point out to the members of the House that one out of seven British Columbians have some problem with mobility. This is excellent legislation that looks after their needs.

I know we will be discussing in this session the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I have had a great deal of involvement with that because of the many tragic injuries we see in the Canadian Paraplegic Association. We presently have a $75,000 minimum liability on the policy holders. Our sister province has only $5,000 minimum; consequently, if you are injured and hit by a car from Alberta that was totally in the wrong, you could sue for $5,000. It is my hope that our government will look at increasing this limit to a minimum of $1 million and put in a no-fault clause so that citizens that are catastrophically disabled will have the funds to return to the community and become useful and productive citizens.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I shall also be working with the government on these settlements to be looked at to be structured similar to the Workers' Compensation Board. Often we see a person receive a large grant of money through a litigation suit and not have the capacity or the ability to look after it, and it is soon dwindled away and before long he is back on the welfare rolls, and the funds have not been properly administered. So the possibility of a structured settlement would assist.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the policies of our government. I believe on May 5 we were given the majority mandate by the people of British Columbia to lead. And we received this mandate by the strong platform that we put forward to all the voters of British Columbia, particularly our program on restraint. I spoke during the campaign to many persons in the education field and many hospital workers and public-sector employees, and they told us they were going to vote for us because they believed in the restraint programs and that the restraint programs would lead to more jobs.

I further understand that when our leader went to a first ministers' conference and brought forward the idea of restraint he could not get any one of the other first ministers across Canada to second that motion. I must ask you to look at where those provinces are today.

I think there is a challenge before this House that we must govern in a way that will assist all of our citizens, and we must do this in a very active and productive way by increasing production, increasing the number of jobs. We can do a lot of this through the show that we will be putting on at Expo. We can show the world through Expo that we are a large city, a major-league city, and a city to be looked at in the future. Expo will benefit so many of our citizens. We will continue to see a great legacy left after they have built and left Expo. I know there are plans for many buildings to be constructed by various nations that will be left on site, and they can be taken over by many of our great voluntary agencies such as the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame.

I think this government will continue to expand the many excellent programs in place. We will develop new ones to meet needs, and we will also eliminate those programs that are not effective, that are not working, have no value and are extremely costly.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to serve with my colleagues and to be part of the Bill Bennett team. My grandmother told me that if I was ever going to speak, to stand up, speak up and shut up. With your permission, I have not stood up; I trust I've spoken up; and now I'll shut up.

[ Page 59 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have the honour to rise in this House today as one of the newly elected members for Surrey. I am honoured and proud to be a part of Premier Bennett's government team, and I offer my personal congratulations to him and to members of his cabinet in this thirty-third parliament. The strong leadership displayed during difficult times has been, acknowledged by the people of British Columbia in the support given us on May 5. I look forward to working with each and every member here to address the needs and concerns of our citizens. This is not the time for petty partisan politics; let us put them aside and do the job we were elected to do.

I would like to congratulate all other hon. members of the government and the official opposition, particularly all the new members. I wish each member well in the months ahead, as we commit ourselves to providing the high standard of government this province has come to expect. In the absence of Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to him, and to you on having been elected Deputy Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have two such dedicated and responsible men in those positions of trust and authority. As a newly elected member, I must admit that I am still somewhat in awe and a wee bit nervous, but I will carry on. I think I'm really more in awe at the responsibility given me by the people of my constituency. I must express my sincere thanks to the people of Surrey and White Rock, who turned out in record numbers on May 5 and who placed their faith and hope in me and in the Social Credit government. It is my sincere hope that I never give them cause to regret their decision.

My constituency of Surrey, which includes the city of White Rock, is the largest in British Columbia. I am proud to say that the two Social Credit members received approximately 38,000 votes each from this area. I believe it is important that we constantly remind ourselves of the strong mandate we received, which was given because of the policies, platforms and commitments made during the campaign, and that we get on with the job of bringing about the changes that we know the citizens want.

[2:45]

At this time I would like to pay tribute to the former members for Surrey. On behalf of my constituents I would extend a very sincere word of appreciation to Bill Vander Zalm and Ernest Hall. Bill Vander Zalm served on Surrey council for ten years prior to being elected to the Legislative Assembly. His efforts on behalf of his constituents are certainly noteworthy and appreciated. He was always accessible, and I know many of my constituents still call on him for help and advice. It is to be hoped that he will enjoy his sabbatical.

I would also, on behalf of my constituents, like to express my thanks to the former second member for Surrey, Ernest Hall, who spent 13 years in the Legislative Assembly. The strong support given him in the May 5 election would indicate that a good many of my constituents were pleased with his representation, and I would hope that they will feel free to call on me or the other member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) whenever the need arises. I am ready, willing and able to work for all my constituents, not just those who voted for me, and it would be my hope that all members feel this way.

There have been countless new and exciting programs and initiatives begun since 1975, all designed to meet the needs of the citizens of British Columbia. None have been so bold and imaginative as the comprehensive restraint program introduced by the Premier to deal with the economic problems in this province caused by the worldwide recession. This program was initiated with several important goals in mind. This program was initiated in order to preserve vital social programs in the face of declining government revenues. It involves a selective approach, which allows for restraint in non-essential areas while permitting the continuation of funding to our essential programs. The Premier led the way in showing other governments how to shoulder their share of the heavy burden of these difficult times. Other governments across the country soon followed B.C.'s lead and developed their own restraint programs based on our model. The people in my constituency of Surrey placed restraint and jobs at the top of their priority list and I am pleased to be part of a government team which has been addressing and will continue to address these concerns.

Initiatives taken by this government have resulted in many hundreds of jobs for Surrey businesses and residents. Contracts awarded to Surrey firms dealing with Tumbler Ridge, Ridley Island and the Quintette site development — and I'm only mentioning these — brought about economic benefits to many of my constituents, and for that, Mr. Premier, I say thank you. Some of the Surrey firms which received contracts on those jobs are Surrey Iron Works, Bel Construction, Jalmar Construction, Ansha Contracting, Viney Contracting, Goodbrand, EB. Stewart, Seaward Construction and Artisan Manufacturing — to name just a few. It is evident to all concerned that projects initiated by the government, but carried through by private industry small or large, are most beneficial. It is my hope that initiatives such as those shown at Tumbler Ridge will continue.

Surrey–White Rock is a large and diverse community with a population of approximately 180,000. We are a true mosaic of peoples. A very substantial percentage of our 142 square miles is made up of agricultural lands, much of it in the lowlands and protected by dikes. I am pleased to be a part of a government which recognizes the need to protect and preserve our viable farmland, and in this recognition has continued to financially assist our municipality and diking districts in order that proper repair and preventive maintenance is carried out on the dikes. I will continue to make the needs of our farming and lowland communities known to my colleagues in order that they be continually aware of the required assistance.

Although we have come a long way in Surrey during the past ten years in our efforts to have more industrial and commercial development within our boundaries, we have been unable to provide sufficient jobs locally for all of our working population, and many people must commute to Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. That is why ALRT must come to Surrey. The extension is not just a wish; it is an economic necessity. The increased ridership will certainly more than justify the extension. It is my hope, and a goal I have set, that the extension will proceed without any unnecessary delays, in order that it be complete in time for Expo 86 — and that the Surrey and New Westminster lines will be open simultaneously.

This government has been very good to all communities in British Columbia. Surrey and White Rock are no exception. When money was more readily available, municipalities were certainly encouraged to undertake new programs and projects with provincial assistance. As a long-time Surrey alderman, I can readily admit that we were really getting used to regular and substantial cost-sharing programs, which have

[ Page 60 ]

now been curtailed. In other words, we were spoiled. But it is hoped that this is a temporary curtailment, and as our Premier leads us through these financially difficult times we can see a light at the end of the tunnel spelling recovery.

As I look back at my municipal experience, I believe it important that we review areas of the Municipal Act with regard to expenditure of local taxpayers' funds. I am of the opinion that major non-essential capital projects proposed to be undertaken by a city or municipality should go to referendum. The taxpayers should have more input into their local government's decisions. I am also of the opinion that the GVRD should be relieved of some of their functions, and I particularly refer to the planning function. These are areas into which I hope to have some input during the next few months.

It is with great anticipation that I look toward actions to be taken by this government with regard to privatization of many government agencies. My particular concerns lie in the involvement of government in the ICBC operation and the liquor outlets. It is my hope that we can start immediately to diminish our involvement in ICBC, and I look forward to discussions toward this end. In the area of liquor distribution, it would be my hope that this government will allow more agency stores, not just in the smaller communities, but in built-up areas as well. May I suggest that we look at the Newton area of Surrey for such an outlet.

In my naivete I came to the Legislature with the hope that all members would put aside their differences which surface during election campaigns, and get down to looking after the people's business. It is with real disappointment that I listen to speeches from members of the opposition party, as they dissect the Speech from the Throne, and from the Leader of the Opposition, who seems primarily preoccupied with staff decisions made by our Premier. Is that really what we're here for? I would suggest not, Mr. Speaker.

The Speech from the Throne was, in my opinion, a very positive document, and did indeed reiterate that there is no free lunch. In my opinion, it clearly stressed our government's priorities, led by health care and education, and surely our opposition cannot find fault with those priorities. Surely there can be no fault found with our goal of providing an economic climate which will bring greater economic stability as well as a broader tax base to our province. We and our children will benefit from any immediate restraints which are necessary for future recovery. This government was elected to make hard decisions and they are prepared to do so. This is a responsibility I take very seriously.

I am really excited about British Columbia's future. The government- sponsored projects are creating jobs for British Columbians: ALRT, the stadium, B.C. Place development, Expo 86, northeast coal, to name just a few. But we must begin by putting our own house in order. The spiraling costs of government have been brought under control by the courageous restraint program introduced by this government last year, while at the same time the government has successfully created an economic climate in which people once again have the confidence to invest in the future of the province. The result of that confidence is the recovery which we are now beginning to enjoy.

The economy of British Columbia is growing again. In fact, it is now growing at a faster rate than the economy of the rest of Canada. I have great confidence in this government, and I know that my confidence is shared by the people of British Columbia. That was demonstrated quite clearly in the recent election, and it is obvious that the people of this province trust us and respect us. It is my sincere hope that we, as a government, will continue to deserve that respect in the future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I start by congratulating the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on being appointed as Deputy Speaker, and to congratulate the Speaker, which I have done previously.

May I also join those members who have already welcomed the new members to the House. I can recall when I first entered the House it was the practice for everyone to welcome the new members to this very exclusive club — very limited in membership. There is only one way to get in, and a very finite number, at least under the present rules: 57 of us. That's as large as the club can be at the present time, and there is only one way to get in. It carries with it some very certain responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and there are some words about responsibilities in the opening speech that I'd like to refer to and commend particularly to the new members. I despair of commending them to the older members on the other side of the House, but I am hoping that maybe some of the new members might pay particular attention to some of the words in the opening speech.

I'd like to start from the very first paragraph: "May I express the wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs of the people you represent will be met in the course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature in our magnificent province." Mr. Speaker, we can all concur most heartily in those words. I think the most important words are: "and the needs of the people you represent." From there on, Mr. Speaker, the speech does fail the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately we've waited a long time for this opening speech. The previous one was some 19 months ago. We now have an opening speech that promises nothing for people who need assistance — nothing for a needy four-year old constituent living in darkness and fear, waiting for an operation for cataracts, an operation twice postponed in a period of one very long year, waiting not because there aren't beds but because there are not sufficient staff in the hospitals, due to restraint.

[3:00]

The opening speech promises nothing for the baby who died waiting for an anesthetist who was not available, due to restraint. That is the cost of restraint, Mr. Speaker. Nothing for some 1,500 people waiting for so-called elective surgery in one hospital, the Nanaimo Regional Hospital in my own constituency. As recently as this morning the list was 1,500 — not because there aren't empty beds, Mr. Speaker, because indeed there are 42 empty beds. Fifteen percent of the capacity of that hospital is made up of beds that are empty due to government restraint.

So when we talk about restraint, Mr. Speaker, let's consider the effect of this restraint on the people whose needs we are urged in the opening paragraph to consider. At the same time as we're talking about health care, about the needs in health, we read in the opening speech, on pages 14 and 15, about new facilities being provided: "The completion of several new facilities across the province demonstrates my government's commitment to quality health care." Then we go on to list some of these facilities. What point in building new facilities across the province.... Many of these were announced during the election campaign when the Minister

[ Page 61 ]

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) went to community after community, left some out, went to others, promising new hospital beds. At the same time, I expect, in every one of those communities there were already empty beds simply because his restraint program had denied those hospitals the opportunity to engage the staff they needed to keep those beds in use. All in the name of restraint.

This opening speech promises nothing for the youngster with learning disabilities who could do well with some special attention — special attention that is denied because of the government policy of restraint. It has nothing for the gifted youngster who could do much better than the average, with some special attention — special attention that is denied because of this policy of restraint; nothing for the unemployed young adults who would welcome an opportunity to attend regional colleges to upgrade their education, to learn new trades, new skills, only to find that the enrolment in the regional colleges is curtailed due to this policy of restraint. They are all sacrifices at the altar where the Bennett team worships their god: restraint.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, threatens the fragile fabric of recovery, about which the Premier spoke during the campaign. It threatens those innocent of any wrongdoing. In the speech we read about health expenditures having increased by 13 percent in the past year. The concern, again, is about the cost of the service without any boasting about the level of service that we're providing, how good it is, or even saying that the dollars spent are being well spent. There is no mention of that in this area at all, simply concern about what it is costing to provide health care in the province of British Columbia.

It threatens the unemployed. On page after page in this opening speech the government threatens that the number of unemployed will increase. We've already established records; page after page threaten that there will be more unemployed. Not only that, we're closing the door to employment opportunities in so many areas of public service, like Crown corporations. The government is by far the largest employer in the province, and we're saying that in every area the government is going to insist upon laying people off, not filling positions, increasing the number of unemployed. Their answer to the unemployed is to say: "We're going to make more of you." There is no promise of any assistance in this document.

The government promises, in this opening speech, to take no initiatives to increase employment opportunities. There is only one province in the country which has an NDP government. The Manitoba government has not chosen to abdicate so completely its responsibilities to — as the opening speech suggested in the first paragraph — look after the needs of the people.

The Conference Board in Canada, in a quarterly provincial forecast, talks about the economic performance of Manitoba and other places. The actual rate of unemployment in 1982 in Canada as a whole was 11 percent. In Manitoba it was 8.5 percent; in B.C. it was 12.1 percent. How about in the month of May, the latest figures that we have? In Canada the situation has worsened; it has gone from 11 percent up to 12.3 percent. In Manitoba it has worsened as well, from 8.5 percent up to 10 percent. But in B.C. it went from 12.1 percent up to 13.5 percent. Is that a record of which the government should be proud, Mr. Speaker? The 1983 forecast produced by the Conference Board in Canada says that for Canada as a whole, the rate is going to increase up to 13 percent. For Manitoba they expect a nominal increase from 10 percent up to 10.4 percent. What do they expect for British Columbia? An increase from 13.5 percent up to 14.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, that's the difference between a province where an NDP government has accepted the responsibility for looking after the needs of the people and the government of British Columbia, which says over and over in the opening speech that they do not intend to interfere at all; they intend no action that will create job opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

The opening speech threatens those involved in education: teachers, non-teaching staff and students. It threatens all of them with cutbacks. It threatens all of them with lost employment opportunities and threatens the students with lost educational opportunities.

In the matter of taxes, it promises to hold the line and to juggle the formula so it won't look as though you are paying so much. That's on page 7, Mr. Speaker, in case you missed it. When the NDP administration was in office the proportion of the cost of taxation paid for by the provincial government level, as opposed to that paid at the local level, increased every year. Every year it increased. Every year in the seven to eight years since the Social Credit administration has been in office the proportion paid by the local taxpayers increased, except in the last year when they changed the ground rules and took away from the local authorities taxation over business and commercial properties. That's the only way they were able to change the proportion.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to the cookie jar, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister waits and listens to the cookie jar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps most serious of all, this opening, speech threatens our economy. On page 5 it threatens to take action "to improve our industrial relations" — defined as a promise. Again on page 11 it threatens "to improve the state of industrial relations in our province." The system now is working; the government isn't, and the people aren't working. Certainly the system of industrial relations is working. The 1982 annual report of the Labour Relations Board — the government's own report — shows that the system is working.

The number of B.C. workers off the job because of strikes and lockouts dropped dramatically during 1982. The 1982 annual report of the Labour Relations Board shows only about one-third as many work stoppages took place last year as in 1981. Significantly, one of the very large work stoppages — there were only two large ones — was the B.C. government employees because of a breakdown in bargaining between this government and its employees. Had that been resolved it would have been an extremely low year. The system is working. Why tamper at this time, during a period when we are living through this fragile fabric of recovery? Why threaten to tamper with the system that is working, as the government's own Labour Relations Board report shows? What kind of confrontation are they going to encourage by taking on the trade unions? What kind of results are they going to get in the event that they try to push organized workers into rebelling against changes? What happens if the workers keep on the job and the employers start imposing

[ Page 62 ]

lockouts? Will the legislation work that way too? If it does I hear someone from the back bench say that it will — is that going to strengthen our fragile fabric of recovery? To start this kind of confrontation between the government and employers, between the government and employees, between employers and employees? I urge the government to consider very carefully, before they start interfering with industrial relations which currently are working, as the government's own reports show.

Of course the main enemy throughout this document are the people who are doing most to deliver government services, the people working in the public sector, which includes the direct employees of the government. It includes all of the employees working for all of the Crown corporations, in every hospital, in every school district, in every municipality. All of these are people who are threatened time after time in this opening speech. They are the ones to blame for the trouble that we are now in, Mr. Speaker, if one were to read the speech the way it is written. "The mandate entrusted to my government by the people of British Columbia is to pursue economic recovery, through restraint on the public sector...." All we have to do is take it out on the public employees and we're going to have prosperity. That really is a simplistic approach, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good idea.

MR. STUPICH: I hear that it's a good idea.

On page 5, it is repeated: "My government believes that an intrusive and overweight public sector, far from being part of the solution to our economic difficulties, is in fact part of the problem." Once again, it's the loyal employees in the public sector who are to blame for the economic problems of the day.

On page 6: "While restraint will continue to be the overriding principle of public-sector management...." It keeps coming, over and over again. I don't suppose I've picked them all out, but they keep coming up. Again on page 6: "the level of public services, including attendant employment levels, that has grown up over the past 30 years...." That's the cause of the problems. Again on page 6: within the past 15 years this situation has worsened. For more than half of the last 15 years, this administration has been in office. I certainly agree with them about some of the appointments that they have made as being part of the problem. They certainly have created the problem to some extent. But in the main, public employees are dedicated individuals who enjoy their work and are doing their best — in spite of difficulties — to serve the public in whatever position they happen to be in, no differently than private employees in that respect.

Indeed, if increases in productivity are to be sought after.... I don't deny that we should all be trying to increase our productivity in whatever field we are involved in. But if that is the goal, do you get it by threatening to fire or not to hire to fill positions? Do you get it by threatening to oblige them to work longer hours, without assistance?

[3:15]

One of the proudest moments of my career as Minister of Agriculture came when a visitor told me he had certainly noticed a change in the department of Agriculture. It used to be that when he came to visit senior members he would drop into their offices and they'd have time to sit and visit, time to go out and have coffee. Time didn't seem to be a problem at all. But within six months of the NDP administration's arriving in office, he had to be careful, when he walked down those corridors, that he wasn't knocked down by someone running from one office to another. No one had time to talk to him. Senior staff members were working night and day and on weekends because they were enjoying the work they were doing. They realized they were providing a real government service, and they enjoyed it. They felt there was some value to the work they were doing. We didn't threaten them, we didn't oblige them to work longer hours, but we did make them feel that they were important people in terms of providing government services. We made them feel wanted and valued. Laugh and joke all you want, but it was one of the proudest moments of my career to know that people felt good about working in that department because they were achieving something and were prepared to go that extra mile, were prepared to be more productive and do what the government says it wants to achieve: that is, to increase productivity.

What does it offer for economic development? We certainly need some of that right now. It talks about the mining industry on page 9. It's kind of funny; it's not meant to be a joke: "The mining industry, a backbone of the provincial economy, has experienced severely depressed markets." With that we can all agree. "However, I'm advised that the stable investment climate resulting from the recent election will translate into one of the most active exploration years ever in our province." Yes, keep up the applause, but just let me read a little more here and then continue the applause.

Again quoting from this material supplied by the Conference Board of Canada quarterly provincial forecast, let's look at the provincial forecast for our gross domestic product with respect to mining. We see that in British Columbia the production from our mines in terms of dollars decreased in 1982 by 20.8 percent. It was a bad year — 20.8 percent less than 1981. In Manitoba it was a bad year as well, and the decrease there was 5.3 percent. For 1983 they forecast a further reduction in Manitoba of 2.8 percent; and for British Columbia a reduction of only 6.2 percent. These are not our forecasts; they're from the Conference Board of Canada. They see the position being that much worse than in the province of British Columbia. Of course, they didn't have the throne speech to go by. Had they had the opportunity to read that, they might have revised their forecast.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Let's go on with this then — an NDP government. Let's look at capital expenditures. What do they forecast there? That's important. In Manitoba in 1982, capital expenditures did drop below 1981 by 12.6 percent; in British Columbia, by 15.5 percent. Worse than Manitoba in 1982. In 1983, Manitoba is forecast to increase — nominally, but nevertheless on the right side of the ledger — by 0.4 percent; in B.C., to decrease by 6.7 percent. In every way you want to compare the two provinces, one under an NDP administration and one under a Social Credit administration, obviously Manitoba is doing better than the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think about the employer's tax in Manitoba.

[ Page 63 ]

MR. STUPICH: In spite of the employer's tax in Manitoba, it would appear they're doing much better than we are here in B.C. Maybe that's the route to go.

What about the most important resource of all, and that is forests. On page 10 is a section headed "Forestry." It starts just below the top of the page and ends on the other page. If you measure it you find one entire page in this 16-page document is taken up with a discussion of forestry, and not one word about protecting the resource. Certainly the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has had a lot to say about it on other occasions. You were here, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Forests introduced the legislation to provide for the forest and range resource fund. He talked about the importance of it then. Quoting from Hansard of May 14, 1980:

"...the Ministry of Forests Act passed by this Legislature in 1978 required that by this session of the Legislature a complete analysis of the state of the forest and range resource, together with a five-year management program, be presented.... The resource analysis indicated very clearly that in British Columbia we are beginning to come to the end of our old-growth timber"

Another problem is that there is a constant reduction taking place in the area of forest land. These two factors have made it very clear that the province must do much more in the future in order to be able to produce more wood on forest land.

Then they go on to talk about-the program. "This bill is part of a more fully realized commitment" — we are talking about 1980 — "to the need to invest more and more money in this very important forest resource." Mr. King of the NDP spoke in response and said that the only criticism the opposition had was that the government was not doing enough. In the 1980-81 annual report, the first following development of the five-year forest plan, the Minister of Forests admitted that part of his failure to live up to his expectations was the high level of vacancies in permanent positions. Since then he has promised to create even more vacancies to get along with even fewer people, after admitting that he was not meeting his objective. After telling us how important these objectives were, he's now saying that in the future they're going to do much less. In our most important resource the government is promising only that it will do a worse job in the future than it has in the past.

To paraphrase the first paragraph of the opening speech, this government is admitting its failure to meet the needs of the people of this province. In the past seven and a half years never has a government in the province of British Columbia exhibited such gross mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility as has the present administration.

On page 2 of the document we read that the downturn began in the third quarter of 1981. That's sometime after September 1981. Yet last year's budget speech of 1983, on page 22, shows that by the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, the government had used up its cash reserves by $313 million in excess of revenues.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We were supposed to have created a deficit of $261 million. The minister asks me to tell him about that. But the government, in what itself admits was a good year — the fiscal year that ended some six-plus months before the downturn was supposed to have happened — dipped into cash reserves accumulated by previous administrations to the extent of $313 million, with no excuse at all.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that there was no $271 million deficit created by the NDP administration. You know that was a complete fabrication and a downright lie — a complete falsehood. You know that, Mr. Speaker. I know it and you know it. The fact that it was a lie was proven by a report they commissioned themselves: the Clarkson Gordon report. It was proven by answers to questions on the order paper. It was proven by the public accounts filed in this House, as of March 31, 1976. It was a complete fabrication. Yet their deficit in what was a good year exceeded by $42 million the deficit that we were supposed to have created. Every year since then they have gone on with increasing deficits. The figures are in the public accounts filed in this House; they're on the order paper in answer to questions; they were in the budget speech last year, showing how much the cash deficit was on March 31, 1981, and on March 31, 1982, predicting that by the end of March 31, 1983, there would be a further cash draw down. The only thing wrong with that was that they were a billion dollars short in their figure.

Let's look at the NDP record of meeting the needs of the people, as we were urged to do in the opening speech. Let's take a look at finance. We established the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which they are threatening to do away with. In the course of its existence it has contributed $1.4 billion to the public treasury. That is a record of which we are proud.

We bought Canadian Cellulose for $1 for the people of British Columbia. It cost the people of British Columbia $1, which never actually did get paid over. That's all it cost. Two years later that asset was appraised as being worth half a billion dollars. It is one of a number of assets that were turned over by this administration to a private corporation and made almost valueless by their incompetence in running the affairs of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Political interference wrote down the value of those assets to less than half. That's the record of this administration. We build up the assets; they fritter them away.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm reminded, yes. We built some railcars in Squamish. When that plant was being shut down by the present administration, the Premier promised to go there and tell the workers why he was shutting it down. He hasn't been there since, to my knowledge. That's their record. It built cars, and six months after they shut it down, they had to go down to the States to get cars because B.C. Hydro needed them for their railroad.

Agriculture. The farm-income-assurance program has been a model for the whole continent. It's still there on paper. It's not much good to the farmers, but it's still there on paper. The Agricultural Credit Act, which is still there on paper, is not of much use in its present form but still there and ready to be resurrected. And the Land Commission....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. STUPICH: The Land Commission not for long? My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the Land Commission will not be there for long. The way they're handling the decisions and the fact that they're all taken into cabinet meeting and the

[ Page 64 ]

decisions are reversed in the secret confines of the cabinet room, makes one wonder why we should carry on with the Land Commission. But I urge that the government be cautious in getting rid of that legislation. I know I heard "not for long." We went through quite a fight in the community and got a lot of support for that when people realized the importance of it. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the trouble we had bringing in the legislation will be nothing compared to the trouble that this government will have in getting rid of the legislation if they are determined to do so.

ICBC. You may have had your problems with ICBC, as I have had as the member for Nanaimo servicing my constituents. But you haven't gotten rid of it. I don't hear "not for long" this time, and I hope I don't. We established ICBC and had to do it in very short time. We had hoped to take two and a half years to established the largest insurance corporation on the North American continent. But when the insurance companies knew that we were going to do it, they walked out and left us with very little time to pull together what was a mammoth organization.

Mincome. Talking about servicing the needs of the people, they didn't get rid of Mincome, Mr. Speaker. They changed the name. They now call it GAIN. It's the same program, and the maximum amount of money it paid to an individual under that program is exactly the same as it was the day we left office in December 1975. The program's still there.

Pharmacare. They changed Pharmacare. I don't say they improved it, but at least there still is a Pharmacare program. We started that when we were government.

[3:30]

Minimum wage. We brought in staged increases in the minimum wage so that it was staged in over three periods. There has not been a change in the minimum wage legislation in this province since we left office in December 1975. We were working for people. I ask that administration who they are working for.

The Labour Relations Board. Again, they're threatening to meddle with that. And again I caution that they consider the risks before interfering with something that is working. That was established by the NDP administration.

Community recreation projects established and built in every community in the province of British Columbia and several in many of the communities. That's a real mark, Mr. Speaker, and it was servicing the needs of the people of the province. What has this government done? One project in one community — B.C. Stadium, for which they can't even find a name. That's one project, whereas we had something positive happening in every community in the province.

Debt. Parity bonds were reduced by $103,250,000. Instant debt. They could be called at any time at all at the initiative of the holder. So we reduced that debt progressively. Each time they came up for renewal we would redeem half of them and let the other half out because there were people wanting to buy them. But we reduced that debt by $103 million.

Education finance and schools. We increased the provincial government portion of the cost of financing schools. We took over the cost of financing colleges. There is also the Island Trust legislation.

Last on my list, but not least, is the restoration of the building in which we are meeting today.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I hear: "That's worthwhile." I'm not sure whether that member was approving or disapproving, but may I just inform that member that when we arrived in office we found out that on the floor of the attic of the building were tubs, pots and buckets all over to catch the leaks coming through the roof. There had been nothing done to maintain the building in the previous 20 years of Social Credit rule. Now to give the present administration their due, they have continued the program of renovation and improvement since then; they haven't stopped. But we started that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the member was serious in saying....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe they still leak.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Socred record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's quite common that when a member is speaking people will have contrary opinions. However, I think we are getting quite unruly, and perhaps we could maintain some order and semblance of parliamentary procedure.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's look at the Socred record — a steady deterioration in education, a steady deterioration in health services, and fantastic increases in borrowing. In the 104-year history of this province from 1871 to December 31, 1975, the total direct and indirect debt of the province — that's all of the debt of all of the Crown corporations — was $4.4 billion. In 104 years we had built up a debt of $4.4 billion. It worked out to $1,800 per capita. In the next seven years under this Social Credit administration, that total direct and indirect debt had increased threefold. It was up to $14 billion by the end of December 1982 — three times what it took 104 years to accomplish. But that isn't all, Mr. Speaker. To pay for the groceries in that seven-year period, they sold three of our ferries. We had owned those ferries since 1965. Previous to that there was a debt. Since 1965 there was no debt on the B.C. Ferries, but in 1976 this government sold three of those ferries and is buying them back over a period of 18 years. In addition to that, they mortgaged every publicly owned building in the province with one exception — the building that we are in. Every other publicly owned building in the province is mortgaged to pay for groceries.

They frittered away assets that were accumulated by the NDP administration. I’ve already talked about BCRIC. They've blown $552 million in special purpose funds accumulated by previous administrations. Gross incompetence. Mismanagement. And they've also added to it by bringing in unlimited borrowing through treasury bills that are now at the point of simply borrowing to pay back debts that they incurred three months previously. The bottom line is that they have broken all records for the increase in the rate of unemployment and the increase in the rate of bankruptcy; and, to top it off, their increase on human resources, according to this speech, has been 32 percent in just one year. That's the result of what they've done.

Mr. Speaker, for everything wrong that has happened in the province they put the blame on the sick, the students, the

[ Page 65 ]

low-income renters and others — the unemployed, those on welfare. In their arrogance — and they've demonstrated that over and over — they should remember that while 49 percent of the people who went to the polls voted Socred, 51 percent of the people who went to the polls voted against the kind of arrogance that we've seen here today in question period, and against their actions since.

Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I can do nothing more than urge the members, and particularly the new members.... As I referred to the opening paragraph, I now refer to the closing paragraph — almost the closing paragraph: "I pray you will reflect fully on the effect and example of your decisions on the people of our province and country."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As some of my colleagues have observed, and as is only proper at the beginning of my comments, I would like to congratulate you on your reelection to the position of Deputy Speaker; and I'm sure you'll pass on best wishes to the Speaker as well on my behalf. I'd also like to pass on best wishes to all of the new members who are in the House today and to some of those who aren't with us any longer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's very tempting, Mr. Speaker, when following a member like the member for Nanaimo, who takes such large flights of fancy, to respond to all of the things that he said in regard to the throne speech, rather than make the remarks which I had intended to make. I won't do that, because it would take too long, for one thing, to attempt to deal with what the member for Nanaimo called the NDP record. Just sitting in this House and reflecting on what he said about that great government of 1972 to 1975, I'm sure that every member on the NDP side of the House would have to agree that it was one of the greatest governments that ever existed. Thank God we had the people who judged, and they made their judgment very clear. They knew that the debt, that the member for Nanaimo says never existed, was not a ghost. Otherwise, they would wonder why their kids are paying off the interest and why that debt is still only half paid off, and why our kids and your kids are going to have to pay for that debt for 20 years down the line. That debt existed, it's there yet, and it's a blight on future generations.

I would just make one other comment about what the member for Nanaimo said. I really liked his comment that the NDP record over those years was meeting the needs of the people. Well, the people didn't agree in 1975, they didn't agree in 1979, and they overwhelmingly didn't agree in 1983.

1 don't want to deal with all aspects of the throne speech. Some of my predecessors who have spoken in this House have dealt so well with many of the thoughts that I just want to pick out a couple of things that interest me perhaps more than others, starting with the statement that begins on about page 3 in Hansard, which talks about the restraint-on-government program beginning and leading us into economic recovery, with inflation being cut by more than half, now below the national average. In recent months mortgage rates have been reduced, again below the national average, interest rates have been lowered by more than five points, and, best of all, there have been actual decreases in the cost of living.

The Lieutenant-Governor in his speech said that he was pleased to observe that we in British Columbia are proving equal to this challenge of meeting the needs of restraint and meeting the opportunities for recovery. I liked the statement that he made about the foundations now being laid for enduring economic recovery; that's going to take the cooperation of every British Columbian to ensure. We're going to do it, Mr. Speaker, by being part of a great team in British Columbia pulling together in a partnership for recovery.

MR. REID: That's the spirit of B.C.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for Surrey said, "That's the spirit of B.C.," and I couldn't agree more. We're going to have to be strong as government, to help lead the way to a new, healthy and buoyant economy, to develop markets for our products, to build confidence, to create jobs, and to provide a helping hand, more than anything, I guess, for our businesses and our individuals to share in our bountiful resources, and to make sure that we can generate the revenue necessary to maintain and enhance the best social service programs in North America.

We're doing that in several innovative ways, like our B.C. development bonds which are now channeling our citizens' savings into jobs for British Columbians and providing the springboard for new, innovative ways in which we can achieve high-technology development in our province and fund small business, which is so important to the ongoing economic recovery. Thousands of job opportunities are opening up all over this province because of those growth projects that your government had the nerve to embark on when every other government in Canada was retrenching. Expo 86 is going to welcome the world to British Columbia; we'll see some 15 million visitor to our province in the six months of Expo, with an impact of well over a billion dollars into our economy.

I know that all of us, on both sides of the House, are very, very proud that the first plank in the B.C. Place development is now open: the new B.C. stadium. And aren't we all proud of it? Every British Columbian has the right to take a look at that stadium with pride and say: "That took a lot of nerve and vision to go ahead in times of tough economic conditions." I wonder where all the doubters are now? You never hear them any more. You know, I even heard the other day the great Al Davidson of radio station CKNW doing an editorial in favour of the B.C. Stadium; and when Big Al comes on our side, we've got the world on our side, Mr. Speaker.

ALRT, which was officially opened the other morning — the Spirit of B.C. — will be not only a showpiece for Expo 86 but the heart of the Lower Mainland's transportation system. Besides the jobs — 3,500 direct jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs in the development of that ALRT system — you know what we're most proud of, Mr. Speaker? We're proud that we bought Canadian. And we're proud that we bought Canadian in that system despite those people on the other side of the House, and others in municipalities and other places, who told us we were crazy to trust Canadian technology. Well, we trust Canadian technology because it's among the highest in the world.

[3:45]

Our B.C. home program has helped more than 50,000 people weather the pain of too high interest rates. Northeast coal, the biggest mining development in Canadian history, is providing thousands and thousands of jobs, and will for the next 50 years. We haven't forgotten the southeast. Roberts Bank is undergoing its $170 million expansion in order to

[ Page 66 ]

carry increased tonnages from the southeast part of British Columbia, and we want to see some action by all people in British Columbia, whether they be NDP or Socred or Liberal or Conservative, to make sure that the Crow rate gets changed and that the $16 billion of investment that will flow from the Crow rate changes gets going in British Columbia — over half of it right here in this province.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has embarked on a huge program of roads and bridges in order to maintain not only our vital transportation systems but also jobs for thousands of British Columbians. As the throne speech has said very eloquently, we are committed to restraint in government as an integral part of our recovery program, because our recovery program will not work until government gets its own house in order and provides the impetus and the example for the private sector to get their house in order. We are committed to bringing down the size of government. We are committed to reducing the size of the public service in a fair and equitable way — the most fair way in Canada. We are committed to getting government out of the affairs of our citizens as much as we possibly can. We are also committed to using the credit of the people of British Columbia very carefully in a manner that won't bind our future generations to ongoing oppressive debt but instead will meet the needs of today and get us back to balanced budgets as quickly as possible.

There are some other ingredients that are necessary, and were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, to meet the challenges that are facing us. First, we need some bridging programs to put unemployed people to work over the short term. We also need to provide opportunities for training so that when that recovery comes we're not left in the lurch without a skilled and willing workforce ready to take up the opportunities that will be available to them. Then, of course, we need an better approach to industrial relations in this province.

In the first area, a number of programs have been developed that have now produced over 20,000 jobs. We're extremely happy with the programs we've developed in cooperation with the federal government. They have worked better in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. For instance, over half of all the jobs created under the program for bridging in the forest industry in Canada were created right here in British Columbia.

The NEED program — again a program in which we are working with the federal government — will pour some $50 million into British Columbia in the next 12 to 18 months. All of these initiatives, as was pointed out in the throne speech and as I said earlier, which are so important to our economic recovery, must take place in the context set by industrial relations. We have so much going for us in this province that we must not let industrial relations uncertainty dull our competitive edge.

When I was first appointed Minister of Labour about nine months ago, I sent out a call to everybody who was interested in providing some input into our review of industrial relations conditions. I must say that the response was overwhelming and, in fact, still is overwhelming. It has been constructive, for the most part, and very helpful. There were a lot of riddles in some of the input that I got from various kinds of people, and certainly some perplexities. The chief riddle was that the adversarial relationship between employees and employers in this province has become institutionalized in a system whose chief purpose often seems to be to fight the same old battles over and over and over again. It is very rigid and very legalistic. I've often wondered, since looking at some of these briefs that have come before me, whether employers and employees don't really share the same goals. Yet the whole basis of our system puts the employer and the employee into separate camps — never the twain to meet. Through our laws, we have made the employer frightened to relate to his employee, lest he gets hit with an unfair labour practice. We have built a wall of labour experts, labour lawyers, industrial relations consultants and so on between employer and employee and, in my opinion, have abandoned to a large part real employee-employer relationships and relations for this thing we now call industrial relations.

MR. MACDONALD: May we have a translation of what you just said?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. I said there are too many lawyers in the system, Mr. former Attorney-General.

I said earlier that the system has become very rigid and very legalistic and it has also become very expensive. You know that you can't go before the Labour Relations Board today on even a simple matter without having a $20,000 bill and it is not unusual to have a matter not much more complex costing the parties in excess of $100,000. I'll tell you that if we don't come to grips with some of those problems very quickly the system will self-destruct and we won't have anything left.

One of the most consistently mentioned subjects in the briefs that I have received as Minister of Labour is this whole matter of democracy in the workplace. Again, it leads me to wonder why such a fundamental issue as a person's livelihood should not be subject to the same democratic standards that we take for granted everywhere else in society. I believe that people should have a right to say whether or not they want to be represented by a union. They should have the right to express their choice in the time-honoured, democratic fashion, namely by secret ballot. I think that consistent and fair application of this democratic principle in the British Columbia workplace is long overdue.

I don't want to get political in a Speech from the Throne, but we've just come through a very important election in which the people of B.C. rejected in no uncertain terms the woolly-headed socialism of the Barrett people. They said no to the Barrett who toyed with the northeast coal project. "I'll cancel it. Well, maybe I won't cancel it; I'll review it. Well, maybe I won't review it; I'll renegotiate it. Well, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about at all." They said no to the Barrett who was raving threats to the Americans when cool, calm and reasoned measures were needed and, thank God, they were given. They said no to the Barrett who wanted to sell out B.C. to support his fellow NDPers in support of keeping the Crow rate.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member has been here a significant length of time and knows that you do not use a member's name in the House. You've used it three times. You are a three-time loser. Why don't you either smarten up your act or put something together that's a little better than that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'd be happy to withdraw "Barrett" and substitute "the Leader of the Opposition."

[ Page 67 ]

I'd like to go back to make sure that we understand that the people of B.C. rejected a Leader of the Opposition who wanted to sell out B.C. at the expense of all of the people of British Columbia to support the Crow rate, playing into the hands of his national leader, who in turn is playing a very dangerous game with the western Canada economy as a pawn in pursuit of political power. Mr. Speaker, they said no to the Leader of the Opposition who had a plan to stumble backwards 50 years to embrace the Roosevelt era of job creation. The B.C. people said no and instead said they would opt for a government with a plan that is working to build economic recovery. It's a plan for today and tomorrow — not for reaching back into the thirties for relief-camp solutions, but building real jobs, long-term jobs. It's not a tribute to the past, but a promise to the future. Yes, they said no to the Barrett NDP and instead said yes and gave the Bennett Social Credit government a mandate to pursue economic recovery through restraint in public spending and encouragement to the private sector.

We see some strong signs of recovery now, but they can be fragile and it won't be easy. Quick-fix solutions like those rejected by the people on May 5 will not work. The problems are complex, but we've been through tough times before and we've come through them. The people who brought us through those tough times were judged by the people who followed, and I suppose we'll all be judged sometime too. Thanks to the leadership of our Premier and the bold programs outlined in the Speech from the Throne, I think they will judge us as having made it through safely and wisely. They will, if we all work together.

The members on the opposite side of the House today have a wonderful opportunity. I think the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) said in her speech that we should now put aside partisan politics. The members of the NDP have that chance now. Accept that the people want you to put aside your negativism and your natural tendency to oppose everything put before you. Show the people how big you can be — wouldn't that be something? Support this great throne speech; do something for the people for a change. They told you on May 5 that they want Socred and NDP to pull us together, not, as you do so often, to pull us apart. So come on, let's get on with this great throne speech. Stand up and we'll support it unanimously, and the people will thank you.

[4:00]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will pass on my congratulations to the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) and the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) for their election to the esteemed offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Their knowledge of the rules is profound and their impartiality has been well established; however, it's their ability to turn awkward situations into manageable ones by a good sense of humour that's made the work of this House a lot easier. I'm sure you'll pass on my best wishes in that connection.

Congratulations to you also, and to other new members in this House, all of whom are on the government side — happily for the people of the province. Welcome to the Legislature. It resembles a bear-pit at times, but it has its compensations. I'm sure we're all looking forward to hearing from them.

I enjoyed the tone of the Speech from the Throne. It had the right ring to it. It certainly carries out the platform of the Premier and the Social Credit party as enunciated during the recent provincial election, and identifies several areas of concern. The government will effectively, for example, downsize government by eliminating some programs that may be desirable but are not essential, and by transferring other activities to the private sector; secondly, it will reduce duplication of government activities and strive for maximum efficiency and effectiveness in delivering programs; thirdly, improve our industrial relations so as to foster greater productivity and international competitiveness; and finally, if I have to select four headings, encourage private-sector confidence.

I know the main emphasis is restraint. It has to be restraint under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If there is a difference around the world between the left wing and the right wing, especially in economics, it's that the left wing is more concerned about the problem of unemployment than about inflation. It sees unemployment really as the only problem, and is not exceptionally concerned with inflation. It always advocates that governments spend their way out of unemployment — spend, spend, spend. Essentially, at government levels this means printing more money, postponing paying bills and shouldering future generations with the problem. We in this country have been trying for years now to spend our way out of unemployment. We've not been unduly concerned with inflation. We have to tackle inflation as a first priority, and restraint is a program which does that.

The right-wing parties around the world have basically endeavoured first to tackle inflation and, by solving the inflation problem, solve the unemployment problem in the longer term. The right-wing governments around the world have generally been endorsed by the electorate in that process, at least in recent years. But these governments are still spending too much.

In the United Kingdom the government of Prime Minister Thatcher is spending 115 pounds for every 100 pounds it takes in in income to government there — a 15 percent deficit, if you like. To the south of us in the United States, the Reagan administration is spending $120 for every $100 it takes in — a 20 percent deficit. The Trudeau government in Ottawa is spending $125 for every $100 it takes in from the taxpayers — a 25 percent deficit. That's enough to look after the provinces as well.

Unfortunately, in the last couple of years we have had to depart from the traditional approach — at least of Social Credit governments — of balancing budgets and, as happened in the late 1970s, building up a surplus. The surplus was run down by the end of 1981. Latterly we, too, have been in a deficit position. Right now we are spending some $115 for every $100 that's coming into the provincial coffers in taxes. It cannot continue, but unfortunately that's the situation we're in. Income has fallen off, particularly from the resource industries. It will revive in time, but we are in a deficit position. Those in the opposition who say, "Spend more, spend more, " are really saying: "Spend even more dollars, more than the 15 percent deficit we have, a 20 or 25 percent deficit; accumulate debts for future generations to pay off." We are probably facing two or three years of deficit. Hopefully, the 15 percent will become 10 percent and 5 percent and by 1985 or thereabouts we will have a balanced budget, be into the black and begin to accumulate a surplus again and pay off the debts that we've incurred currently.

This practice of governments running deficits — and this government is an exception in that it's only been in a deficit position for a very short time — has added to the fires of inflation. Today, if you allow for the federal government with

[ Page 68 ]

a 25 percent deficit, and most provinces with a 15 or 20 percent deficit, that is bound to degrade and devalue our money — the Canadian dollar — at a rate of at least 10 percent a year. It means that interest rates over a several-year run can never be less than 10 percent. If you allow for costs of administration and some coverage of risk, this means interest rates in the 10 to 15 percent range. We cannot escape that. We must be at least above that interest rate simply because governments are profligate and insist upon spending far more than they have in current income. That's a matter of great concern. Our government is determined to get back on track, to get back into the black. If only the federal government and the other provinces would follow suit, we would have some hope of bringing inflation down to the single-digit category. That hope doesn't exist as long as we're spending as much as we are.

This government, through this Legislature, is spending essentially on people programs. Three-quarters of the money it sends out every day, every month through the year, goes to Health, which is a people program; to Education, another people program; and to Human Resources. Health care alone is one-third of our total budget. Last year our spending in real terms was up another 10 percent in health care. We're spending more each year on health care even though the real income of the province is actually declining, or at least leveling off. It has to recover dramatically if we are going to be able to afford this continuing increase, this growth and expenditure, this increased effort in the health care area.

In education we spent roughly 10 percent more than we did the previous year. Some people are still saying that we are curbing education. We should be cutting back in some areas, because our student population has declined. Other areas such as technical training obviously are important, so we will continue to spend heavily in those areas. In Human Resources, with so many people unemployed, with so many people running through their unemployment insurance, we are bound to increase our outlays there — a 20 percent increase last year. So in the case of the people programs — health, education and welfare — we had to increase our expenditure, especially in the health care and Human Resources area. Those demands will continue through the next few years. They will continue as long as there is a worldwide recession. They will continue as long as our export trade is less than optimum from our point of view. We're in a deficit position already. Restraint is imperative to limit the debts that we pass on to future generations. Restraint is imperative to keep interest rates down to some orderly level, so that construction and other activities will get underway and put more of our people back to work.

There's a reference to productivity in the public service. That's important. I don't really know how we can measure it effectively, but we can certainly reduce the number of public servants measurably. The total number of people in the public service of the province has risen over the years. It has continued to rise until very recently. Each year I ask for the numbers, and they seem to go up year by year. I have hope they are flattening out. Perhaps they will go down a bit if we stop hiring as many people as we have in the past. I don't look for any dramatic improvement in that area. In any case, it's only about 10 percent of our total budget. So if we save a percentage point or so there, it doesn't have a major impact on the finances of the provincial administration. So we have to look elsewhere — other than to restraint on numbers in the public service.

"Elsewhere" includes, for example, our Crown corporations. I'm one who believes that B.C. Hydro has a substantial role to play. I think it should continue with at least some part of its construction program to provide employment. But I would split it up. I would certainly divorce the gas operations from the hydro operations and have a more understandable structure out there, so that not only the MLAs but also the public at large can have a better idea of what's going on behind those very imposing facades which are erected by Crown corporations and by government corporations.

I'd have B.C. Ferries, which is also a very well-run operation, at least break even on its main routes, its high-density routes across the Strait of Georgia. In other, thinner routes it will always have to be supported by tax money. But I would have it break even; that would lessen the burden on the treasury.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

B.C. Rail has essentially covered its operating costs, but for many years it has never covered any of its capital costs, nor does it pay most of the taxes that other corporations — certainly corporations in the private sector — pay. I would do something which has been postponed, if not regarded as anathema, by Social Credit administrations: I would capitalize all of the debt, have the province take over the debt, wipe the slate clean, and then tell the management of B.C. Rail to run its operations from now on at arm's length from the government — but don't ever come back for any more money from the treasury. This has been done on a number of occasions with the CNR and with other Canada-wide Crown corporations. I think it's really the only way to cut the management of a Crown corporation off the apron-strings of government, to make them financially independent and financially responsible. I think that should happen. Now that we're in a deficit position anyway, I hope we can see fit to assume that debt — or at least have the province assume that debt totally and leave B.C. Rail clear to run its railroad on its own and effectively from now on.

I would privatize some of the operations of ICBC. Surely a number of the functions which are now performed by that large government-owned operation can be contracted out.

I'd sell off Pacific Coach Lines, which more and more is duplicating the activities of B.C. Transit. It's one of the few corporations that we might be able to sell to the private sector.

B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It's an NDP invention. I realize that their plans for it were much more than simply stripping revenue off the oil and gas industry; that it was to carry out oil and gas exploration activities in the north, get into the pipeline business and get into the oil refinery business in a very big way. We should eliminate that corporation. Certainly all of those powers should be done away with. The main reason I would go to a royalty system, as distinct from a corporation device for stripping revenue out of that industry, is that the oil and gas industry would have a better idea of where it stood. It wouldn't be waiting from day to day and month to month for some announcement from on high in Victoria to determine its future profitability or fate. The royalty approach would make the industry understandable, because it would then be like the oil and gas industries not only in other provinces in Canada but across North America. It would be more understandable; it would attract more capital from outside; it would mean more activity up north; it would mean more jobs.

[ Page 69 ]

[4:15]

I'd redo the Motor Carrier Act, trim it right down, reduce the powers of the Motor Carrier Commission substantially, get them out of rate regulation certainly. In the area of taxis, I personally think that we should have less regulation. In the lower mainland we should perhaps have one licence-granting authority, one large competitive market area for taxi operations. This would make the industry much more efficient. The Economic Council of Canada recently did a study of taxi systems across Canada and concluded that the Vancouver one was the least efficient. They concluded that it was too fragmented, that taxis were running one-way empty far too often and if they could be full both ways across municipal boundaries much more often, as is the case in some other jurisdictions, taxi fares could be cut by as much as a third. Costs would certainly be cut, energy usage would be reduced. That's the kind of deregulation I'd like to see us undertake.

It's easy to be glib about getting rid of Crown corporations, but it's difficult. As the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) just said, nobody wants them. A classic example is Brazil. Brazil, over the decade of the seventies, set up some 600 government-owned companies. They employed 1.3 million people — instantaneous full employment, at least for the very short run. But they got into difficulties. Certainly the Brazilian economy got into difficulty because it continued to borrow against the future; it continued to spend far more than it took in as income. The typical government corporation in Brazil had an income as follows: $25 million from operations — that's out of $100 million, 25 percent; $25 million from the government in the form of a grant; $25 million coaxed from other state-owned activities, principally banks; and they were short $25 million. So latterly — this is in the last year or two — the Brazilian government, in an attempt to become more respectable in the eyes of the world's financial fraternity, has endeavoured to sell them off. Of the 600, they decided to sell at least 200 government companies. In the last two years they've managed to unload fewer than 10.

So this business of governments taking over, governments getting involved, tends to be a one-way street, a disastrous route to follow. In the last decade Brazil has been doing the kind of thing that the NDP, the more socialistic parties, would have us do: not only set up government corporations to hopefully do jobs and provide employment but also to run effectively. They cannot be run well when they don't pay the normal taxes that others pay, are carried through their periods of difficulty and finally aren't able to manage because they don't have the natural and sometimes harsh disciplines of the private marketplace. So much for Crown corporations. They are difficult to unravel and difficult to dispose of.

Now in the private sector — and we are looking to the private sector to provide us with much of the drive to bring the economy back onto an even keel to provide jobs — we have various opportunities. I hope that as the mining industry recovers it is given an opportunity by the provincial government to develop some local hydro sites or other energy sources, if they happen to fit in with their own particular northern or other local operations. I hope that this would be true particularly if they are able to put forward proposals for processing raw materials from B.C. sources, providing more employment onsite before they are shipped out of the province. We have an opportunity, at least in the next decade, likely in the late 1980s, to sell natural gas in liquefied form to countries around the Pacific Rim. Not all of that gas will come from British Columbia sources by any means. It will come, in large part, from northern Alberta, perhaps even from the Northwest Territories. But that development will be desirable from several points of view. It will provide more jobs in the northeastern comer of B.C.; it will provide more work for Albertans and people in the Northwest Territories. It will provide more income for all levels of government certainly, and help us to pay for our people programs.

I think British Columbia — which I understand supports an export project involving a pipeline gathering gas in northern B.C., Alberta and the Northwest Territories and shipping it out through Prince Rupert, will make its stand known as to taxes on gas in transit across British Columbia. We have to decide that there are much more important issues, particularly jobs involved, and that having an undeclared policy as to taxes on gas or any other raw material transitting British Columbia for international trade is an issue which should be cleared up once and for all. I believe we must fit in with an international agreement — for example, between Canada and the United States — which says that the states in the U.S. and the provinces in Canada won't of their own sole initiative impose a transit tax on materials, particularly energy, transitting that province or provinces. I think British Columbia has to declare its policy in that regard, and I hope it's the same as that of Alberta and Saskatchewan, namely that we won't impose taxes on materials — energy, for example — transitting the province which are in any way greater than taxes we would impose on our own corporations operating within the province.

I disagree with the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) on this. I'm one of those who would like to see us continue in the aluminum reduction business — refining aluminum. I'd much rather see us do that than get into the production of pig-iron or even steel. It's a far cleaner industry than the basic iron and steel industry is. It uses hydro power. I'm sure developments can occur which will be protective of the environment. I'm sure there's enough money to be made in the refining of aluminum and the further processing of aluminum in this province to pay for any environmental rehabilitation to compensate or offset any environmental degradation which might otherwise take place. I'd very much like to see us telling the world that we're happy to see an energy-efficient industry of the future — it's one of the recent past but also the future — like aluminum come to B.C., expand in B.C. and help to provide additional jobs for British Columbians.

Toyota has announced that they're building a plant in the lower mainland to make castings for wheels for automobiles for the North American aftermarket as well as for Japan. That's the kind of secondary industry which would logically come here if we also are large and efficient producers of the primary metals. So that's another reason why I'd like to see us press on in that hydro resource-related industry — an industry which, incidentally, uses foreign raw materials in its production.

One area which has to be of great concern because of its great potential is tourism. Tourism is perhaps the number two industry behind forest products in this province. In time, it's bound to be the number one industry. We have to be concerned about certain aspects of tourism. So far the province hasn't focused on one which I believe is of considerable importance, and that is the airline side of things. We have CP Air here, and it's a very large employer — one of the largest

[ Page 70 ]

employers in the greater Vancouver area. We have to be concerned about which carriers have access to our airports, and the federal government has favoured Air Canada over the years. They have discriminated, in my view, against CP Air and latterly against Wardair and PWA. We as a province have to weigh in in that battle. It's a difficult one because other countries will give up one airport or landing area for each one we have. We have a limited number of cities in this country of any size which are interesting to airlines of other countries. But in this process of pairing off cities and allocating one Canadian airline or another the job, we should do our utmost to make sure that Canadian airlines, and especially airlines based in western Canada, have an equal look-see with the chosen instrument of Ottawa, Air Canada. This is an area of concern because it's a matter of employment here as well as opportunities for tourism, more efficient travel and so on.

I'll refer to capital for private purposes. Savings are scarce; capital is scarce. One of the reasons capital is very scarce nowadays is that governments are doing so much. They're not only borrowing for people programs and borrowing to offset these large deficits they're running, but they're also, in a number of instances, engaging in physical projects which also need money. This is particularly true of the electric power utilities across Canada. In Canada today there's a pool of capital of the order of $90 billion. That's the generation of savings in this country — certainly something far less than $100 billion a year. Governments at all levels — federally, provincially and municipally — are mopping up some $75 billion, borrowing at that order of magnitude, so there's very little left for the private sector. The private sector has to compete first with governments, and because governments can in effect print money they can borrow at almost any interest rate. So the private sector in this country — and this is true of a number of other countries as well — is being squeezed as far as savings are concerned. There isn't anything like the pool of savings left to the private sector that one would normally assume would be available to the individual entrepreneur or to the corporations. It's being mopped up by government, and that's another reason why governments should reduce and endeavour to eliminate deficits.

I believe we should have two sets of accounts in government: books which relate to our current year-by-year operating accounts and books which relate to capital, to physical projects with lives of 2, 5, 20 or even 50 years. The latter should be made whole, or paid off, over the useful life of the project. In other words, balance your books on current operating accounts. Also, in the long term, balance your books on capital accounts. Don't try to balance capital accounts year by year; balance them in the long term. Finance big capital projects, particularly in slack times, with long-term financing and a determined long-term payout. This is the way Hydro has been financed, the way B.C. Ferries should be financed, the way light rapid transit has to be financed — over the long haul. It can't pay off in the short run; none of them can, because of their very nature.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro has always had income to match its outgo.

Interjections.

MR. DAVIS: Well, I'm sure you people would have wanted it to spend even more, had you been in power, so I'm not too concerned about it having a limited debt.

In any case, light rapid transit is a good example. It, in my view, is the most effective way to move people around the lower mainland. We're going to have a B.C. population, by the year 2000 or thereabouts, which is double the present population. We're going to have congestion, especially in the downtown areas and in the fastest-growing areas, and therefore a certain mileage of the light rapid transit line can be built confidently now. A part of that mileage which in my view is essential is an extension across the Fraser River to the Surrey area. Surrey is by far the fastest-growing part of the lower mainland — that's one reason. Secondly, connecting up Surrey will provide a far greater percentage of riders than the capital outlay involved. In other words, you get more riders onto the system early than the investment would indicate, so it's economic. And finally, the government in 1979 as a matter of principle decided to go to Surrey and to Coquitlam anyway, so we should get there sooner rather than later.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a plea for my own profession — the engineers. The outlook for the next year or so is bleak. There are more than 1,000 professional engineers unemployed in greater Vancouver right now. Many of those people have been employed in the past on government projects, be they provincial or municipal or simply related to capital projects which government at the senior levels undertook in this province. Now they need provincial initiatives. One obvious area where additional work could be provided is light rapid transit; I'd like to see the government at least decide to build the bridge across the river, because that would employ engineers in British Columbia who are foremost in the world in that kind of construction. I'd like to see the bridge structure up or nearly up at the time of Expo in 1986.

I think that that is the kind of investment that governments can make in times of recession and high unemployment, and that it's an investment which will be recovered over the lifetime of the project, one which has a bottom line of zero — in other words, it will be paid back. It'll be paid back handsomely, especially in subsequent decades.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to sum up by saying that governments generally are in difficult straits; they're running deficits. This government for the first time, really, in its history is running a serious deficit. It can pull out of the deficit position, but it will take a couple of years. It can't cut back on the people programs, and I hope it doesn't increase taxes, so we have to count on the private sector to generate the kind of income which will keep our people programs whole over the next couple of years. Meanwhile, I would like to see it show further initiatives in some capital project areas which will employ my fellow engineers and in projects which will pay for themselves in the long term.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I came to this thirty-third parliament with best wishes for this government which has received a mandate from the people of British Columbia. There is, in being re-elected, a sense of absolution for things that were done wrong in the past; there is an opportunity for a fresh start. While I probably have personal ambition like anyone else in this particular chamber — I think we are all here because we have a great deal of personal ambition — my ambition is for the province of British Columbia, and I place that ahead of any personal interest.

[ Page 71 ]

This Legislature and this government had, and still have, I believe, an opportunity for a fresh start. I would caution them: enjoy your victory, but also realize that we sit on this side of the House still representing a considerable minority of the people of this province — some 45 percent. While the electoral victory is very large in terms of seats and there are only 22 members here — while we lost 4 seats in this election — do not be misguided by a very small change in the popular vote. If that popular vote had swung that very small incremental step in the other direction, we might well be turned around in the House.

The election, as I say, brings to this government an opportunity to put behind it the mistakes of the past four years — and, I would say, particularly mistakes in the past four years, as opposed to the years 1976-79.

For various reasons this government has been given a mandate, and I would like to congratulate them. I would like to have the very best of hopes and aspirations for this government over the next four years, because if this government performs well, then the people of British Columbia are going to be the beneficiaries. I'll put that ahead of any of my personal ambitions, as to whether I serve on the government side or in opposition.

But already my feelings of good wishes for this government are being slightly eroded by the conduct of the government, who seem to be relishing their victory and manifesting it by new heights of arrogance, which we see exemplified in the appointment of Mr. Mike Bailey to the Premier's office at a 50 percent salary increase and in the way the government is handling itself over the invasion of one of the non-political areas. That is the area of the government agents — maybe, I think, some of the most respected people within our communities — and the appointment of Mr. Tozer to this position. The Public Service Commission was bypassed for the first time since W.A.C. Bennett took over the government of this province in 1952 and did away with the patronage system that proliferated under a series of Liberal and Conservative governments and coalitions.

I am not so old that I was of voting age when that change of government took place — I was rather young — but I certainly do remember some of the excitement of my very good friend's mother. She has been the president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and she has been active in the Social Credit League. She has been an active Social Crediter right from the very beginning, and I certainly know that her greatest reaction to the emergence of that early Social Credit government was to the abolition of patronage, the abolition of that type of government where even if you had a lowly position — no matter what position — if there was a change of government you didn't even bother to show up for work the day after the election because the local bosses and so on would totally overthrow and change the government.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: You probably weren't born in British Columbia and don't remember this, as I do. But, wherever it isn't too late, and I hope the government will see this as an early stumble, just the product of some early exuberance over their victory. I hope newly elected hon. members on that side of the House, whom I congratulate, and even some of the recycled members who are back....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: The two-timers; yes. I congratulate them also. But I hope, for the sake of British Columbia, that we will not take this step back into the past. It's very ironic that; it appears that a government that is against a ward system in Vancouver — and I can think of only one reason for being against a ward system; I can think of lots of reasons in favour of it — would seem to be creating a ward system. Because they have as a motive the one possible drawback of a ward system, they seem to be heading toward the creation of a Tammany Hall style of government here in British Columbia, something we saw tested in the recent upheaval in Chicago, and fortunately swept aside. So while Chicago is cleaning up its electoral act and its practices in terms of moving toward non-partisan hiring of people, this government appears to have taken a first stumble. I hope it is but a first stumble.

I was pleased to see announcements in the throne speech — actually the restatement of announcements made during the past year — about the creation of four new parks, two of which are in the riding of Nelson-Creston: McDonald Creek Park at Nakusp and the Valhalla Provincial Park, upon which I submitted a private member's bill to this House for the past two years. It is the culmination of the efforts of many people: people in the Valhalla Wilderness Society, people who have supported this park concept in British Columbia and other parts of Canada, in parts of the United States and all over the world. This does mean that we have an opportunity now to realize some of the potential by exploiting the potential of the Valhalla Provincial Park, and it will be a tremendous stimulus to investment in the tourist industry over the next few years. It will have to be given some time but it is a very positive move, and I wish to congratulate the minister publicly in this House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Also, I'm pleased to see once again the announcement that a new pulpwood supply area is being designated in the southeastern part of the province. A couple of years ago I brought photographs to this assembly showing pulp logs piled up out in the woods — logs that were surplus to any kind of disposal. There was not the pulping capacity at the Celgar mill at Castlegar. Any plans made in 1975 under the previous government to go ahead with this were postponed and postponed until it fell into the hands of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, and they have not yet seen fit to make the necessary expansion to utilize the pulpwood in the area.

[4:45]

While I still believe that the most intelligent decision would be to expand the mill at Castlegar, another possibility is to encourage expansion and doubling of the Skookumchuck mill over at Canal Flats. But what I have brought to this House.... It has taken some time, but there has been some listening; I've been repeating this many times. The fact is, for the lumber manufacturing industry in our area to be truly efficient, we do need some market for all of these pulp logs, because there is still a tremendous amount of decadent overmature timber stands. In some instances, 60 percent, even 80 percent, of the fibre taken out of some timber block areas has to be set aside because there is no place for it to be utilized.

I'm also pleased to see that work has begun on removal of the Black Bridge in Creston after many years. I travelled over the Bailey bridge and viewed its dismantling just over a week ago.

[ Page 72 ]

I also recently attended the opening of the Creston extended-care unit in the hospital — 20 new beds. It is something which has taken a long time in coming. When I was Minister of Housing in 1975 I purchased additional land adjacent to the Creston Valley Hospital, which at that time was intended for intermediate care. It has made possible the realization of increased extended care in the area.

I'm also pleased to see that the Kaslo senior citizens' housing project is underway. However, I would like to say — I note that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is here — that we have, particularly in the Creston area, probably the highest percentage of people in any community in British Columbia who qualify for the senior citizens' homeowner grant on the property tax. Even though we have created a new intermediate-care home in the last three years, and even though we've opened a new senior citizens' housing project in the last three years and now extended care, the need is very great. The number of seniors is growing, and the waiting-lists continue to proliferate. Also, in terms of senior citizens' housing there is a great need in the area of New Denver-Silverton. In the throne speech I note that about 600 units of senior citizens' housing have been committed for this year. Back in 1975 in one day alone, I, along with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the then member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mrs. Ron Basford and other officials cut ribbons opening more than 600 units in three separate projects in Vancouver. We opened units in Chase, and way up on the Yellowhead Highway and in communities all over this province. Six hundred units are not going to keep up with the demand. I'm pleased to see that in the past years we've actually opened several senior citizens' housing units, and I'm pleased to see that the community of Kaslo will have its first. But much remains to be done.

I'm pleased to see Kaslo dyking and flood protection. I'd also like to thank the senior executives of the B.C. Development Corporation for their cooperation in getting LIFIP funding and other funding for the Ymir Forest Products mill, which is going to open very soon in the Ymir area.

I suppose that brings me to the difference in philosophy between this side and that side. In the throne speech this government is saying, "Let's just leave it to the private sector," but what they're really saying is, "Let's leave it to the large major corporations." I don't see any real special tribute being paid to small business in this. I really believe that one of the problems that we have when you're talking about the layering of bureaucracy, parallel organizations, overlapping commissions and various other things, is that you're talking about what happens after you people have been in government for some seven and a half years. You have created many of the Crown corporations and commissions, and others you have allowed to fall into a type of detachment — an uncontrolled function from government. That does not mean that these things cannot be run properly. It does not mean that if the government is doing its job these cannot be good and useful institutions serving the people of British Columbia in the best possible way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

It's very annoying to me when I see the Liberals take over a failing corporation, doing bail-outs and various things, and then people blaming government and somehow blaming the philosophy of the New Democratic Party for the actions of the Liberal government. It also annoys me very much when I see the manner in which the Social Credit government runs a Crown corporation and then turns around and criticizes all Crown corporations.

When I was Minister of Housing we purchased a thriving private-sector company. We did not hire friends to build up some kind of inefficient bureaucracy. The company returned 50 percent on investment for the couple of years that I had it in operation and on into the Social Credit government. That was a winner and you disbanded it. It showed profits while serving the people and while assisting in providing record amounts of senior citizens' housing, affordable rental housing, cooperative housing and the many types of housing, which simply don't exist today in sufficient numbers.

A small company like Ymir Forest Products was building, while the large multinationals such as Louisiana Pacific have shut down their operations in the northwest on both sides of the border and left the community of Salmo without a major payroll. Small companies like Ymir Forest Products might be the wave of the future in the forest industry. They can operate closer to their timber supply, and they don't need as large a volume. There is a decision-making process which stops right at the plant manager, president, etc. Large multi-national corporations are large bureaucracies and often far worse than any government bureaucracy ever dreamed of being, but they seldom come in for criticism for that type of inefficiency. We can only see some of the measures that they have had to take in recent years in order to cut back.

Two years ago, and again last year during the budget debate, I warned the government that the economic downturn was more serious — and it is in Hansard — than they had been predicting in their budget speeches. I see now, regrettably, that I was correct. The throne speech says: "The British Columbia economy has not remained immune from the effects of the international recession, as was the case during the milder recession of 1980. The downturn began in the third quarter of 1981, when labour-management disputes...." They are blaming this on labour-management disputes when in fact housing starts in the United States fell off to below a million and are well down from the average of 1.6 million housing starts. Indeed, they are way off the more record-type of housing starts at two million. That is what really caused, more than anything in British Columbia, the especially hard effect of this recession. I predicted this, and even last year the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) pooh-poohed the idea. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took great exception to the fact that I said that this document was overestimating revenues. He said: "This is the most honest budget that has ever been brought into this Legislature." We'll see how honest it was when we see the public accounts for the fiscal year concluded on March 31 of this year. It will be a long time, and it will be history, but I think it is time that government did listen to the opposition a little more. I get my information by talking and listening — not talking so much, but listening. When I have the opportunity to talk with a senior corporation vice-president or president, I listen to what they say, and they have been saying this for two years. They've been saying this even longer.

While we can be buoyed up by the fact that the Dow Jones keeps hitting new highs, although it dropped off yesterday, we can look at various indicators. While we can take some comfort and encouragement when we do see good performance in those areas, there is still one very nagging fact: the new economic recovery is not going to include employment

[ Page 73 ]

recovery. We will continue to see high levels of unemployment even when other economic indicators have risen. When we say that the recession — or the depression — is officially over, we might still see very unacceptable levels of unemployment if we don't start to come to grips with new factors, with the new technology, with the effect of the microchip, which I've been talking about in this Legislature since 1976.

The Speech from the Throne said that the revenues of the government "plummeted and continue to be depressed, putting maximum stress on the ability to deliver essential services...." But the government was not without warning. The warning was sounded; it is in Hansard. I hope that the government in this new and fresh mandate will listen to the opposition.

[5:00]

The government talks about the maintenance of existing jobs as part of its strategy, and it says that in addition several short-term job creation activities are continuing. And yet I've heard nothing from the minister responsible for the job initiatives of the government pertaining to EBAP, which is due to pass on in about three days unless some initiative is taken. I want to know if the government realizes that while the unemployment insurance money is going to continue to come into the province for the people who participate in EBAP, the federal government pays almost three times as much extra money into the program as the provincial government puts in with its $60-a-week topping-up of wages and salaries. The Canadian Forestry Service, for instance, gets invoiced for supplies and services and such, and is pumping into this province $3 for every dollar that is being spent by the provincial government on EBAP. So why is the provincial government not stridently pressing Ottawa for a continuation of this program, as it does bring some of our tax dollars back to British Columbia, as it creates silviculture, thinning, spacing, improvement of our forests, an investment in the future? It's not a make-work program — not the programs that I've seen — and I'm very proud to say that some of the best programs and some of the first programs initiated in the province were initiated in the Nelson-Creston riding, and initiated particularly in the Salmo area by Mr. David Lang, who very much deserves to be commended for creating jobs and for some of those people who had been put out of work by Louisiana Pacific.

I have urged the government, and I will continue to urge them, to consider building roads ahead in their forest management program. We are facing a new phenomenon in the forest industry: public involvement. As we have gone into the more remote areas and we have clearcut them, we have left very bad examples of logging practice in those areas, and now we move into community watersheds — such as the city of Nelson's watershed. This is happening in all areas of the province. I'm sure it's happening with my friend from Omineca. I'm sure it's happening in many parts of this province. As we move into these areas, people are saying: "Well, if you're going to develop a watershed, why mine? Why not go down and do somebody else's?" If we only put a logging access road into one watershed in a forest district, then that watershed is going to be raped. What we must do is build several access roads, put small business contractors to work — there still are not enough of them working. By doing this, again it's an investment in the future, and it's something that will have a payback. It will have a double payback, because it will lessen public concern if people can look and see that there are 10 or 12 watershed roads in their area and that the whole brunt of logging is not going to fall in their back doorstep. Then they will be able to accept their fair share.

But what we have now, is that we are on a collision course with the rural public of British Columbia. The rural public are fed up, and they're not going to take it any more. That is a warning to this government. We have set up a public advisory process. We have set up a system where we can create public involvement groups, but some of these groups are not communicating with the Forest Service. I will pledge to do what I can to see that that dialogue does take place in a responsible manner, but it is going to take action of this government.

That action can have a two-barreled effect. It can remove this impediment; it can remove a lot of this distrust; and at the same time we could create an investment in the future. Those logging roads, once built, are always going to be needed. It will also assist the small business program to be successful, because the small business program just doesn't make sense when you say: "Yes, you can go and you can harvest this block, but it's 20 miles from the highway and you've got to build an access road into it." The small business people can't afford to do that. This could have a triple-barreled effect, if we will build roads ahead. It's the second time I'm asking; I asked for this in the last legislative session, and I ask for it again today with even better reasons, more solid information, and more conviction that this is the way to go.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have to consider that while revenues are down we should be more prudent in the manner in which we impose increased taxation. In the recent annual report of West Kootenay Power and Light there's a statement that a most significant change in the company's 1982 expenses was the 242 percent increase in the provincial government tax for water used in power generation. Direct water-fee costs increased from $1.5 million in 1981 to $5.3 million in 1982, and this increased tax is also the major reason for the increased cost of power which had to be purchased from B.C. Hydro, which also had its rates increased. That resulted in an increase in rates for purchased power from $4.6 million to $9.1 million in 1982.

And that is just West Kootenay Power. Cominco also had to face increases in water rates of about $8 million, which was about equivalent to one month's payroll. And what recently transpired? That was just the water-licence increase. Can you imagine being in business and having an increase in your cost of operations imposed upon you equal to one month's extra wage bill? If you were in a small business, it might kill you. It might yet kill Cominco, because they are planning even greater increases through to the year 1984. What good will it do us if we get this short-term taxation benefit and yet close down the most significant employer in the southeastern part of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, more thought has to be put into ways of seeking out new revenue. This particular type of move, something that we led off question period with last year, is something that still seems to have escaped the government. I certainly hope that it will not escape them forever.

I might also urge government again to listen to the opposition, as they appear to have listened in a few instances — as I say, Valhalla Park, and finally realizing that there is additional pulpwood capacity, particularly coming out of my riding. It was in January 1978 that I wrote a little monograph, which I released on February 8 of that year, in which I

[ Page 74 ]

questioned the rate at which B.C. Hydro was expanding. Since that time, Hydro has had to revise downward and downward their estimates of future growth and demand. Hydro, right now, has proven to be premature, has caused us extra expense, and has gone into debt prematurely. Indeed, had we been starting into building or in the middle of the Revelstoke Dam construction right now, it might have had a more leavening effect on our economy than building it at the time that we did, during which things in the economy were in a rather overheated position. Many of our unemployed construction workers today might be employed in building the Revelstoke Dam at a more opportune time.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I made statements in 1978 about the timing of that particular dam, and I certainly wasn't starting it then, Mr. Member. My statements of 1978 have certainly turned out to be more correct than those of Robert Bonner and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who was then the Minister of Energy. I hope that in the future we will be a little bit more prudent and not so reliant....

This government has talked about the dangers of Crown corporations, and they conveniently at times paint B.C. Hydro whichever colour they wish, to suit their purpose of the day. Mr. Speaker, all that needs to be done with B.C. Hydro is that we have to have more vigilance. I notice that they've now placed the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on the board. Well, if he does nothing more than the two cabinet ministers who sat on it back in the early years — 1976 and so on — then the effects will just be the very same. If he does become involved and does start questioning and does start listening to other outside sources of criticism, with a view to serving the people of the province better, then certainly.... There is room for improvement, and we can save dollars by not over-committing ourselves in the area of debt.

I note that I am to be followed by the Minister of Universities, Science, Communications, Technology, Bridges to Vancouver Island and Whales — not the country. I would thank the minister for his concern about David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, for whatever steps he has taken to see that we have sent some very fine people from the University of Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you.

But I would urge that the minister continue to keep a very watchful eye on the David Thompson University Centre. It has been on life-support systems since it was instituted. Those systems are still required, but the growth has been good. I think that to date it has kept up with the minister's expectations, but I would hope that it will not become a victim of government cutbacks. The commitment was given that if the centre performed and if it showed growth and responsibility — as it has done — and success in its rural education program, and many other programs there, particularly their fine arts programs, it would be allowed to continue and flourish. The university centre is going to need the minister's attention over the next couple of years. I hope I will be able to speak to the minister privately about some of my concerns.

I also have some concerns pertaining to the universities, assistance programs — the widening gap between the participation of rural students and metropolitan students at our universities. There is a great deal which must be done in this area, because we are not realizing the full potential of our students in the interior who have to travel great distances to attend universities. It's not being made any easier. Even right now there is the greatest uncertainty, and I hope the minister will get up and make an announcement to clear up this uncertainty. The greatest uncertainty is the degree of the provincial government's participation in student services in terms of financial support. The federal government has made announcements of increased loan levels. The provincial government has made negative announcements in terms of cutting out people, eliminating people on the basis of whether or not they drive their parents' car, and so on. I hope that the minister, in taking his place, will clear up those areas, and I hope it will be good news for the university students of this province — and the universities.

[5:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) sought to move adjournment of the House, pursuant to standing order 35 to debate a matter of urgent public importance. The hon. member described the matter as a proposed meeting of the board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to consider rezoning the "Spetifore property." The House is currently embarked upon the debate and consideration of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The wide scope of the debate affords an ordinary parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter. Standing order 35 provides a method of entering upon debate of a subject where there is no parliamentary opportunity available through an adjournment motion. Such is not the case, and accordingly the application does not come within the confines of standing order 35.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I think it's the usual procedure, when delivering decisions of the Chair, particularly on standing order 35, that this take place shortly before the adjournment of the House. Extemporaneous and unpredictable delivery of such decisions will catch members who have asked for such rulings momentarily out of the House. I know that the Speaker does not wish that kind of thing to happen. Your decision, besides being wrong, was delivered prematurely.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume that the member is being somewhat jestful in his remarks. Otherwise he would not have the disrespect for the ruling of the Chair that was indicated.

MR. LAUK: I proffer no disrespect to the Chair; I just expressed my own opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I respect the point of order brought by the member. Again, though I would ask the member to review Hansard and indicate the urgency stressed by the member and the undertaking by the Chair to bring the matter back at the earliest opportunity, which I have done.

[ Page 75 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your decision, but, with respect, I must express my disappointment because of the urgency of this particular issue, which will be before the regional board tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair recognized the member on what the Chair believed to be a point of order. Clearly the comments made by the member are neither a point of order nor are they appropriate as a reflection upon the decision by the Chair.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to see you back in your chair, sir. I don't want to miss my opportunity to congratulate....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll have some words to say to the leader, and kind words too. When people are on their last legs, you always think of the kind things to say.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to welcome you back to your duties and to know that you will continue to have the assistance of the members opposite in reaching decisions, as they have been so very generous in the past with their advice. I want to be among those to congratulate you, to be certain you understand that and recognize as always that I'll be among the most cooperative members in the House.

MR. LAUK: You're never here.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's interesting that the second member for Vancouver Centre should have the capacity to make that observation. [Laughter.] Anyway, we keep track of our own attendance, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it's nice to see so many old faces in the House. Just listening to some of the debate, even the debate was familiar. Fortunately for us, this time as we salute the members who retire voluntarily or otherwise, we always congratulate and welcome the new members who've entered the House. They're the ones who bring a new spirit and new debate and add life and refreshment. I want to congratulate them all and say that our initial high expectations for them have already been realized by the outstanding contributions each of them has made.

MR. LAUK: You're going to change all that now.

HON. MR. McGEER: Surely the member by now knows the kind of arguments that can be anticipated from this particular quarter, Mr. Speaker, and I can only say what a shame they never paid attention to any of these arguments, because they were designed to assist the members during the last campaign. I think that so many of them really deserve particular congratulations for having come back, considering the policies that they were advancing here over the years and then during the election campaign. I say this because most of us, during this election campaign just concluded, had an excellent opportunity to learn from the people of our constituencies what they anticipated from the members who sit in this House and who make the decisions that affect their lives.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the message could not have been lost on the members opposite.

Those of us from this side of the House, I think universally, got a message loud and clear as to what the public at large felt they needed from their government. The message would not have been different, I believe, in a constituency represented by an NDP MLA than it was in most of the constituencies now represented by members of the government. It is a rather different message, at least to this member, Mr. Speaker, than what we have heard before. In my 20-odd years in politics I have never noticed a wider disparity between what the public on the doorsteps said they expected from government and what one read about or watched in the media.

If ever there were two solitudes in his province — the public and the media — those two solitudes existed then and still exist now. It seems to be, Mr. Speaker, that having spent time with our constituents, learning what they expect from us, we know now, without any doubt at all, the direction that government should take, even if it means swimming against the media tide. You will see that reflected in the document which made up the throne speech. The throne speech is not an invention of a public relations man, as is so often suggested. The throne speech is a mainstream British Columbia citizens' document. That's what it is.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I noted with some interest earlier in the debate the arguments raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). She accused — or rather suggested — our government of pursuing the ideals of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. I take it from that remark that the New Democratic Party, on the other hand, was following the philosophy of Michael Foot, or perhaps Anthony Wedgewood Benn. The point about it is that maybe, just maybe, the government of Britain is coming up with the solutions that are appropriate to that country. Maybe that country, having experimented more extensively with socialism than we have in British Columbia, has a little farther distance to travel back. Maybe that road gets rougher the farther down you travel it. That's the problem, Madam Member, and I might have thought that the New Democratic Party, approaching its fiftieth anniversary, would be giving some deep philosophical thought to its own direction, given its unbroken string of failures nationally and its almost unbroken string of failures in British Columbia, and given the failures that the philosophy, when implemented in other countries — like Great Britain and more recently France — has actually experienced.

The people, I would take it, in British Columbia had given very careful thought to our own experience in British Columbia. They'd given careful thought to what happened in France — really the attitudes and philosophy put forward by the New Democratic Party in a slightly modified form for that particular nation — and what it produced in the way of results. The only difference, I would say, with the socialist experience in France, is that the socialist leader there gained insight very quickly, having put his philosophy into practice and having discovered the disaster which it had produced; and unlike the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Premier, he took firm steps to correct that difficulty. When the New Democratic Party had an opportunity to do these same things in British Columbia the insight did not come quite so quickly. Indeed, the public of British Columbia were invited

[ Page 76 ]

to renew the mandate of the New Democratic Party before the consequences of their policies would become evident. Again, the average voters in British Columbia have more insight than some in the media give them credit for, and recognize the necessity to take corrective government action.

[5:30]

Essentially, boiling it right down, what the public have come to recognize through experience here is that the private sector is the engine of the economy. Governments consume, they do not produce. If there has been one single failing among these poor misguided members opposite, it has been the reluctance to accept or acknowledge that the private sector is producing the wealth of the country and will continue to produce it. Again and again we hear the members opposite complaining about the private sector: all the people who make these unseemly profits; all the people who work greedily against the consumers and those in the private sector; all these terrible evil individuals who, it turns out, we discover in times of recession, have been carrying the public sector around on their backs. Not only are they responsible for producing the wealth, but in the Legislature of British Columbia — at least with the official opposition — they have been taking abuse for doing it. All we're saying is that that is wrong. It always has been wrong and, surely, after the difficulties we've been through in Canada over the past two years, it's time for everybody to say that those attitudes are incorrect and we might as well throw them in the junk-heap forever. The public sector leads. Private enterprise is not evil; it supports the public sector.

Perhaps after 50 years of learning, when the New Democratic Party holds that convention of renewal in Regina this weekend....

AN HON. MEMBER: Renewal?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's what the advertisement says.

It must find new directions, and those new directions are supposed to well up from the young turks of the western New Democratic Party movement. Is this not a time for these young turks of the New Democratic Party to say: "We have been wrong for 50 years, and while we can continue to be the conscience of the public, we cannot succeed in doing that so long as we believe the equivalence between private enterprise and original sin"? Let the New Democratic Party finally see the light, and then we'll have debates in this House that will be more positive, more constructive, because it will then no longer be necessary for us to consume time in debate restating the obvious. If we can take the obvious for granted, having now learned it, then it will be possible to consider the best ways to implement the obvious for the best result for the citizens of British Columbia.

We've come to recognize the key role which the private sector plays in providing employment — giving opportunities to trade union members and government workers, to people in hospitals and to those on welfare. All these things private enterprise does, bringing in the wealth so the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) can satisfy the endless requests of those who live off the money that the private sector generates. All of those things need and require industry to flourish in this province. May we hope and pray that the New Democratic Party now recognizes this fundamental principle, and therefore can give thought with us as to how we can increase employment. Nobody is better than the New Democratic Party at identifying the problems caused by unemployment, but nobody has ever come up with fewer effective solutions. We'll grant the problem. We want you to work with us to produce the solution.

One of the fundamental principles about those who work in the private sector employing people is that they can't do it if their taxes are too high. All the money goes into paying taxes and eventually the business folds, people become unemployed, and then you complain that they haven't got jobs. Therefore, it's a requirement that taxes be kept at a level that business can afford. That's a simple principle. If that's to be done, then the people who spend the tax money have got to limit their ambition to what those who pay taxes can afford. That's what is behind the restraint program. That's what the Premier stated.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course, if you've got enough money to pay a hundred people and they all demand a 10 percent raise, then you've only got enough money to pay 90 and 10 go unemployed. Isn't it better to have the hundred people sharing the money that's there than to have some take more and others be thrown out on the street? I would take it that this is a fairly simple and straightforward circumstance, one that everybody understands. Then why, during the election campaign, did the Leader of the Opposition say he would remove the restraint program? I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for the style of his campaign and for the grace he's brought to politics over the past 23 years in British Columbia; there's no problem with that. But eventually decisions have got to be made not on the basis of personality but on the basis of common sense. When a party cannot recognize our circumstances in British Columbia, not brought about by any kind of high-interest policy or market situations that we invented here but by world circumstance, and at that time advocates removal of restraint, that is, quite frankly, irresponsible.

That's the difficulty we face. This is why we plead, while we're here in debate, that the New Democratic Party think about the situation. It starts with believing the obvious: that the private sector generates wealth. Everything follows from that: taxes can't be high, and the people who spend the taxes have got to live within what the others earn. If you accept those simple little things, the general principles of government become obvious, except for one thing: that is, the opportunity we have in British Columbia, one that we must cultivate as a top priority, to introduce new businesses as new forms of employment in the province. We don't gain new wealth by hiring more people to deliver the same services in our schools and in our hospitals by building public buildings and all of the things that government spends money on. They consume wealth, they don't produce it. Therefore what we have to have is people who....

MS. SANFORD: Are you talking about the banks?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, let's talk just for a few seconds about the banks. The suggestion was made by the members opposite that for some reason or other the banks here were setting the lead in a bad example for the world. Somebody forgot that if the banks in British Columbia don't operate the same way banks around the world operate, all the money in British Columbia goes into the other banks and ours

[ Page 77 ]

go broke. Now that's fairly simple, isn't it? Why would you put your money — presuming there was some to put there....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...in Brazil.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, why would you put it in Brazil? You wouldn't. And that's one of the problems Brazil has. If you start to develop Brazilian policies in British Columbia you are going to have the same difficulty they've got in Brazil. It all starts with government policies, you know, and that's why we're not trying to invent new banking systems in British Columbia, as much as we have been urged to do so by the members opposite.

What you've got to concentrate on to provide these new jobs for all of the workers that the New Democratic Party champions is bringing in new industry for them. The way you target that industry is on those activities which export to the world. If you have northeast coal which can sell to the world and does not depend on any domestic market, that stands at the top of the hierarchical economic tree. But who is against that? The members opposite were against that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Shut her down.

HON. MR. McGEER: You wanted to shut it down. Would that apply to all of the new manufacturing ventures? You will recall that when they were in power in 1972, Mr. Speaker, they were shutting down mines in British Columbia. Exploration was eliminated. Why? Because of these terrible deals that everybody made. I don't know what a good deal was by the New Democratic Party standard, but you never had one in all the time you were in office and you never suggested one in all the time you've been in opposition. So what we need from the New Democratic Party is positive suggestions as to how this new industry is going to be brought into British Columbia. Remember that the value comes when the products are exported. For every job in manufacturing — I don't care whether it's resource or high technology — you'll have six to eight other people employed as a result of that primary exporting job. That's the kind of multiplier that will make the difference. If you do a public works job with tax money, you put that person to work until the job is finished. If you add one more to the civil service, that's a forever cost to the taxpayer. It doesn't produce leverage. But if you can get a new manufacturing industry started — northeast coal or anywhere else — you're going to get the taxes to government which will support other people. You're going to get all the service industries — the trickle-down effect. The leverage, we know, in our province is six to eight people for every new fundamental job.

That's why you will see in the throne speech in 1983 a paragraph — a short one but, I believe, of high significance — stating that we are going to develop and recruit industries in the high-technology sector in our province. If you're not exporting for the world in high technology, you don't roll up your sleeves. During the 1981-83 period, where in British Columbia and all across Canada our basic industries were declining by 15 to 30 percent — massive layoffs — high-technology industries in British Columbia were booming as everywhere else. The worst year for industry in almost 50 years in Canada, 1982, was the best year ever experienced by our high-technology industries. They grew during this period from 15 to 30 percent.

[5:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us an example.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Epic Data grew by 175 percent during a two-year period. But others — Glenayre, with which the trade unions are so familiar, MacDonald Detwiler, AEL Microtel and all these industries....

AN HON. MEMBER: He was against Microtel.

HON. MR. McGEER: Was he against Microtel? But in any event, there are a number of them that have now reached substantial size. Our problem in British Columbia is that the total of that sector is still much smaller than the resource sector, so while these were growing 15 to 30 percent, the others were shrinking. If we had had equivalent....

MR. LAUK: These are not private sector. They're monopoly or government-fed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not Macdonald Dettwiler. Not Epic Data. Not Glenayre Electronics. Most of their stuff is exported.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would take it, without distracting the other members here, as a personal responsibility to try and give appropriate information to the member opposite so he can stand up and make a similar speech to my own, because I know when he's given the facts he'll be so terribly impressed he will share the goal that the government has established to make high-technology industry our number one employer by the turn of the century. If this goal had been set 20 years ago, in 1983 there would have been no recession in British Columbia, because the shrinkage of the resource industries would have been compensated for by the expansion of the high-technology industries.

MR. LAUK: Will you autograph my Politics in Paradise for me?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll consider it, depending on how well you've absorbed the.... Let me tell you why. Because the New Democratic Party, looking for a renewal of its mandate and its fate in Regina this coming weekend, has a responsibility to consider its record here in British Columbia and across Canada. The result we had in 1983 mirrored the result we had in 1979 when the New Democratic Party was rejected, and we said you'd be rejected in 1983 as you were in 1975. In 1979 they were rejected; in 1975 they were rejected; in 1969 they were rejected; in 1966 they were rejected; in 1963 they were rejected; in 1960 they were rejected; in 1956 they were rejected; in 1952 they were rejected; in 1949 they were rejected; in 1945 they were rejected; in 1941 they were rejected; in 1937 they were rejected; and, yes, Mr. Speaker, they were rejected in 1933, their founding year.

There you have it: rejection after rejection after rejection, except for once. Woebetide 1972, that terrible year when private enterprise let down its guard; it thought that the New Democratic Party had different policies than they had been

[ Page 78 ]

stating on the floor of the House, but that's not true. They said what they would do in 1972 — I was sitting across where you members are, and I listened to it with dismay if ever it was to be put into effect. But in 1972 — there's a representative of the media up there — they didn't tell the public what the members opposite were saying on the floor of the House; no, sir, they didn't tell them that. It was the same story they were giving the public in 1983. The public was fooled in 1972 but not in 1983 — that's the difference.

When this party goes to Regina for its fiftieth anniversary, don't ever again count on the public of British Columbia being fooled by the media or by not paying attention to the policies you espouse on the floor of the House. The people know that, and they understand your policies. The only way you can associate with mainstream thinking in western Canada or any other part of Canada is to throw away all of the economic ideas which have proved to be wrong in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, France, England and in every country in the world that has put your economic philosophy to work. Throw it away and renew the mandate of the New Democratic Party in a positive and effective role. Come back from Regina next week with a renewed faith and renewed economics and set a tone of debate entirely different in this House than we've had before, where your positive ideas will help all of us to work and build a better British Columbia. But if you come back after 50 years of espousing the same old theories that we've heard on this floor year after year after year, you'll be condemned again in 1987, in 1991, in 1995, in 1999 and in 2003. I rest my case.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I must say I always enjoy listening to the member from Vancouver–Point Grey. This was speech number four, and those of us who are veterans here recognize it word for word. But I enjoyed it almost as much this time as I did the first time I heard it 11 years ago.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the Legislature.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources, 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the Liquor Distribution Branch sixty-first annual report; the Trade Practices Act annual report 1982; the sixty-first annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch; and the annual report, 1982, for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.