[ Page 79 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

B.C. Systems Corporation annual report, 1982-83.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority financial statements.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority audited financial statements.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report, March 31 –– 1983.

Hon. A. Fraser –– 79

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report –– 1982.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 79

Milk Board annual report, December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 79

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 79

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 79

Oral Questions

Removal of Spetifore land from ALR. Ms. Sanford –– 79

Prosecution of heroin trafficking cases. Mr. Segarty –– 79

Elimination of Heritage Advisory Board. Mr. Hanson –– 80

Employment-bridging assistance program. Mr. Nicolson –– 80

Interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 80

Victoria Convention Centre. Mr. Blencoe –– 81

Throne speech debate

Mr. Lockstead –– 81

Hon. A. Fraser –– 85

Mr. Macdonald –– 88

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 91

Mr. Cocke –– 95

Mr. Campbell –– 99

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Environment annual report, 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 101

British Columbia Railway financial statements, December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 101

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon we have some of our province's most talented and successful athletes. In fact, within their ranks are Canada's top international competitors. These young men and women are the winners of this year's $2,500 Premier's Athletic Awards, which are used to help offset the costs of training and allow each of them to pursue their education here in British Columbia. With us this afternoon are: Janice Mason, a rower from Victoria; Allison Eades, a track and field athlete from Burnaby; Sandra Stapleton, a badminton player from Vancouver; David Wilkinson, a track and field athlete from North Vancouver; Anita Botnen, a gymnast from West Vancouver.

In addition to these outstanding athletes, there are six other Premier's Athletic Award winners. Unfortunately these individuals cannot be here today, as they are competing and training around the world. Those winners not able to attend are: Hugh Fisher, a member of the national kayak team, from Burnaby; Lisa Roy, a rower from Victoria; Tricia Smith, a rower from Vancouver; Gerry Sorensen, a skier from Kimberley; Roberta Barker, an archer from Victoria; and Debbie Brill, a high-jumper from Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, the athletes in the gallery are joined by their justly proud families, and I would ask the House to join me in wishing this very special group of British Columbians best wishes and good luck as they pursue their interests in amateur sports.

MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon is a very well-known citizen of Burnaby, Mr. Norman Kelsey, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery today are three university student leaders: Mr. Brian Stevenson, president of the University of Victoria Alma Mater Society; Donna Morgan, executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Students and a student at Simon Fraser University; and Stephen Learey, chairperson for British Columbia at the Canadian Federation of Students. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a constituent of mine, a lady that I've known for many years, Miss Mary Ann Ruiter. Mary Ann has been affiliated for several years with one of the better newspapers in the province, Houston Today, and I would ask the House to make her very welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Also in the gallery today is my cousin, the Very Reverend Ronald Shepherd, Dean of the Anglican diocese of Montreal. We don't see him in Victoria very often. Would the House join me in welcoming him.

MR. REE: In the gallery today are Mr. Alan Wilkinson and Mrs. Trudy Wilkinson. Besides being the mother of David Wilkinson, who has won one of the Premier's awards, Mrs. Trudy Wilkinson is also a member of the same PEO sisterhood as my wife is. I would ask this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation for the fiscal year 1982-83; the audited financial statements of the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority; and the audited financial statements of the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

Hon. A. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the year 1982; and the annual report of the Milk Board for the year ending December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the tenth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the year 1982.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the forty-eighth annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the year 1982.

Oral Questions

REMOVAL OF SPETIFORE LAND FROM ALR

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the historic decision of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to reject the sacrifice of agricultural land in Delta for the benefit of the corporate speculators, has the government decided to rescind order-in-council 3381? That order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, was the one passed in 1981 which removed the Spetifore land from the agricultural land reserve against the wishes of the Land Commission.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: In view of the sordid history of this particular piece of property, has the minister decided to hold a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Spetifore land from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I submit the question is argumentative and, hence, out of order.

[2:15]

PROSECUTION OF
HEROIN TRAFFICKING CASES

MR. SEGARTY: My question is to the Attorney-General. In view of the recent court decision by County Court Judge Leggatt dismissing heroin traffic charges on the grounds that the use of writs of assistance by the RCMP is unconstitutional, has the Attorney-General decided to discuss with the federal Solicitor-General legislative or other changes to ensure the protection of our young people from victimization by heroin pushers is not undermined by procedural technicalities?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the member, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the prosecution of

[ Page 80 ]

drug cases is not a matter, unfortunately, that comes under the province. It comes under the federal Attorney-General, but the law enforcement part of drugs is something that I do have responsibility for. I'll certainly be discussing the Cuff case and the procedures that are going to be followed, to ensure that there are proper methods of search and seizure in drug cases arising out of that.

MR. SEGARTY: On a supplementary, will there be an appeal procedure, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Member, you gave me about five minutes' notice of this question, for which I thank you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Only five.

I am not able to tell you if an appeal has been launched, because it would be an appeal launched by a federal prosecutor. I'll bring that information back to you.

ELIMINATION OF
HERITAGE ADVISORY BOARD

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. The Heritage Advisory Board of the province consists of 12 eminent historians, including Dr. Margaret Ormsby, Dr. Charles Humphries and Martin Segger, who wrote a book about this building. Why have you fired this board?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The board wasn't fired; it was rescinded. The advisory board essentially will be replaced by the Heritage Trust. The Heritage Trust, as it stands, will be beefed up. The heritage conservation branch of my ministry has grown with professionals over recent years. We have a variety of additional historians and archaeologists in the ministry. Really, the Heritage Advisory Board did a useful role while it was in place, and now that particular role will be taken over by a beefed-up Heritage Trust, and in conjunction with the heritage conservation branch they'll fulfil that role satisfactorily.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this board is unpaid. There is no cost to the province other than a very modest travel budget for these people to visit various parts of the province or come to Victoria. Dr. Margaret Ormsby wrote a history of British Columbia. Have you not decided to have the Mr. Tozers, the Mr. Dan Campbells and others do the writing of B.C. history instead of the professionals who would do it voluntarily out of their own academic excellence?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I won't respond to those facetious and cheap political remarks from that second or third member for Victoria. I want to tell you that as an advisory board to the minister, they don't write history books for me.

EMPLOYMENT-BRIDGING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. In view of the fact that the EBAP program expires on June 30 and that the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has conveyed to the provincial government his willingness to continue the program, which over and above the payment of unemployment insurance benefits contributes $3 for every British Columbia dollar, why has the minister decided not to continue participation in the program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for the question because we have just announced the cessation of this program today. It was a federal-provincial program shared by the two governments, and it was intended as a short-term job creation program. The employment-bridging assistance program, which began a year ago April, and which for the first six months met a tremendous amount of criticism from various sectors in this province — whether from unions, from the private-sector management people or from the media — in spite of that criticism has been truly the most successful in this nation. It has provided more jobs in the province of B.C. than all of the other provinces put together.

The decision was made in March to extend this program to the end of June. That extension has been met. We then were asked to extend it further, and it was not until late yesterday that we heard that the federal administration was ready to extend it for those next three months.

In assessing the need at this time, we feel that the program met the greatest need in the greatest time of need in the province. It was very successful. It has provided the target which we set out a year ago last April of exceeding 100,000 man-weeks of work; in fact, it has created 113,000 man-weeks of work.

In spite of its success, we feel that the timing now is such that the forest industry's recovery, albeit slow — the total economic recovery, albeit slow — is better done in the private sector, and we will not be putting forward the almost $4 million needed between now and the end of September to extend the program as was requested.

We make this announcement with regret, Mr. Speaker, but we believe that the moneys — we have to be very cautious in this economic time — will be better served in other areas.

MR. NICOLSON: In view of the fact that a contribution of $3.9 million for provincial participation would probably generate over $11 million of federal money, why has the government decided that bringing in these federal dollars is counterproductive to the economic interests of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Our decision was not based entirely on whether or not we were to get federal funding. It was based on the capability of the funds here in British Columbia.

INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Eleven months ago, in July 1982, mortgage interest rates in Canada began their slide from 20 percent to the current 11 percent, and bank profits since then have been enormous, in part because homeowners and businesses are locked into 20 percent mortgages. Yet banks routinely refuse to renegotiate 18 and 20 percent mortgages. Has the minister taken any steps, either in consultation with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) or with his federal counterparts, to try to protect the public interest by curtailing this usurious practice?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the taking of steps, I have in the past months met with representatives of the

[ Page 81 ]

banking industry, and I know that in a number of cases they have set up their own management committees where they can deal with the complaints of consumers or mortgage holders where they have felt they've had a verbal agreement that they could renegotiate their mortgage at a later date, and some of those complaints have been dealt with fairly. The matter of legislating it: no, there have been no moves in that regard, bearing in mind, of course, that banks come under federal legislation.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate that banks come under federal legislation.

I would recall to the minister that the spread between the prime rate and what the banks pay on deposits was 0.9 percent for December 31, 1980, and at the end of April was 4.9 percent. Has the minister taken any steps...? Has he discussed with the Minister of Finance or with his federal counterparts any method by which this spread might be reduced?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

VICTORIA CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier. On April 14, 1983, at a rally in Esquimalt, the Premier committed $11 million towards the construction of a convention centre in Victoria "to be prepaid" — I use his words — "from hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the B.C. Place development." Has the Premier decided when these funds will be made available to the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know what the member is talking about. On April 14 I was in Terrace.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question. The Premier has gone on record as saying he is prepared to fund this convention centre. I ask again: is he prepared to submit funds for this particular convention centre?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I recall no such commitment.

MR. BLENCOE: In view of the high level of unemployment in Victoria — and I would remind the Premier that between April and May of this year Victoria experienced an extra 2,000 people on the unemployment rolls — and in view of the incredible amounts of money going to Vancouver for project funding, does the Premier agree that Victoria needs and deserves a shot in the arm for the construction of a convention centre in Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty with the member. I think the proposal he's talking about — B.C. Development Corporation — may have been made during the election campaign by someone who wanted to become Premier and didn't. My position and that of this government has always been that public facilities will be built out of the profits generated from British Columbia Place and that every community in British Columbia will participate. B.C. Place is not being financed out of the tax revenues of this province; it is being financed against future earnings from the property development. Given the computer projections on the rate of development, various inflation factors and the revenues we would achieve in developing the projects, that money could flow in a very few years and be available for other provinces. However, should delays take place because of regulations from the Vancouver city council, then of course those moneys won't be available. I have said many times that it's in the interest of every community to see the speedy development of British Columbia Place, because they can share in the profits that will be generated over the 25 years of development, amounting to millions and millions of dollars.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster said "nonsense." It's not nonsense. That's the member who criticized the stadium, who's been against ALRT, who wants to bring back streetcars. I want to tell that member for Victoria, the bold planning of this government in developing B.C. Place offers not only tremendous development in downtown Vancouver, but hope for development from those profits for every community, including Victoria.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

[2:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I suppose we should open in the traditional way, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to see you in the chair. I have the opportunity of congratulating you personally on your election as Speaker of this House. Let me congratulate as well the Deputy Speaker, the member for Prince George South, and all members of this House, particularly the new members. It's really a learning experience for all of us. I'm sure they'll very much enjoy their short four-year stay here.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The remark from across the floor suggests that I should give up my cigarettes. The fact is, I think I'm going to have to. Aside from the health situation, the way this government is increasing taxes on tobacco and other refreshments, we'll all have to give up those little pleasures shortly, I'm sure.

I really don't know where to begin with this throne speech. It has been fairly specific in some areas. It is certainly a self-serving document for the government. I guess in very general terms the political objectives suggested by the philosophy as outlined in the throne speech include reducing not just the size but the responsibilities of government, both in terms of public service and economic leadership — something the Premier, by the way, refers to as "downsizing." I guess we'll know what he means by that during the course of the budget debate. It also includes arbitrarily defining the boundary between the public sector, which in the throne speech is defined as being bad, and the private sector, which in the throne speech is defined as being good, turning a blind eye towards unemployment and the fight against inflation, and dismantling the rights of workers to protect their living standards in the name of investor confidence.

It is obvious that the monetarist economics of the Fraser Institute have a stranglehold on the political imagination of the Premier and his cabinet. The monetarist vision of politics

[ Page 82 ]

is distrustful of democracy. Indeed it defines democratic institutions as part of the cause and not part of the solution to our economic malaise. It actually promotes the use of massive unemployment, together with attacks on the rights of working people. Many of your people agree with attacking working people, Mr. Member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty).

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That is your philosophy. Don't deny it. I've listened to your speeches over there — speech after speech attacking the working people of this province. That's what you believe in.

The government's strategy seems to be to promote recovery by bolstering business confidence and stimulating private investment. They are committed to assist investors by transferring the costs of the current recession to the working people. Their plan is to redistribute income away from working people toward the private sector. In other words, what they are saying is: "Rob the poor; give it to the rich." Accordingly, we are promised changes to the Labour Code, which will make it easier to undermine the bargaining power of working people and thus facilitate wage rollbacks and those kinds of things. Downsizing of government means more cuts to public and social services, which in turn provides more room and resources for private-sector expansion. Similarly the privatization of public services and Crown corporations means lower living standards in exchange for more corporate profits.

The government is abandoning its responsibility to ensure that economic development occur in a rational and balanced fashion by surrendering all essential decisions to the private sector. That is what they are saying in that throne speech. They are prepared to abandon the future of this province's resources to the whims of the quick-buck artist. That's what we'll be seeing in that budget when it comes down and in legislation coming down the tube in this House later this fall — possibly the summer, for all we know.

To the unemployed and those at the lower end of the income scale who will suffer most from Socred social reorganization, they offer only their feeble belief in the trickle-down theory, which is that when the rich get richer some crumbs will fall off to the low income and the poor people, maybe. That's what it is all about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

During the course of my presentation, I want to discuss for a moment or two the mismanagement of that government — the past mismanagement. There has been a great deal of mismanagement. The government admits to its own mismanagement in some ways. I have obtained figures from the government's quarterly financial reports and the provincial budgets for 1976 to 1982, and I have compiled a list of figures. I am not going to read out this whole list, but I will give you the bottom line figures, Mr. Speaker. As of December 31, 1975, the total debt including the Crown corporations of this province was $4,425,100,000. At the end of March 31, 1983 the total debt of this province — once again including the Crown corporations — was $14,178,400,000. At the end of 1975 every man, woman and child in fact in this province owed approximately $1,800 on our provincial debt. Under the Social Credit government that figure has increased to over $5,000 owed by each man, woman and child in this province, debt brought about by the Social Credit government. And they call themselves managers. What really disturbs me is that they have four years ahead of them to increase that debt, and that debt will, I predict, double, if not triple, over the next four years under Social Credit government mismanagement.

I recall very well, when that government came into power in 1976, that they promised this province would never incur a debt in any fiscal year. Yet in the last three years, possibly the last four years, they've not balanced the budget and there has been a debt. Right now — we don't know for sure, but we'll know next week when the budget comes down — the debt for the last fiscal year is estimated to be somewhere around $1.4 billion, if they tell us the truth about the debt in the budget.

There have been more small business failures in this province over the last year, under Social Credit mismanagement, than in any other province in Canada. We've had one of the highest unemployment rates in all of Canada, with some exceptions in the maritime provinces. I could talk about many areas in British Columbia — Port Alberni, Kamloops, Prince George. In one of my communities, Powell River, the unemployment rate is 24 percent at the present time, in spite of the sharp upturn in the logging industry over the last three or four months. That's unacceptable, and they're not doing anything about it except dropping programs that could help some of those people. They're abandoning those programs. Plant closures? Lots of them. Some of my colleagues discussed some of those closures in this House yesterday. The major pulp mills in my riding have had long-term shutdowns, and one pulp mill has been shut down permanently by this government; that is, of course, Ocean Falls. When this government shut down that operation in 1980, they promised in writing that a new industry would be located in that community within six months. Here we are in 1983 and they have made no decision with regard to the future of Ocean Falls. People are still living in that community in hopes that something will happen there.

I see the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is in the House. I know that minister is speaking next, so he may have the opportunity to reply to the matter I'm going to raise. It's quite a serious matter relating to transportation and to that community.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation decided many months ago not to utilize the Queen of the North to call into that community once every second week, and subsidized a private carrier. I want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to the subsidization of private carriers where the situation warrants, but in this particular instance — the subsidy, by the way, was $60,000 — the private carrier service is inconsistent. Food and freight rates have tripled and it is not being utilized. In fact, in some cases it is cheaper to fly certain staples into the community than to utilize the present carrier with the high rates. I understand that after the contract was signed the freight rates were substantially increased.

I can understand the corporation's thinking on this matter, because they claim it was costing $200,000 a year for the Queen of the North to make that extra side trip to Ocean Falls. That figure, by the way, is not correct. It is on a weekly basis, and the residents of Ocean Falls would have been satisfied to have that vessel call once every three weeks, thus reducing the total to $75,000 as a cost to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. If you add the fares, there were $49,000 worth of fares out of Ocean Falls on that vessel last year, which would have more

[ Page 83 ]

than made up the difference. However, it was a bad agreement. So what I am asking the minister, because he happens to be in the House — one of the few who are in the House at the present time, by the way.... I know he's speaking next and I'm asking the minister now, as I have in writing, to meet with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible to this Legislature for the Ocean Falls Corporation, and with the chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and discuss with these people the future of that community and how transportation services can be improved to that community. We have a lot of problems with transportation to other areas — Bella Coola, Bella Bella, places like that. I'll leave that discussion until the transportation estimates. But this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, must be resolved very quickly on behalf of the residents of Ocean Falls.

[2:45]

The throne speech talks about privatization, and it's a pretty sure bet that portions of ICBC are going to go down the tube. Once the private insurance companies have the monopoly on certain classes of insurance, the rates will go up and B.C. dollars will once again start pouring out of the province — no question about that. We don't know about the liquor control branch. Certainly portions of the liquor distribution branch will be privatized — so called — and once again there is the possibility of British Columbia dollars leaving the province.

We don't know where the government is going to go. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we know that they would go as far as they could. If they thought they could get away with it politically, they would privatize hospitals. I know they would. But I don't think they'll go quite that far. They'd like to. They'd like to privatize B.C. Hydro, but they know they couldn't get away with that either, so they probably won't — maybe portions thereof, but they probably won't. They would like to privatize the B.C. Ferry Corporation. After all, the government last year paid a subsidy to the corporation of some $43 million, reduced from the previous year by 25.1 percent, thereby reducing services to many communities on the coast of British Columbia. I must, at this point, say that I am impressed with many of the senior management people within the corporation. Under the circumstances, I think they've done an excellent job, considering their subsidy had been reduced by 25.1 percent.

How about the B.C. Petroleum Corporation? What's going to happen to that? We're pretty sure we know. That's going to be turned back to the private sector. We know you'd want to do that if you could, and I think you will. I think you'll turn the B.C. Petroleum Corporation over to the private sector and let those oil companies reap their windfall profits, so they can take those profits and invest them in other parts of the world. You're a sell-out crowd. You sold us out in northeast coal, you sold us out in southeast coal, and you're going to sell us out every chance you get. You know you will.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Of course you will.

The Motor Carrier Commission. Is that going to be disbanded, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker? Deregulated?

MR. REID: You can count on that one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: How high can you count?

So you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? If they do away with the Motor Carrier Commission, that means the large international trucking companies will come in here, as they did when this happened in the United States — undercut the local carriers, drive them out of business and double and triple freight rates all over the province. That's the net result of what we're talking about. I'd like to hear from the minister when he plans to do away with the Motor Carrier Commission in the province of British Columbia.

We haven't heard from the government on how far they intend to cut back on silviculture, site preparation, tree-planting — all these kinds of things — within the next year. I know that throughout my riding there are literally hundreds of people not working at the present time because funds have not been forthcoming to the regional offices at the time of year when tree-planting, thinning, site preparation — these kinds of things — should be happening. They are not happening because the local regional offices within the forest region have not received the funds or permission — I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there; I hope he's listening — to proceed with these projects, and as a result literally hundreds and hundreds of people who could be working on these much needed projects now are not working.

I understand that minister is going to be speaking this afternoon as well. So we would like to hear from him that he is putting another $250 million this year into that much needed program, along with the money the federal government will be supplying for these programs, hopefully, in British Columbia this year.

On the social side of things, as mentioned in the throne speech, I guess there will be cutbacks, reductions in staff and these kinds of things. Once again, it will be the health care and the social services that will be hit by the government's so-called restraint program. I just want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in some areas of my riding, because of understaffing, it takes two weeks for an individual to see a Human Resources officer, unless it happens to be an extreme emergency — and who defines that, some girl at the front desk? I don't know. I know that I've helped literally....

Well, I was going to say hundreds, but I'm sure it's not that many. I've made appointments for many, many people because they could not get in to see a Human Resources officer because of a lack of people in some of these offices. With the high unemployment rate we have now, and more and more people coming off UIC, what are they supposed to live on for two weeks while they are waiting to see a Human Resources officer?

These are the kinds of things that affect people. But this government doesn't care. It's quite obvious when you read the throne speech that their emphasis is not on people, not on social programs. A government that should be elected to serve all of the people is actually, by definition in the throne speech, going to serve a very small segment of the people, and that's their rich friends. That'll be about the size of it.

We can obviously expect increased user fees in our hospitals — no doubt about that. It's okay for someone making a couple of hundred thousand and millions of dollars a year; they can probably afford to pay $20 each day for a hospital visit. But if you're on a low income or UIC, or if you have a large family — whatever — it makes a great deal of difference. This government, I predict, will increase user fees.

Education cutbacks. There'll be further cutbacks.

[ Page 84 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Where?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There will be further cutbacks.

HON. A. FRASER: Tell us where. Tell us how many dollars.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay.

HON. A. FRASER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was about to give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that will satisfy that loud and boisterous porcupine member for Cariboo.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. minister will have the opportunity to enter into debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The fact is that I happen to have in my possession....

I see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) in the House; I'm very pleased to see you here, because I have a letter for you. The Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) wants to know of a specific program where cutbacks have taken place. Here's one recent example. I have a letter here addressed to the Minister of Education; it's a copy to me. It's from the Citizen Advocacy Society in the community of Powell River, which deals with handicapped people. I'll send a copy of this letter over to you, Mr. Minister, when I'm finished.

"Enclosed please find a copy of our presentation which was given to the regional board of Malaspina College, Powell River. We are very concerned about the future classes for the mentally handicapped adults as citizens of our community. Their lives have been greatly enriched by the education received on this campus, and we seriously question the curtailment or abolishment of programs such as this. We ask that you take this matter into your most immediate consideration."

Then they go on to explain the program.

Basically what this government has done is cut off education opportunities for handicapped people at the community college level. That is what they've done.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hear the member over there say: "Not true." So, my dear friends in Powell River, the people on the Social Credit side are calling you a bunch of liars. Well, I would prefer to believe my constituents rather than you over there, I can tell you that.

Just so that it's on the record, I'm sending a copy of this letter over to you, Mr. Minister of Education, and I hope that you'll do something about it, and at least answer these people; they have not yet received a reply from you.

The list goes on and on. However, I do want to talk about a couple of other items. As a matter of fact, over the last three or four years one of the big issues in the Powell River area has been the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island, which became a major issue in the campaign. A lot of things were said by a lot of people that were not necessarily true. Finally, after that issue was raised many times in this House, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Hon. Mr. McClelland, who would not talk to anyone or listen to reason, decided that Hydro was going to supply Vancouver Island with natural gas. Because the minister took that position so adamantly, one day when that minister was out of town the Premier of this province said, "No, there will be public hearings," and a new Minister of Energy was then appointed. The Public Utilities Commission was commissioned to listen to submissions; they suggested that recommendations be presented to cabinet in October of this year. It's three years behind schedule, but that's fine; we finally got the thing off the ground.

I raise this matter today because of the inconsistency in statements made by people in the Social Credit government. During the course of the campaign the Premier made two separate visits to the community of Courtenay, on Vancouver Island, with the view, I guess, of unseating the candidate there, but as usual he was unsuccessful. So we've still got a good member in this House to represent the Courtenay area. On Friday, April 15, the Comox and District Free Press reported:

"Both Premier Bill Bennett and provincial Energy minister Brian Smith have said that there was a commitment from the federal government and that he had received assurances from Ottawa that there will in fact be a federal subsidy forthcoming from Ottawa for that project."

A week later, on April 20, he repeated, more or less, that statement. Once again the Premier was quoted:

"Premier Bill Bennett said Saturday that he has a personal commitment to assist in obtaining federal funding for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island from Ottawa."

Then we have a two-page letter from, of all people, the federal Minister of Energy, Mr. Jean Chretien, relating to the matter of federal government subsidies to natural gas lines. It's from the federal Minister of Energy, dated April 5:

"I have made it clear to Mr. Smith that no specific financial commitment to the pipelines from the federal government would be made until my officials have had an opportunity to review in depth the economic, financial and engineering aspects of the proposal."

He concludes this lengthy letter, which has been made public — the press have copies, if anybody is interested; it's no big secret — by saying:

"The federal government wishes to review carefully the economic benefits of large-scale projects like the pipeline to Vancouver Island before committing itself to a course of action."

[3:00]

Clearly the minister is saying that there is no clear commitment. Once again this government was caught not telling the truth. Yet the Premier and his henchmen went around Comox, Vancouver Island and all through my riding telling people that they had a clear-cut commitment. Now who do you believe? Do you believe the Premier of this province or the federal Minister of Energy? I'm inclined not to believe either one of them.

[ Page 85 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I believe I heard the member refer to some of us over here as "henchmen." If he did, I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. However, the Chair also noted that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) indicated that members in this assembly might not be telling the truth. That is an unparliamentary reference. I'm sure if the member has made any such reference to another hon. member the member for Mackenzie would withdraw.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I certainly withdraw. I was attempting to point out a discrepancy between the public statements made by the Premier during the course of an election campaign, I presume for election purposes, and the signed correspondence from the federal Minister of Energy, who said something quite different. You can make up your own mind as to who is telling the truth. One or the other is not telling the truth, but I don't know which one it is. You can make up your own mind. I've made up my mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members in this House are honourable, and I'm sure the hon. member knows it. I thank you for your explanation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There are a number of other items we'll get to, probably in the debate on the spending estimates. That'll probably take us well into November or December, but we'll see.

There is a severe problem developing in the Bella Coola valley relating to flood control. I want to take this opportunity to thank the previous Minister of Environment. Although the total funding for flood control had been expended last year, the minister went to Treasury Board because we had an extremely serious situation developing. In jeopardy were 60 homes, schools, stores, these kinds of things, and the minister came up with $200,000, in effect saving portions of that community from flooding. I really appreciate that. However, that's only the tip of the iceberg. What we require is a further $1.5 million of diking and rip-rap in that community. If we have even a 10-year flood cycle — it could happen this year or next year, but I guarantee you it will happen at some point — the cost to the people of the province will be a great deal more than $1.5 million for flood control. So I'm asking for it now, because we don't know when we're going to get to these estimates. I've had discussions with the minister and other people in the ministry, and the engineers in the ministry certainly agree that this work has to be done. Again, I mention it now so that it is on record that these funds are needed to save large portions of settled areas in the Bella Coola valley.

Also, while we have the Minister of Transportation in the House, I would once again ask that minister — to give him time before we get to his estimates — to seriously consider financial assistance to the Campbell Island proposed airport facility, a facility that is required and that the federal government is prepared to share in costing.

HON. A. FRASER: Wrong island.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, the right island. Campbell Island. I know what island the minister is thinking of and I wish he was on it right now. I'm very clear: airport assistance to the 1,200 people living on Campbell Island, not the 42 people living on the minister's island.

I know he's a bit of a pork-barrel minister, but he's not bad to deal with.

We also require the continued reconstruction of Highway 101, which the Social Credit government abandoned when they became government to pour money into Kelowna and places like that. Continued reconstruction of Highway 101 is a must. If you have any respect at all for the lives of people, you'll make a commitment during the course of your budget to continue the reconstruction of that highway up the Sunshine Coast. I don't want to hear about band aid patching, a bit of black and pothole filling. Don't tell me that; I don't want to hear about it. I want continued reconstruction of Highway 101 and equality in my riding. If I had 25 percent of the money the minister spends on his own riding we'd be well away.

Is my time running out? I hope not; I've got a lot more to say.

I've discussed ferries briefly so I won't get into that again. My critic role has been changed and I'm really looking forward to discussing mines, petroleum resources and these kinds of things during the course of the estimates with the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum.

I thank you for your patience. Oh, I do have a closing statement; I'm not finished yet.

The extent to which the Socreds are prepared to fulfil the grim promises of the throne speech will I suppose be revealed when the long overdue provincial budget is presented next week. It seems all too likely that the extreme right-wing rhetoric will be translated into extreme — unfortunately — right-wing reality.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I want to congratulate you and the Speaker on your high appointment and wish you well. You know that I'll never give you any difficulty. If you can control the other 56 here, you won't have any problem at all. Best of luck. I would also like to pass on my good wishes to all MLAs elected, new or old, but more specifically to the new. Somebody said yesterday that this is an exclusive club, and you're certainly welcome. I wish you all well.

One of the delightful things about what has happened since we were here last is that we had a great election on May 5. I've sat here since last Thursday and listened. and you'd think the socialists across the way had won the election, so I'm going to spend the next half hour telling them they got soundly defeated on May 5. For the record, when the Legislature was dissolved on April 7, 1983, there were 31 Social Crediters and 26 NDPers. I've got that in the record; I don't have to repeat it. The existing situation, up to about 4 o'clock, is 34 Social Crediters and 22 socialists. We'll have to wait until later on today, but certainly they are very gratifying results, to say the least. After sitting and listening to that diatribe from over there since 1979, it is very gratifying to see that very little of that filters through to the general public, who make the final decisions.

Just in reference to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who just sat down, I'm very unhappy that he's been fired by his leaderless party. They haven't any leader, but he reshuffled his critics. The member for Mackenzie was my critic, and he got booted. I don't understand that. I would

[ Page 86 ]

tell him — I know he's gone — thinking of his riding, and particularly Bella Coola and Hagensborg, that there's a petition out now to add that part of his riding to the Cariboo riding that I have the honour to represent, because of his inability to represent them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm sorry, but that is an unparliamentary remark — someone's inability to be here. Would the member please withdraw it.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, sure, I'll withdraw, but you know, it's what's going on.

However, getting back to myself, I'm highly honoured to be re-elected as the MLA for Cariboo. I hear a lot of people saying they've been in public life a long time, but I'm really delighted to be back and to thank the voters of the Cariboo. I have now won five general elections, and I really had a tough fight in the last election. I had four opponents. I hear about these MLAs who get elected from these postage-stamp ridings, but I had four run against me: the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Green Party and the Western Canada Concept. You know, when it all ended up I got the largest majority I've ever got since I've run for public office. As a matter of fact, the four who ran against me shared the 30 percent that I didn't get; they divided it up pretty well equally, too.

But I'm highly honoured. As a matter of fact, for the information of the House, this is my thirty-fourth consecutive year in elective office in British Columbia — consecutive is what I'm proud of, Mr. Speaker. Before the other side says, "Well, it's time you quit," I have no intention of doing that either.

Let's get down to parties in the election. For your information, the Social Credit Party received almost 50 percent of the popular vote. The NDP received almost 45 percent of the popular vote. Sixty percent of those elected as MLAs were Social Crediters and 40 percent elected were NDPers or socialists. Even the ones who are here are fortunate to be back, because all their majorities — at least 15 of the NDPers here — fell substantially between the 1979 election and the 1983 election.

MR. MACDONALD: What?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, including you, Mr. Vancouver East. Your own majority fell from 1979 to 1983. Fifteen out of 22 of you fell. I just make this observation: if we could have delayed voting day from May 5 to May 9, we'd have practically eliminated the whole bunch of them over there.

While the press gallery is so full and attentive, I also want to convey our party's thanks and my thanks to them for the great assist they gave us during the election. I realize that we didn't have a very competent opposition, but the press really helped a lot. It would have turned out to be a landslide if we'd just had three or four more days.

[3:15]

Why did this happen in our great province? I'll tell you why. You can give all the credit to one man. He sits right down here. He's the Premier of British Columbia and the leader of the Social Credit Party. He had our party organized and we had a whole complement of excellent candidates all over the province. We also presented proper policies to the people. The main policy that we had was restraint. I want to share with you that I had the honour to go with our Premier to the first ministers' conference in February 1982 when he put restraint from all levels of government on the table. Do you know that he couldn't even get a seconder at that time? He came right home and on behalf of the government announced the restraint program on February 18, 1982. That takes guts, and that takes leadership.

During the election campaign all we heard was continued restraint, stop giving the public funds away because we haven't got any more funds to send you to give away — that's why we differed from the socialists sitting on the other side — and also to get government off our back. The other thing was that there's always a lot of fun in a campaign. It was certainly great to see all of our candidates with a uniform policy that we could face the public of British Columbia with. But the socialists were a great one — a dandy. I'll give you a few examples of how they fell on their own sword.

We had a new policy coming every day from a different NDP candidate. I think the one I got the biggest kick out of was when their candidate in Delta said that they were going to stop the Annacis bridge. That bridge jumps from one bank of the river to an island and then to the bank on the other side. He even said publicly that if it was only built as far as the island, they'd stop it there — right in the middle of the construction. Those kinds of messages get through. Then their candidate for Omineca said that their secret deal to bring back the royalty was policy, and their leader called him a liar. That was great stuff. Then we had my old friend, who is long gone, and we've got a good friend here now saying that ALRT was going to come to a stop. Boy, that was a dandy! These made the differences to our voters, and with our strong leadership, the battle was all over.

I'd like to make a prediction here today that we and our leader, the Premier, just re-elected with a new mandate, which will take our leade.... We will be government for at least another four years. I really believe that our leader will exceed the term of office of his great father, who was Premier of this province for 20 years. The end of this will be 12-odd years, and I don't think he'll have any difficulty winning after that because I fear — I don't fear, but I hope — the socialists have pretty well had it. They are going back to revive the Regina Manifesto this weekend. If they bring that stuff back, that will put them in purgatory for another 25 years.

I would be remiss if I didn't say something about the riding I have the honour to represent, the great Cariboo riding. It's the third largest riding in British Columbia. I heard the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) say what an arduous task it was to drive 130 miles from Courtenay to Victoria. I want to tell her that in my riding it takes a jet aircraft an hour and a half to go from south to north. It's 400 miles long and 400 miles wide, and absolutely full of people who know how to vote — continuously, properly and consecutively since 1952. They've never wavered and they never will. In the Cariboo we don't do any complaining. The recession has been tough on Cariboo, like any other part of B.C. or Canada. It's affected everyone.

Forestry is the main industry. We have a large beef cattle production. We have mining and tourism. I've said this before in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to say it again: you didn't hear any crying out of the Cariboo because of the recession. I want to tell you something else: all our mills continue to operate, at a reduced rate. They didn't lock up and throw the key away under tough conditions. They kept on going. There are two pulp mills in my hometown, and they have never missed a shift since 1981. Not one shift! So I am

[ Page 87 ]

amazed when I read and hear particularly the socialists over here crying about the pulp mills and sawmills in their riding. Maybe it's because it's socialist. In the interior, in my riding, I want to take my hat off to the forest industry, whether it's sawmills, loggers or pulp mills. They have run right through — at a great cost to some of them — and now they are getting some back because the lumber prices have recovered somewhat.

I think we should remember these things. Where all the cry babies are and what's going on.... There are people not making any noises but carrying on and maintaining their payrolls. It can be done in our province. It has been done. I welcome any of these people from the lower mainland or Vancouver Island to come up and we'll show you how. I can't understand why an area of the province can maintain their payrolls and other areas just lock up.

Back to the election campaign. I don't seem to be able to get off that for some reason; as a matter of fact, I wish we were still campaigning. Not a great deal has been said....

Referring to the throne speech, they referred there to jobs, and that of course is the biggest responsibility we all have. I notice that the other side again have not said anything about the jobs this government has created and is creating right at the present time. I would like to refer to B.C. Place — they condemned that. But what is that? It's creation of jobs. This is why you got defeated so well on May 5. The member for New Westminster comes in — the health critic — and scares everybody that is sick. Even he lost in the last election from the majority he had in 1979, so not too many listened to his guff either.

MR. COCKE: I did not. I gained.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, you did, eh? You're looking at the wrong record.

MR. COCKE: Six hundred votes, Alex; try to get things straight.

HON. A. FRASER: You get it straight. You are using socialist arithmetic; I'm using proper arithmetic.

Expo 86 is getting on its way. That's all jobs. ALRT, that they shut down on television one day: that's jobs and that's going ahead, in spite of the big issue the press are making about the cracks in the concrete. I think that will be overcome too — that horrendous issue.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, northeast coal — let's deal with that. Northeast coal provides lots of jobs: 6,000 or 7,000 work there right now, and we'll end up this fall or winter with 2,500 to 3,000 permanent jobs. The socialists are going to shut all that down too.

Now I want to lead into — it wasn't talked about a lot — the stepped-up highway and bridge program that's going on now. It started this year, replacing bridges and building new ones in new locations such as the Halston and the Annacis. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to build the Annacis bridge. The socialists tried to peddle a line that we had dropped it. We haven't dropped it, and you'll be happy to see that structure up for 1986, Mr. Speaker.

We're rebuilding existing roads and building new ones. We're building the Coquihalla — a four-lane limited-access road from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops — and we're busy boring that.

We're building a new road to north B.C. that will tap the Mackenzie River basin. That will be open in 1984. We've been working on that for two or three years.

A new road that my colleague here, the member for South Peace River, the great Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).... We're building a brand-new road through the jackpines from Chetwynd to Tumbler Ridge. We're building it, and we're going to have it open — seven new bridges and 95 kilometres of paved two-lane road into Tumbler Ridge before freeze-up 1983.

At the present time this program — the stepped-up highways and bridge program — has 8,000 people at work who wouldn't be working if it hadn't been for the stepped-up highway program. Where are those people from? Sixty-five hundred of those are from the private sector and are all good B.C. contractors at work — they're not from anywhere else. Let the Leader of the Opposition say that we create contracts to bring them in from Alberta or California. These are all B.C.-owned and -operated contractors who have got this work. What do we get out of the stepped-up highway program as citizens? We get a better highway system and a safer system, and we supply jobs to our citizens. I understand that with these 8,000 jobs, another 24,000 are created on a secondary level, such as in cement plants and steel fabricating and so on. But those are the experts that say that.

I don't want to stop at that regarding creating work on highway and bridge programs. I don't want to miss Highway 99 — we keep on improving that. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) is concerned. We have made improvements there. We have more to go.

[3:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There was an article written in March, I believe it was, Mr. Speaker, saying that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I were liars. By the way, it wasn't by a reporter; it was by a columnist, and there is a real difference between those two categories, I'll tell you. The hard-working press reporters — there's a real difference between them and columnists, because the columnists just write figments of their imagination. I just want to say on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and I.... We were called liars. I just say to this columnist: "Go out and ask these people who are at work who is a liar and whether they would have been at work...." Just go and ask them. Go and ask some of the bulldozer drivers, the grader operators, the truck drivers, and so on, and see who's the liar — whether we were going to have this program and anything would come of it.

I'd just like to make a few critical remarks about Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: The B.C. Buildings Corporation that you set up — tell us about that.

HON. A. FRASER: I just want to make a few broad remarks. You're right, our government said we would look at Crown corporations, boards and commissions. I want to tell you that you'd better believe we will. They are living too high off the hog, Mr. Speaker. They have to be told that we've got restraint going on, and they are being told that.

[ Page 88 ]

I don't see why, when the Premier of our province sits at a $70 desk, the president of a Crown corporation could have an $8,000 one. That doesn't add up to me. That's what I say. We've got to take a look at all these things and really tell them that they are a part of government, not a little corporation out there by themselves.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want you people to get too loud over there, because you've all spun your wheels in the election, and you got defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, you know, we elected 60 percent of the MLAs and we're entitled to make 60 percent of the noise around here. They lost over there. They think they won, you know. That's the real irony of the whole thing: they think they won. They say if you repeat it and repeat it and repeat it, finally somebody gets the message. And that's what I'm trying to do today. You confine me in my time, or otherwise I would like to go further into that.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens and the taxpayers of this province told us to get better control on public spending, for the simple reason that they haven't any more money to send us. That's what it's all about. Governments have no money. The only money they have is what they take away from the citizens of the province in taxes and levies of different kinds. They get it all from the citizens.

They also said in the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, that we've got too much government. I agree with them completely. They said: "Get off our backs with your silly rules and regulations." And this government is going to carry out the message we got from the voters.

We're now coming slowly out of a severe recession — slowly but surely. If we are careful with public funds, full recovery will happen in due course. Our government is going to assist in any way possible to speed this up. All our policies were discussed in the election campaign. They were approved by the majority of the citizens of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Fifty percent, they were. Mr. Speaker, that member from Westminster will always take the side of socialist arithmetic, never the kind he was taught in school. Fifty percent, and I would remind that member that your popular vote dropped from 45 to 44, and some of it dropped so far for some of the members in this House that they're very fortunate they're here at all.

I guess I'd like to end now. It must be nearly my time to finish. As my colleague the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said yesterday, the socialists are going back to rejuvenate the Regina Manifesto....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Waffle.

HON. A. FRASER: The Waffle — yes, that's right. Well, it's all the same thing.

I'd like to close on this note. This is what Churchill said about socialism. Churchill said that there are two places in the world for socialism: one is in heaven where they don't need it, and the other is in hell where they already have it.

MR. MACDONALD: I join first with the other members who expressed to you their condolences upon your election as Speaker, and the same to the Deputy Speaker. I want to say that I enjoyed very greatly the speech that we have just listened to here in the House by the hon. Minister of Highways, talking about his big majorities. I don't mind saying I think a lot of that minister — although not as much as he does. May I not take him as a model, and just shift my brain into neutral and let my tongue idle along this afternoon?

I know there was an election this year, but I want to say something about the scheduling of sessions, in a serious vein, for a moment. Traditionally there was a time in British Columbia when the Legislature would meet at the end of January and a budget would be brought down in February, well before the end of the fiscal year. We have seen a departure from that old tradition, which is most unfortunate: budgets coming down after the fiscal year, as happened this year, are a scandal. At this point I think we are entitled to begin to restore respect and order for our assembly in British Columbia and get back to some kind of orderly planning of sessions and not hold them in the middle of summer, so members and the people will know when they're to start.

I have the feeling that we are under a one-man government in this province, and that with the assistance of two or three advertising public relations hacks the rest of the people, cabinet, Legislature and the people of British Columbia are being manipulated. Sure, you won the election, but they understood what I am saying out there. In many of the ridings that have been won in this House the people out there didn't very much like what was happening out there, even though you won some of their votes.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you doubt that. You don't remember your canvassing; I do. I have had a change. I was the critic for the Attorney-General's ministry; I requested and received Intergovernmental Relations. If I can possibly manage to do so, I'll have to match wits with the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but it will give me a chance to step back a little bit and be a little more reflective, I would hope, in what I have to say in this assembly. I also said I would be perfectly glad to have a change of seat; this one is a little too close to the door. But I'm still in my old seat and glad to be back. In the critic's role I was attacked by Les Bewley and Allen Garr. It makes me think I must have been doing something right. You know, cant from the left, cant from the right, volley and thunder. Oh well, I'm content to sit here and participate.

I miss so many good MLAs who lost their seats in the democratic process, and I greet the new ones. I don't see the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), whom I used to train in handling IWA grievances many years ago, sitting in his place. When I think of that, I think I must have been a lousy teacher. He's setting out in this House to take a buzzsaw to all the social legislation of the province of British Columbia. I don't know whether he'll stop when he comes to women's suffrage; he'll probably think about that one too. He's off on the wrong foot. Kicking labour is politically popular sometimes, but in the case of that member it's like kicking his own dog. That's where he got his rise in life; for a while he did a very good job, before he began to go on this business, which the Premier started up for political reasons, to find a whipping boy.

[ Page 89 ]

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). I mention one name, George Mussallem, and say that this place went more smoothly with George's presence among our ranks, It was a more enjoyable place in which to carry on our work, and we all miss him. I thought it was a thoughtful speech. The hon. member finished up by talking about housing. He said that we need new initiatives; we certainly do. We're glad today that the GVRD turned down the Spetifore application with respect to that farmland, but it is also a case-type of how not to create housing for the people of British Columbia. It's Social Credit housing a la carte, but it's not affordable housing for the ordinary people of this province. Ten thousand people are going to be accommodated. If you look at the title of that Spetifore farmland, which was just modestly priced property, when they got it out by cabinet decree the mortgages registered against it were $163 million. I don't say all that money was advanced; I say that promoters and those who benefited by the exclusion from the land reserve have already made a nest egg. With that kind of financing behind the project to create housing for the people of British Columbia, what do you think they're going to have to pay for it? It would have to be a rich, upper-middle-class suburb. That's not the kind of housing we need; we need cooperative non-profit housing.

I don't see the Minister of Science and Technology in his place, and I'm sorry about that. He does attend here, but a little bit like the fellow who answered the questionnaire — infrequently. I always enjoy his speech; I never get bored with it. But when he goes through this "you were rejected by the people in '52," he never mentions the time he was leader of the Liberal Party and was rejected by the people in 1966, 1969, 1972; he then folded his tent very quietly and crept into a warm bed with his sworn political enemies. He doesn't tell you that in that great speech. He doesn't give you facts or figures.

The latest thing among the rich and privileged is the terrible state France is in today with a socialist government. That's the traditional, conventional wisdom. Nobody tells us what their unemployment rate is compared to ours, or their inflation rate. It's true that President Mitterrand of France is running into rabid opposition from entrenched selfish interests who are trying to get their money out of the country, deserting it without any kind of patriotic impulse. He's running into opposition from semi-fascist students who object to his broadening and democratizing the French educational system.

[3:45]

Let nobody think it's easy to be a socialist; it isn't, The tide's against us at the present time, for that matter. Reagan is going to be re-elected in spite of the grinding of the poor in that country. It isn't an easy path. But when you look throughout this world, which you can't expect that particular minister to do, at some of the other countries that have only begun to approach social democracy — Sweden; Germany; Denmark, without any resources at all to speak of, except farmland; Austria; devastated and cut back by the war — you find that their living standards have been creeping up and surpassing, year by year, those in North America, where we have never been devastated by a war and have boundless raw materials. Don't tell me that socialism is not the wave of the future.

It's 50 years since Franklin Delano Roosevelt — this is a subject of mockery in right-wing circles right now — closed the banks and gave his inaugural speech. The common man, in terms of living standards and real freedom, never in the history of mankind made the kind of progress and gains that happened in that 50-year period. Now new solutions have to be found, and we have to progress further in terms of a planned economy. We have to think in terms of the distribution of incomes, and we have to think in terms of creating wealth as well as seeing it fairly distributed. We cannot continue staggering, as the western world is doing, between periods of inflation and unemployment, and between periods of both. The death of democratic socialism has been greatly exaggerated.

I regret, in the Speech from the Throne, the references to the public service. We've built up, in British Columbia, a very good public service, of which we should all be proud. The privileged buzzwords that occurred time and again in that Speech from the Throne, and particularly the word "productivity," are a signal to people out there that the public service of British Columbia is fat and lazy. That's what they said during the election campaign, and I suppose the polls told the Premier that was good politics. I don't know whether he shared the polls with the other members of his party; not very much, I would think.

When I take my car — infrequently — through the motor vehicle testing station, and see those people working among the exhaust fumes, hard and capably; when I go into a land registry office and see one of the finest systems in the world working with a dedicated group of hard-working public employees, I resent that they should be pilloried without a word of appreciation in this Speech from the Throne.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — and I am reverting maybe to a philosophical vein just for a minute — said that socialism's answer to depression was to spend our way out. If that's the image people out there have of us then we're in really serious trouble. To some extent it is the image, but it isn't democratic socialism in any sense whatsoever. As I've said before, we believe that you must plan — including levels of income. When you take that public service and you single it out for special discriminatory restraint, and you leave at large the level of rents, profits, speculative profits, speculative gains, bank profits and all of the other income matters within a country, then they're entitled to say that you're being unfair. They're also entitled to say that what you are doing is not going to solve the problems of the economy of Canada or the problems of North America.

I want to say something by way of a personal opinion on what to me is a very important matter. I'm expressing my own opinion on the matter, because we've had time to do a lot of thinking since September 1, 1982. I'm speaking for myself. The Legislature passed a resolution — it seemed very harmless at the time, but I abstained from voting — on the matter of property rights and the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution of Canada. It's my opinion that that was a big mistake on the part of this Legislature. "The enjoyment of property" are the particular words that are being sought. The inclusion of those words in the Constitution of Canada would be a roadblock for unborn generations in terms of achieving a social democracy with fair shares in the country of Canada. It would place legislatures, which seek to do justice throughout the community, at the mercy of lawyers and the legal system. It would take from provincial jurisdiction, which we sitting in this House now have, in terms of property and civil rights as a provincial matter, and we would lose them to a considerable measure to federal courts or to courts generally — it doesn't matter.

[ Page 90 ]

The history is rather strange. What happened in that resolution was very, very political. As my colleagues pointed out at the time, the B.C. government in 1978 said that the constitutionalizing of any rights — and this was when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being debated — was not necessary. These words were used in the British Columbia submission: "It is our view that these rights can best be assured through appropriate legislative action." I heartily applaud that sentiment, but the government of British Columbia changed its mind. It has never brought in what I support, which would be a fair expropriation legislation in terms of homes and other matters that are required to be brought into the public domain for the general good.

We on this side of the House would support that legislation. I drew it up, as a matter of fact. It's a very good bill and I left it in my desk when I left as Attorney-General. It's a long, long time ago that I left as Attorney-General, but my successor must have lost or shred that very good bill. It's time that it was brought back. Of course, this momentous change is supported by the Canadian Bar Association, and that should occasion not too much surprise to the members of this House or the table when you consider all of the cases which have been fought in terms of the existing personal rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is supported by the Real Estate Council of Canada. They support entrenchment. Of course they support entrenchment, and so does everyone in this country support entrenchment who was born lucky, rich, shrewd or shifty. But it should not be supported by the ordinary people of Canada.

Let me give you a little more of the history on how close we are to having a legal strait-jacket placed upon some of the legislative freedoms that we exercise through this House. In 1981, during the debate over the patriation package, Trudeau agreed with the Tories that property rights should be included, and but for the opposition of Allan Blakeney and Edward Broadbent, who rejected that package, they would have been included in 1981. In March 1983, just two or three months ago at a conference called on aboriginal rights, British Columbia attempted to shoehorn in the question of the property rights. But the native Indians of Canada, for whom the conference was basically called, had too much sense to allow that to happen, and they said in no uncertain terms — and I agree with their sagacity in this respect — that the inclusion of constitutional rights of property would negate in part their claim for aboriginal rights. And they are against it.

More recently, in April 1983, the Tories stampeding for property rights had the agreement of Prime Minister Trudeau that if there would be a one-day debate in the House of Commons, the matter could be approved by the federal Parliament. That action was saved only by the bizarre sequence of events which made the Tory motion one of non-confidence, and it was voted down. But I say that putting these rights in the constitution, making them justiciable — to use that word — has very scary implications.

I'll just give some examples. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in introducing that resolution, quoted one James Wilson, who was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a Supreme Court judge. But he forgot the history of the United States. In interpreting property rights — as the right of people to do what they want with their own property — the United States Supreme Court, at the behest of factory owners, struck down child labour laws and minimum wage laws as an interference with the factory owners' property. Zoning laws too, here in the province of British Columbia, that are necessary for the protection of areas, could very well — and would — be interpreted as attacks on property rights. If the proposals we make on this side of the House that.... When there are zoning changes that create great capital gains as a result of the upzoning, those capital gains should revert to the community. Such action would be in dire jeopardy if we had property rights in the constitution.

I've mentioned the problem with native aboriginal claims. Let me give a current one, though. In the province of Ontario at the present time they've got nursing homes which treat their patients — chronic or convalescent — very badly in terms of the food and the services, so much so that the province of Ontario is considering putting them under trusteeship for the protection of their patients. Such a move might very well be struck down under property rights.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Recently, the doctors of British Columbia said they had acquired a right to extra-bill, that this was their option vouchsafed by a previous contract. They argued, with a very fancy lawyer in the Supreme Court of British Columbia — a lawyer who knew how to keep his meter running — that not to have that option was a deprivation of property rights. Now he lost that particular argument. But if that matter becomes embedded in our constitution — although this particular example is a long shot — this is the kind of argument and court case you're going to have to fight through on what is essentially a policy decision to be made by this Legislature.

Rent control obviously depreciates the value of property. Deprivation of property rights? You'll have that argument, and that argument may succeed.

The Family Relations Act, which we passed in this House, whereby a wife who may be doing the work at home is entitled to — by one precedent — a half-interest in the law practice developed by the husband, which could not have been developed if he was not having that home life....

That's a fair and equitable provision that we made in this Legislature. But it's an interference with the property rights of the husband. Such legislation as the Family Relations Act would be in dire peril and, unquestionably, one of the arguments of the lawyers would be that you're acting contrary to that constitutional provision.

[4:00]

I could go on and give many other examples. Prince Edward Island has laws — which our member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is advocating in this chamber — limiting absentee ownership of the land. That's an interference with property rights, though. Legislatures would want to do it if their heads were screwed on right, but the courts would strike it down.

There are many other examples, so I conclude what I'm saying on this point by saying that we ought to think again. I think we ought to think again, and I think it's only fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that members on all sides of this House are probably ready to think again on this subject. Why should we put shackles on legislative action to do justice out there in the community? What we're talking about here is not a gas pedal; it's a brake. We should not shackle ourselves for the benefit of a great many constitutional cases — cases that will affect, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), every department of government.

[ Page 91 ]

So let me pass on and talk about a few of the other aspects of the Speech from the Throne. I don't like phrases such as "downsize government." I don't know whether they....

They sound.... It's like the word "privatization." It sounds kind of cruel and cold. And it is. You know, we've been very proud of the social services that we've built up in the province of British Columbia. We've got a record under different administrations, a great deal of it under Social Credit administration, but which goes back to John Hart and Boss Johnson and many other people. We've got good social services. We should be proud, within our means, to be able to extend them.

Sometimes you can run into very false economy. For example, at the present time there's a transition house for women who, instead of being confined for the whole of their term to the women's unit in Oakalla.... The wardens try to make it as comfortable as possible, but it becomes kind of a buzz-shop for crime, and doesn't prepare them for rehabilitation. Transition houses are being shut down. There's an experiment in the judicial system in Vancouver East called the Cedar Cottage community accountability panel, whereby young people in trouble with the law could be referred out of the justice system by prosecutors or judges to a group of parents in the community who would take that young boy or girl in hand. Their success rate was phenomenal in terms of saving somebody from finally going into a very serious life of crime and ending up, as far as the community is concerned, with extensive jail, prosecutors' and court charges. It was successful, but it's been cut off.

Mr. Speaker, there's a point where you cut down your social services and you pile up other social costs. You cut down some of those services — and I've given an example — and you have to build more jails. I would hope that this House would not accept the philosophy of the Reaganites and the Thatcherites that we don't need these social services. That's the buzz that comes from rich and privileged circles. They don't need health services; they can pay for them. They don't want to be part of a universal plan. They don't need all of the other social services. The only things on which they are unanimous in terms of what the state should expand and promote are police services and armaments. But we say that there is a duty upon democratic governments.... We say it also in the terms of the Catholic bishops, who said: "Don't put the wants of the rich first; put the needs of the poor first." That's what we're saying. And when you talk about downsizing government instead of enlarging responsible democratic power, you're cutting off the poor. You're making a society where there is not equal access to opportunity, where the rich will grow richer and the poor will grow poorer.

Let me finish off with the reference in the Speech from the Throne to "providing employment is no quick fix," or words to that effect. You know, up until now in this province we've always said that government — again, within our means — should be an active innovator of job employment opportunities for people out there. Yes. That's been accepted as one of the legitimate functions and moral obligations of government, and to turn your back on it and say it's a quick fix is to turn your back on a whole generation, particularly of young people. It's to accept in Canada a level of unemployment, even if this so-called prosperity comes back, of about a million people all the time, and among young people coming out of schools an employment rate that will be 20 or 25 percent, with a permanent subclass of young people who will never be able to grow up into a job, who will go back at night to a home that is poor. That will spill over into lack of educational opportunity — I don't know why it does, but it does. It will spill over into lack of job opportunities. We will have established a permanent subclass of unemployed people. I say that this Legislature has an obligation to all of the people and all of the children in the province of British Columbia, not just to the rich and powerful. I say that we do not need a society in British Columbia where wealth accumulates and youth decays. And I say....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I listen to this chatter back there and pay no attention to it, Mr. Speaker. Some of these matters do not sink in in all quarters. Others think about them, at least.

Mr. Khrushchev, not too long ago — the late Mr. Khrushchev, of the kitchen debate; he never took out an NDP card, as far as I know — said that communism would bury us. Do you remember that? He was talking about the western world. If we're going to protect our society and prevent communism from burying the western economy, there's no use thinking in terms of piling up additional arms. The world is now spending $750 billion a year on arms and the arms race, and it's not giving us any greater security; in fact, it is taking it away, because it is weakening our economies and our people. That is what Khrushchev had in mind. So I say, Mr. Speaker, as I take my place, it's time to think in terms of a democratically socialist, planned economy that not only seeks the promotion and creation of wealth and will not accept idle men, idle machines and hungry bellies, but also turns its back on a society that is becoming what we're seeing happen right here today — a paradise for the rich, but a purgatory for many of the poor. If we want to save a strong economy that through its example will give the lie to Khrushchev, then we've got to start changing the kind of thinking that was exhibited in that Speech from the Throne.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I join previous speakers in congratulating you on being appointed Deputy Speaker and the Speaker on being appointed to that chair.

May I also congratulate all of those members on both sides of the House who succeeded in the last election and all of those people of all political stripes who had the courage to run for public office in the provincial election, because it does take courage to try to represent the people of the various parts of the province. I accept the results of the election. I think that the people of British Columbia sent a message to the government when they elected this party and our able Premier to lead this province for the next five years. I feel that if we carry out the message sent us by the people of British Columbia, which is quite clear, we can be assured of being the government of British Columbia for much, much longer than just the next five years.

Since early this year we have been having cries from the opposition to call a session of the Legislature. We had cries prior to the election being called and immediately thereafter, so we have a session of the Legislature and right now we have about the best turnout of the opposition members that we've had for the sittings yet. I see six such members opposite, which is less than one-third of those who were returned to these chambers by the people of British Columbia. Now if there was such an urgent need for a session, why then are they

[ Page 92 ]

not attending the House and debating and bringing forward the proposals which they would like to see carried out? The fact is that during the election and as a result of the election they realized that the policies which they had been talking about were not really very popular with the people of British Columbia. Had they been, those members would be sitting here and we would have been sitting there, but that's not the way it turned out.

The people of British Columbia, in re-electing the Social Credit government in the election held on May 5, were telling us that they agreed with the policies that we want to put forward and have been putting forward. I think one of the messages they also told us is that we haven't been going in that direction far enough or fast enough during these last eight years. They want us to really get out of the way of the doers in the province and let them get on with the job of expanding the economy of B.C., thereby creating many more new opportunities for the people of B.C. They have rejected the socialist philosophy of trying to spend your way into prosperity and solve all problems by simply taking more money away from the taxpayers and creating make-work jobs in the province. This was the major platform brought forward by the opposition during the election: the government should try to spend its way out of the election, create all means of activity in B.C. and control the lives of everyone in the province.

The first statement made by the opposition in this sitting of the House was when a motion was moved to amend the number of select standing committees appointed by the government. What they did then was to try to bring forward a special committee to look at ways of taking over the banking institutions in Canada. If you look at the Waffle Manifesto or the Regina manifesto of that party, you will know that their ultimate philosophy is to control all banking institutions, all means of production and all land and thereby control every aspect of the lives of everyone in British Columbia. They want to bring that forward again. I took that motion for amendment, on opening day, as an indication of the fact that they do want to move even further to the left, if that's possible, than they are right now. They refuse to accept the fact that the people of British Columbia have....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to come to order. If the member would not reflect on a motion that has been defeated, perhaps we can continue debate in order on the throne speech; the House is so advised.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My reference was not so much to that motion but to the philosophy behind it: the fact that once again that party wants to revisit their Waffle Manifesto and to begin to control all aspects of the lives of everyone in society, the basic move towards which would be the control of the financial institutions of the country. They won't get that chance, because the people of Canada are not socialists; the people of Canada simply want to have a chance to go out and improve their lot. The people of Canada don't mind the unequal distribution of wealth, because to them that is far better than having an equal distribution of poverty, as would be brought forward by the socialist philosophy in Canada.

[4:15]

They complain about kicking labour. We have proposed and will be bringing forward legislation to change some of the things that have been happening between labour and management in B.C. in the industrial relations field. It's not kicking labour at all. What it's trying to do is to give those people involved in labour a little bit of democracy within the system in which they work. If the people opposite would look at the results of the vote in the last election, they would find that the people involved in the labour movement in British Columbia support those kinds of moves. You can take my riding of Yale-Lillooet as an example: those communities with the highest percentage of people involved in labour unions provided me with my greatest support. These people know that unless the companies that they work for can make a reasonable profit to justify the massive capital investment required in the mining and forest industries in that riding, unless a return can be made, they will have no jobs. But the philosophy of the opposition is that if the people have enough courage to invest their money either in a business of their own or in the productive machinery of the nation, somehow that is evil; if a profit is returned to them, that is evil. The only way you can accumulate the capital needed to continue the development of our country is to have profits — much more substantial profits for the entrepreneurs and the doers than we have been able to have in the last number of years. Trade unionists recognize that: they recognize the fact that if your business is bankrupt you have no job at all; they recognize the fact that for too long governments have been moving further and further into the way of the private sector doing the things that have to be done.

One of the main themes of the election was the creation and maintenance of jobs in British Columbia. It is hoped that we are now emerging — and I believe we are — from probably the most difficult economic time that people in the western world have experienced since the days of the Depression in the 1930s. Times have been difficult for everyone. Over this last year and a half to two years we have brought forward some programs that have assisted people and industry in getting over this difficult time. Those times are now behind us. We have to continue to allow the investors at least to recover the losses incurred over the last number of years, so that the next time a recession comes — and another one will come, because we do live in a cyclical economy — and we have those tremendous debt burdens built up through corporate losses hanging over our industry, then that industry will not survive. That is why our Premier, this party and this government will be insisting that constraint in government spending will become a permanent way of life in British Columbia. We're not simply talking about a short-term program that may appear to be popular with the people of B.C. during difficult times; we're talking about permanent restraint and permanently moving the government out of those things that are better done in the private sector.

Getting back to job-creation endeavours, that main platform of both parties during the election, I guess when the opposition, the NDP, did their research they realized that people were concerned about jobs, and they wanted to climb on that bandwagon as well and tell the people just how they would create jobs. Of course, their platform was that the government would create all the jobs by spending taxpayers' money. They criticized us for having the foresight and taking the initiative to get things such as our northeast coal development underway before the recession started. The howls and

[ Page 93 ]

screams that I got from my opponents in my riding during the election was to the effect that the government should not be putting any money into that area of British Columbia because that money would best be spent — and I emphasize the word "spent" — in enhancing other programs that take place in B.C., such as education and health care and other things. They said: "You cannot invest government money in the infrastructure in the form of roads and communities, rail lines and hydro lines in order to create permanent and ongoing prosperity in British Columbia. You must, instead, take that money, spend it now and then somehow magically have additional revenue coming to you years down the road." That's not the way our society works. That's not the way our system works. They, of course, object to the basic system we have — the free enterprise system which encourages the best from everyone. They would rather have us spend the money now to create short-term, meaningless jobs and not worry about the future — mortgage our future,

They were against northeast coal, Mr. Speaker, and therefore against the thousands of jobs that have been created not only up in the Tumbler Ridge area, where the mines are being developed, where the railway is being built with tunnels through the Rocky Mountains, where powerlines and highways have been built and where a new community is being built which will employ and house thousands of British Columbians, with good wages for many years to come.... They are against that and therefore against those jobs and opportunities for people. They are also, therefore, against the provision of a brand-new seaport at Prince Rupert on Ridley Island, because for some reason you are supposed to be able to get Canadian products to market in ever-increasing amounts through the rather strangled seaports we have in the lower mainland. That northeastern coal development not only has economic benefits now in the form of job creation during construction, but it will also provide a flow of revenues to government over the years, and through its development a major new seaport on the west coast of Canada, for all of Canada, which will help to serve the rapidly growing Pacific Rim part of the world. Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim is British Columbia. We are making sure that Canada has that gateway and at the same time encouraging the development of our resources for the benefit of our people.

Of course, the word we get is — what is the phrase? — "Japan gets the coal, we get the hole." How silly. "Leave it in the ground for future generations." I've been hearing that as long as I've been in this House, and I heard it for many years before I arrived here. Strangely enough, our mining industry, both in coal- and metal-mining, seems to be able to replace that resource many times over as it is mined, because they have an opportunity to make a profit, and if they make a profit, they explore for and find additional resources. And this is the same thing that future generations of British Columbians will do, just as we have done. If that type of philosophy had been believed and acted upon by provincial people 30 years ago, we would be out of ore now, because there would have been no incentive to continue to find it and mine it and produce it, not only for the benefit of the people of B.C. but also for the benefit of all the people in the world that need and use our resources.

Mr. Speaker, each of the things we have done in terms of government-inspired projects over the last several years, that have been primarily carried out by the private sector and have created many of the jobs that have helped carry us through this recession, was opposed by the opposition — not only the opposition here but also our recent opposition on city council in Vancouver. The people who say that they are for jobs have been against all the job creation programs that we have. They've been against every power development program that has ever been brought forward in British Columbia. You can't name one that has not been objected to by the opposition in B.C. at some point. The only time that they weren't actively opposing power projects was during those three dismal years in B.C. when they were the government. Then, all of a sudden, power developments were okay. The one that happened to be going at the time was the "1880" dam at Revelstoke, and that was okay — they happened to be the government. Ever since then, and before then, they have been against the development of power. Yet at the same time they are for the development of jobs, they are for manufacturing in B.C., they are for all of this secondary and tertiary industry and the jobs it creates, but they don't want to have any power to provide those jobs. You can't have one without the other.

The last member who spoke, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), went into quite an exposition about the rights of land ownership for citizens in Canada. That's very interesting to me. He brought in the fact that the native Indians in Ottawa were somehow against having the right in the constitution for the people to own land. I don't personally believe that it's everybody's right to own land. I believe it's everybody's right to be able to work toward the ownership of land. I don't think they should receive it for nothing. I don't think anything of value should be received for nothing. But I think every British Columbian, every Canadian, has the right to work toward the ownership of land and has the right, if he's frugal and does well, to obtain and own land. That is the philosophy of this government,

Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, the situation in this House could be somewhat different now. I think we would probably have 40 seats here versus perhaps 17 there, had it not been for a commitment and a promise made by the Leader of the Opposition during the election. That was the promise that that party, if elected to be the government, would settle all the aboriginal land title claims in British Columbia. That promise cost us dearly in votes from native Indian people. But I think that was a cruel hoax to play upon the first citizens of British Columbia, because they believed that if that party were elected they would in fact settle the aboriginal title claims. But they can't. They won't. They didn't make any attempt to do it during those three years they were the government. That cost us, I'm sure. It's the only reason the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is here today — that promise made by the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure we would have had a different member for Atlin had that promise not been made.

You cannot settle those claims, because no government in British Columbia, now or ever, has recognized the aboriginal land title claims. Our candidates were straightforward enough to tell the native people: "No, when we are government, re-elected in British Columbia, we will not recognize aboriginal title claims." There are many other aboriginal rights that we are more than willing to talk about, and many of them we already recognize. Many of the aboriginal rights of native people as claimed are recognized by this government. But if you were to attempt to settle the aboriginal title claims in British Columbia, you would need a province with an area of about 120 percent that of British Columbia today, because there are many overlapping claims. Some of the most highly

[ Page 94 ]

developed areas in British Columbia, such as West Vancouver, would all have to be returned to the native Indians. Well, that title claim is not recognized by us. Had we followed through with that cruel hoax upon the native Indians as was done by the opposition, and said, "Oh, yes, we'll do that too," it wouldn't have been true, but I'm sure the results would have been somewhat different than they are now.

The people of British Columbia believe that the private sector is the engine that drives our economy. That's why we were elected government. We believe in downsizing government. That's what we're doing. We have, over the years, allowed too many regulations, too many overlapping areas of responsibility to develop in government, which makes it almost impossible in many cases for those who are willing to invest, to develop our resources, to develop our manufacturing sector, to do many things in B.C. — it makes it almost impossible for them to get on with the job. So not only must there be a downsizing of government, which is our plan, but there must be a realignment of some of the overlapping bureaucracies and responsibilities not only within government but in some of the Crown corporations that report to government.

I listened with some dismay to some of the remarks which have been made here since this debate started. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said: "Your party" — referring to the government — "has an obsession with inflation." Well, yes indeed, we do have an obsession with inflation. She seemed to think that you don't have to worry about inflation because as long as it's going, we'll have more people working and everything will be fine. But as our inflation outstrips that of our competitor nations, our competitive position in those world marketplaces deteriorates, and if we don't pay attention to inflation and the cost of doing business in British Columbia, then we are going to have a recession the likes of which we have never seen before, including those times in the 1930s. If our producers cannot produce at a cost that is competitive in the world, our producers will not be purchased and we will have no employment in this province.

[4:30]

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — it is in the Blues, which I read; I'm sorry I wasn't here when she spoke — went on and on about the need for me to sit down and meet with her and a bunch of politicians up in her area to work out something on the Chemainus sawmill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the best possible thing we can do is not to have politicians involved in that at all. I'm convinced in my own mind that had politicians not begun interfering in the Chemainus situation some of those people could perhaps be employed at that plant today. When the permanent closure of the mill was announced, I met with workers at the plant, and I met with the management of MacMillan Bloedel, and I urged them to get together to see if there was a way that they could operate that plant, even on a reduced basis, with concessions from both sides, in a profitable manner. I told them I would not insist on them, or anyone else, running any plant at a loss. I think that would be irresponsible.

The company came forward — and there were some very good meetings, I understand from reports I received, between the local employees and the local management of the mill — and a proposition was made to the employees by the company that seemed to me to make quite a bit of sense. Had that been carried forward I'm sure you'd have some operation going there today, but it required concessions on the part of the employees and concessions on the part of MacMillan Bloedel, and required a sharing of the risks, so to speak. The concessions made by the employees, if the plant turned out to be profitable, could be repaid to them. I know that had the local employees been allowed to make that decision, without the small-p political interference from both the union hierarchy and other politicians in the area, something would have been worked out. The people there wanted to see something happen, but politicians began to stir the pot up and set each other at each other's throats rather than to sit down in a cooperative manner. As a result nothing happened, so the mill is now permanently closed.

My hope is that the company can now, with that effort of operating the old plant behind them, come up with a way of permanently providing employment there with a mill that is competitive in the international marketplace, because that's where they sell their products. If they can't do that they shouldn't do anything. If they can't do that, I've said — and I will repeat here — that I will take steps to make sure that an opportunity to put that wood to use is provided to other people in the private sector so that some employment can be maintained there.

The Leader of the Opposition is one of the politicians who stirred this pot in a negative manner during the election. He said his government would come in and put $50 million in: "We'll provide a plant for you." Well, that's not the way we have to spend government funds. If a plant cannot be established by MacMillan Bloedel that can operate profitably during the economic cycles, then we shouldn't have a MacMillan Bloedel plant there at all. Somebody else could perhaps do it, and will be given that opportunity.

I'll make a couple of other comments on things that very clearly demonstrate the difference between that party and our party in philosophy. I've said that we're wanting to downsize government to get government out of people's way, to have a more efficient, more productive public service. I don't subscribe to the fact that all civil servants are lazy; there are some who are lazy, just as there are some lazy people in the private sector. I simply subscribe to the fact that we have, over the years, allowed government to come in to do more and more things that can best be done in the private sector, and I intend to pursue the privatization direction, as I have in the past, even more in the future.

One comment made by the Leader of the Opposition during question period the other day strikes me as being an expression of how that party feels the public service should be. He said, referring to the appointment of Mr. Tozer as government agent in Kelowna — and I quote from the Blues, the afternoon sitting on Monday, June 27: "There are people who have spent 30 years of their lives waiting for jobs like this." Anybody in any organization that spends 30 years waiting for a job has no right to have a job at all. If there are people who have been working hard, learning, producing for 30 years, applying for that job, I'd say yes, they have to be considered, and I'm sure they were in the appointment of that job. Anyone who has spent 30 years anywhere waiting for a job should be fired right now.

My riding of Yale-Lillooet is quite a varied riding; I think it expresses in a small way the general economy of British Columbia. We have a large forestry sector in my riding and we have the capital of mining in B.C. in the Highland Valley, plus other mines in other communities. We have a large beef producing industry; we have a large, healthy and viable tourist industry; and we have small manufacturing plants in

[ Page 95 ]

that riding. Things have been tough there as they have been in other parts of the province during this last couple of years, but, you know, I didn't have anybody from anywhere in that riding at any time over this last couple of years blame the provincial government for what was happening. In fact, they were very pleased with the way the provincial government, through its administrative procedures, was helping the private sector survive the recession.

In my riding I have five school districts, four regional districts, incorporated municipalities, and over 40 communities of various sizes. I did not get great criticism from any of the five school districts, or the regional districts, or any of the five hospital districts about the necessity of restraint. They all recognized the need for that, and they all recognized, as we do in the provincial government, that we have allowed government spending to get somewhat out of control. There is a need for efficiency and there are things that can be done more effectively without reducing services. I know that in my five school districts, as in the rest of the province, their expenditures have gone up each year, even during the recession.

Although the odd member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation complained bitterly, because they thought they deserved to be treated better than the average person in society, I've had no complaints. In fact, I think the results of the election demonstrated the real philosophy of the people in my riding: they are free-enterprisers. The vote they provided me as a candidate this time was substantially higher than in the previous election. They recognized that it's not the government's fault that we had a recession; they also recognized that the direction in which we are going in trying to downsize government, to get the government out of people's way, is the direction in which they want to go. Many people who in previous years had not voted for me did so this time — not for me so much as for the party I represent, its philosophy and for good government, which goes without saying.

One member said that the only reason we got elected was because our right-wing propagandists had softened the gullible public; that's as close as I can quote it. I think that anybody who says that is saying to the public of British Columbia: "You're dumb; you can't make decisions for yourself; you can't believe that things are right; you can't establish your own philosophy." They said that the only reason we won was because the public was gullible to believe a lot of right-wing political propaganda. Well, I don't think that's true at all; I think the public of British Columbia are probably the best-informed anywhere in the free world. They made their decisions in the full knowledge of what was happening; quite frankly, I believe they were right. The years ahead of us will tell and will prove to them that they were right in selecting us as the government. They were right here just as they were in Saskatchewan when they rejected the socialists. They were right here just as they were in Great Britain recently, where they rejected socialism. In spite of a tough political medicine that the Prime Minister of Great Britain had to deal out over the last few years, the public recognized that those government-owned industries that were bankrupting the country, since turned over to the private sector, are not only no longer costing the government money. They are also being competitive in world marketplaces and are producing products of much better quality than anything they ever produced under socialist-government ownership.

The people of B.C. elected us to carry forward a program of freeing the private sector and allowing it to get on with its job in providing opportunities for people. As expressed in the throne speech, that is the direction in which we are going, I support everything that was expressed in the throne speech. I intend to remain a part of a government that carries forward with those ideals and plans.

MR. COCKE: I wish to add my congratulations, along with the other members, to yourself and to the Speaker. I would also like to congratulate all those new members in our assembly. I would like to congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor, not for the content but for the delivery. You see, Mr. Speaker, the content of that speech was written in the Premier's office, and I'm afraid that I must not extend my congratulations that far. The expectations have been met. It's a disastrous history and we will continue with that same disastrous history; there's more to come. I think that we have to admit that there is no question about who won the election. I will say this: we had it all fought for us again by the Minister of Forests, who used about two minutes of his speech this afternoon on the throne debate, when he should be telling us what he's going to do in order to assist a very fragile industry. Instead, he stood there and reworked the election in his own image. I would say to those who are gloating, and one does gloat in this business: don't gloat too hard; don't forget that it was three against one: the Liberals, the Tories and the Socreds. A very unholy coalition, I must confess, but nonetheless that's what that group over there represents. There are a few of the old Socreds around — not too many left now. There are some very, very interesting Tories whom I've been listening to through the back of my head, and there are also the Liberals, who cut and run. Three against one, and we didn't do all that badly under those circumstances. I can read it no other way, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly am not going to discuss the methods or conduct of the last election. It's of no great significance now. I would, however, like to say to the Minister of....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not what Yvonne said.

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, one of the best speeches so far from the opposition was the person who ran against the candidate whom Yvonne was working for, and I'm quite happy to admit that.

I'd like to say to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that he continues to bore the House to death with his history lesson and his forecasts. It's so funny when it comes from that member, the member who sold out in front of everybody in this province, the former leader of the Liberal Party, who came over there for a mess of pottage. He was the most outspoken critic in this House — and I sat and listened to him by the hour — of everything that Social Credit and Conservatism stood for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He saw the light.

MR. COCKE: He saw the light. Sometime, for those new members over there, may I suggest that you go to the library here and borrow a book called Politics in Paradise.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[4:45]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to speeches like

[ Page 96 ]

the one given by the Minister of Forests, I fear for us all because really what he said to us is that we have no plans for the future other than these new words that sound so great. We have new words in our dictionary: "privatize, " "downsize," all nice little catchwords that don't mean a darn thing as far as I'm concerned and as far as everybody else is concerned. Absolutely no content. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to my colleagues here: people who make no plans for the future will live to regret their past, and we'd better remember that.

The Socred coalition, in every word that I have heard to date and every word that I have seen, are the Today Gang. Anything to get through the day. Anything to manage to hold on to whatever we can do, but just for today. No future plans, no nothing. For an example, we have before us now restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Good idea.

MR. COCKE: Good idea. We'll discuss restraint. We'll talk about restraint in the next few minutes. We don't see any kind of government restraint with respect to their own good. We don't see any restraint on getting farmland out of the agricultural reserves. We do see restraint, however, in reforestation, in silviculture. What did the Minister of Forests say to us today in this House about plans for reforesting? He talked a little bit about mining in the Highland Valley, and that's cut back dramatically. No, he said nothing about reforestation, about silviculture. But that's where we see restraint. The future of our province still depends, despite the Minister of Science, so very much on the future of our forests, and we are neglecting our forests in such a way as to jeopardize for generations that fount of riches. There are lands all over this world.... China at one time was a great forested country. Now it is a desert in many of its regions because of the fact that they just cut and ran and didn't know any better. But that was generations and generations ago. You hear about the great forests of Lebanon — the cedars of Lebanon. They are all gone.

MR. REE: What about B.C.?

MR. COCKE: And they are going fast, too, because of the way they are handling it.

Another resource that is suffering from restraint is the children of our province. We see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) cutting back on children's services in the name of restraint. We see her deputy announcing policy about those children's services. I suggest that if we neglect that resource we are neglecting the most important resource that we have — the future generations of British Columbia. The long-term damage caused by this kind of stupid, thoughtless, mindless restraint will cost us forever.

We have problems in health care, which is another area suffering from restraint. It's a great day to get a cold.

MR. REE: The health system will fix you up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this — I'll deal more with health care in a few moments — that what the opposition has done, and did during the campaign, was to enunciate exactly what we saw. It will be dramatically shown within weeks that we were dead right, despite the fact that I was called a liar by interesting people in our province.

We will see the back-pedalling, and we will see the kinds of things that we predicted come to the fore.

I want to talk a little bit about restraint. I guess that's really what we are here to talk about in a way, because we want to know whether or not it can be believed. "Restraint" is a word introduced into this Legislature by the Premier of this province, who knows no bounds when it comes to restraint. His office is probably one of the most expensive offices in the country, How do you like $538,000 to run the Premier's office? That doesn't include Heal and a lot of the other people who report to him. The rest of those cabinet ministers who are actually, if they are doing their job, doing some ministerial work — don't forget that the Premier in this province is purely politics — average $149,000 each to run their offices, That's not bad. If you go right through the works, that's your average. But $538,000 to run the political office in this province? The Leader of the Opposition gets $60,000. Nice and easy and nice and level and nice and....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "A waste of money." That is the fascist mind at work. They only want it on one side.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps temperance can prevail.

MR. COCKE: Sure, and I'll withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, another word about restraint. Remember that sometime in May there was an election, and there is a magazine that is printed by the BCAA — the automobile association. There were 60 pages in that magazine altogether — guess how many with government ads or government content. Twenty.

In the June Westworld there was not one word from the government.

MR. REID: That's restraint!

MR. COCKE: That's restraint, all right — very convenient restraint. It's very much like the Premier's office — you don't restrain what you need to hang on to power.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, that minister from the Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser), who knows his statistics beautifully, he told me, for instance, that I had a reduced majority. I had 3,000 in 1979; I had some 3,500 in 1983. Now if that's a reduced majority, what are you talking about?

HON. A. FRASER: That's socialist arithmetic.

MR. COCKE: It works. The electoral officer believes it.

Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of restraint that we have come to know in this province: watching ads for months and months, spending millions and millions of dollars, but when it comes to the needs of children, when it comes to the needs of health care, that's where restraint really comes into force.

They talk about Crown corporations....

[ Page 97 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: And we're going to do something about them.

MR. COCKE: "And we're going to do something about them," the echo says. Practically every Crown corporation in this province was set up by the Socreds, and the biggest boondoggle of them all, with the exception of Hydro, is the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which is an utter disaster. If you are going to do anything about that, we will applaud it. It's a disaster. It is costing you infinitely more now to look after government services than it was when we had a Public Works ministry in this province, and you know it, we know it, and everybody else knows it. It is a system where you are allowed to borrow to do your work. Get it out of the budget; they'll fix it up. Mr. Speaker, they've been fixing things for a long, long time.

The restraint that we don't notice is in light rapid transit. Certainly it's too late to make any changes in terms of that light rapid transit that we decided to buy....

HON. MR. HEWITT: What did Jim Lorimer say about it?

MR. COCKE: I couldn't quite understand what he said about it. I'll admit that. And I might indicate it didn't do me a hell of a lot of good, either.

[5:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: You lost some of your majority.

MR. COCKE: Certainly, what's wrong with that? I understand politics.

Mr. Speaker, that light rapid transit was champagne taste gone nuts — absolutely champagne taste gone wild. When we get through paying for that we'll be long, long gone. I suggest that our kids will be paying for that for years to come, and probably their kids, and who knows if it will ever be paid for. They might even have to change the kind of transit that we have.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of areas that I'd like to cover. I'd like to take us through the throne speech — an interesting document, a hastily written piece of rhetoric. Let me tell you some of the good stuff. "I am advised," His Honour said, "that the most severe international recession since the thirties plagued the international economy in 1981-82." That's a very interesting statement. Remember what inspired or caused the 1930s Depression? It was conservative-inspired then, as this depression is conservative-inspired. Had it not been for three-quarters of the western world listening to Mr. Milton Friedman and his nutty ideas about monetarism and high interest rates, we wouldn't be in our present difficulty. Japan ignored those theories of his, and Japan has one of the healthiest economies in the world. The Netherlands, at the other end of the political spectrum, also ignored them and is also one of the countries not suffering to the extent the rest of us are,

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh?

MR. COCKE: That's right!

Their solution, as this throne speech indicates to me, is to climb out on the backs of working people, oftentimes making them unemployed in order to bring about this great recovery. He also said: "I am advised that our people are extending a helping hand to the weakest members of our society." Who might they be? Could they be Mr. Anderson? Mr. Carter? Mr. Pattison? Come on, who are you trying to kid with this kind of rhetoric!

They also said there is a mandate to encourage private sector confidence "by eliminating regulatory roadblocks, allowing greater scope for the free play of market forces." Who? Dawn Development? Is that who you are talking about? Yes, he's talking about Dawn Development. Give your friends — Mr. Anderson — an opportunity to go in and make millions and millions at the expense of everybody else in the area. There are 10,000 people in that area, which could not possibly service it for years; no planning, just yard it out of the agricultural land reserve. Spetifore makes his millions, Anderson will make his millions, and the public be damned. All this in the name of "taking away the roadblocks." If you take away the roadblocks from young people to find jobs, then you're doing something of significance. But when you're taking away the roadblocks from these developers, who are high-flyers as far as I am concerned, you're not doing anybody a favour.

There's an awful lot of talk about the agricultural land reserve being in jeopardy, I think it would be a significant shame....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Proof is easy. Developers only want one thing, and you can't blame them — lots. What kind of lots? Nice flat land, easy to develop, and often that's the land that grows our food.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Non-productive my foot!

HON. A. FRASER: How about the people? They've got to have someplace to live.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and there's all sorts of room for them out on the other side. Its a very serious matter, and if we don't view it seriously here.... Maybe we won't live to regret it, but generations of people in this province will be denied access to food because of our short-sightedness in this generation. California had the same kinds of stupid rules that you want.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're on the way out.

MR. COCKE: I'm down to 56, 57 percent of the vote. I'm on my way out. Tough beans.

Anyway, one day California will come to us and say: "Our people get first dibs on our own food." And at that point we'd better have enough agricultural land to produce food here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Peddle that malarkey in some other arena.

MR. COCKE: A minister of the Crown in this province! I hope history records that statement. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, none other, said that it's "malarkey" when we talk about food for future generations in this province. What a shocking statement!

[ Page 98 ]

I'd like you to look at another page. We're talking now in terms of this privatizing. Privatizing, say the good old right wingers. What are we going to privatize? The Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Isn't that the cutest venture you ever heard? Who's going to be the lucky bidder? Dave Brown. Oh, yes, the longtime pal of the Premier. That's going to save money. How? What it will do is cut the number of public servants working in the Tourism ministry. It will give Dave Brown a very bountiful income, and the magazine will be moved. There will be about 30 or 40 people who will lose their jobs in the ministry, and I would suggest that that magazine more than pays for itself. Wait until it's littered with booze ads and cigarette ads and all the rest of it when it's privatized. One of the most credible things that the Tourism ministry in this province does today is produce that magazine. It goes to every country in the world, as far as I know. It's one of the few things done by that government that I enjoy reading, because it's about one of the most beautiful places on earth, and they've done an absolutely magnificent job of telling everybody just how beautiful this province is. And we say turn it over.

That is the kind of privatization — if that's what this word is. It's so meaningless when you say that you're going to take something that's good and productive in our province and just flip it away, turn it over to a private agency and say: "Go your best licks." It's absolutely stupid!

Now that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is back, I would like to know why he didn't talk to us about silviculture. Why didn't he talk to us about his plans for the future of our province? "Use it or lose it," he used to say. He proudly used to suggest: "We'll certainly make sure that the province's forests are protected and encouraged to grow." But we've seen a major setback in this area. He's gone again, so I'll just get off that and go on with what I think is also a very scary situation in the throne speech.

I think that on page 11 you'll find: "Accordingly, you will be asked to consider measures to improve the state of industrial relations in our province." People who should know better about making statements that are going to be creating labour unrest in B.C. are doing just that. They're actually calling for the destabilization of unions in the name of democratization. What a lot of rubbish! True democracy in unions is the ability to vote for what.... You have the right to expect to have your meetings to elect your officers; more than that, you need a government with some understanding, one that will provide their laws in a reasonable climate.

[5:15]

The Labour Code was acknowledged to be — it certainly was until you started making inroads into it — the best piece of labour legislation in North America.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: If you don't believe it, take a look at what has happened since the Labour Code — the best labour climate we have ever had in this province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Have you no memories? Go back prior to 1972. Don't you remember the Mediation Commission, for crying out loud? We had trouble; we had chaos; we had strikes; we had nothing but unrest.

HON. A. FRASER: Hooey!

MR. COCKE: That's no hooey. You were too young then. You didn't understand it, but the rest of us did.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Those were the years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't know. I'm an innocent young fellow, Mr. Speaker. I try to get along with people on both sides of the Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It must be somewhere after 5 o'clock.

MR. COCKE: It must be. Leather Lungs is working overtime.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the the members to come to order and allow the member for New Westminster to conclude his remarks.

MR. COCKE: In any event, I would like to suggest that any move made with respect to labour-management industrial relations better be made very thoughtfully. The kinds of suggestions we've heard to date are totally without thought, without wisdom and without any kind of planning. That is not the way we want to see the province go.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions with respect to ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The biggest overruns our province has ever seen, besides the overrun of verbiage that comes from that mindless group over there, have been Socred overruns. Don't give us the garbage. You're so deeply in debt that you didn't dare bring out a budget until after you had an election. It's the most dishonest, deceitful thing that has ever occurred in the province of British Columbia. Don't give us any of that stuff about overruns.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Don't get nervous over there.

Unfortunately I'm running out of time, so let me suggest two or three things to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I would suggest very strongly that ICBC should continue in the general insurance business. They are probably getting a bit of a bad name in auto insurance. I think they are a little high-handed and one thing and another. But in general insurance they are the best corporate general insurance offering in this province.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They're the only one.

MR. COCKE: I'm talking about general insurance. The minister knows it. They are absolutely the best, in my opinion. I have talked to an awful lot of agents who can handle

[ Page 99 ]

anybody's insurance. I suggest very strongly that we do not move out of that area. I've heard ripplings around my own constituency that that is a possibility. I hope it does not happen. It's not that I suggest it should be a window on the industry. One of the reasons is the jobs, of course. They would go right out of the province; they'd go to other headquarters: Hartford, Connecticut, Bay Street, or wherever. But besides that there's the investment. The casualty companies, for some unknown reason.... I don't say this about the life companies; I think the life companies have been very equitable with respect to the way they invest their money. If their premium income from British Columbia is X, then they have a proportionate amount invested in that province or that jurisdiction. But the casualty companies could never be talked into that. So I suggest to you that if we sell that out, if we close it down, I think we're doing a tremendous disservice not only to the insureds in the province who want it but also to the general economy of the province and to those people that are selling insurance.

I can remember the days when if you lived in some areas in this province you could not find general insurance. There was no company to serve you, and I think that's unfair.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I've run out of time. I promised myself that today — of all days — I wouldn't do that. Thank you for all your time and patience.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I have the honour to rise in this House today as the newly elected member for Okanagan North. Before I begin my remarks, I would just like to say how very proud I am to be a member of this House and how proud I am to represent my constituents here in the Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election as Speaker of this House and to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the House for their success in the recent election. In particular, I would like to offer my congratulations to the members who, like myself, are here for the first time. I look forward to working with all of them. I would also like to congratulate the Premier and the members of the executive council on the resounding mandate given to them by the people of British Columbia in the recent election. I will also offer my condolences to the hon. members of the NDP, who must be feeling a bit lonely now that some of their colleagues have been retired from this House.

I represent the people of Okanagan North, and ours is one of the most fortunate ridings in this province. It is a riding blessed with a diversified economy and an enormous economic, social and recreational potential. The area's economy is based on lumber, dairying, fruit-growing, vegetable-farming and beef production, and the natural beauty of the riding has also given us a thriving tourist industry. People from all over the world come to enjoy our beautiful beaches and hiking trails in the summer, and the magnificent skiing at Silver Star Mountain in the winter. The riding's major urban centre is Vernon, a growing city which has become the distribution centre for the entire northern Okanagan. The business community now serves people in communities as far north as Revelstoke and as far east as Nakusp, and all the way over to the Columbia River. Vernon is also a wonderful place to live: it offers all the amenities and conveniences of the city, but it retains the friendly and cooperative spirit of a smaller community. The people are very community-minded and proud of their area.

The people of Okanagan North have been represented in this House by a member of the Social Credit Party for more than 30 years. I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to my predecessor, Pat Jordan, who represented the riding for 17 of those years. Mrs. Jordan will always be remembered for the dedication and sincerity with which she represented her constituents. She was a tireless worker and sought to make things better for everyone in the riding, regardless of political philosophy. I would like to express my own appreciation and that of my constituents for Mrs. Jordan's efforts on behalf of all the people of Okanagan North.

MR. LEA: A wonderful person.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. I'm glad that the people in the opposition appreciated her as much as the people of Okanagan North did, and I shall convey to her your appreciation.

I would like to turn my attention now to a few of the larger questions facing the House today, questions which affect the lives of everyone in British Columbia. It has long been recognized that British Columbia's health-care system, its schools and its social services are among the best in the world, particularly under the Social Credit government. The throne speech makes it very clear that this government is committed to keeping it that way. Ever since it came to power in 1975, Premier Bennett's government has been committed to providing high-quality services to British Columbians, and that is not an idle promise. It is a promise which has been realized by the people in every town, every city and every region in this province.

Premier Bennett's government is equally committed to providing these services in a responsible way — in a way which will not become a drain on the public taxpayer or interfere with the ability of the private sector to lead us out of this recession. Let us make no mistake about this. The government is committed to maintaining essential services for all British Columbians, but it is also committed to the development of a strong and healthy private sector — a private sector which enjoys a positive business climate in which to grow and develop the new ideas and technologies which will produce more jobs. The government's program is designed to stimulate the economy through the private sector, to create jobs for all our people, and to ensure better employment-training opportunities for British Columbians. It is really a program of fiscal responsibility. It is based on the reality of our economic circumstances. It takes into account the limited ability of the provincial taxpayer to pay for government programs and services. It is a plan which will force governments to live within their means while still providing the essential programs and services our people expect.

The Social Credit government of British Columbia does not wish to create a permanent burden of public debt for future generations through irresponsible borrowings. British Columbia's triple-A credit rating reflects the prudence and responsibility of Premier Bennett's government. It takes careful and intelligent management to preserve the highest possible credit rating during such a severe recession, and our government's rating stands as a testimonial to the wisdom of our policies.

[5:30]

The Premier's program for economic recovery is comprehensive, forward-looking and far-reaching. It is based on

[ Page 100 ]

the twin themes of restraint and recovery. Both of these aspects are necessary in order to achieve the ultimate objective of a healthy, growing economy, a strong private sector, and an equitable and compassionate society.

I am pleased to be able to say that the program is working. The program has been successful in restraining the growth of government spending and in promoting economic recovery. The government's restraint program has succeeded in bringing the rising cost of government under control. It offers us the prospect of a leaner, more productive public service in the future. On May 5 the public demanded less government in their lives. Provincial government expenditures were reduced by $158 million from those originally forecast in the 1982-83 budget, and public-sector wage settlements have finally been brought into line with those in the private sector. That is fiscal responsibility in action.

When the compensation stabilization program was introduced in February 1982, the average public-sector wage increase was 17.4 percent. That was 2.4 percent higher than the settlements in the private sector. Last month the average public-sector wage increase was 2.8 percent, only 4/10 of a percentage point higher than those in the private sector. These figures indicate that great progress has been made in the battle to control government spending. The government restraint program will ensure that the economic recovery is not strangled by rising taxes, inflation and bureaucratic red tape.

The second phase of the program, that of promoting economic recovery through the private sector, has been equally successful. Thanks to this strategy, the provincial economy has finally turned the corner. Consumer spending is up, housing starts are increasing, and production throughout British Columbia is once again on the rise. In fact, the provincial output of goods and services is now expected to rise by 2.5 percent this year, and by 5 to 7 percent in 1984.

The government has fostered this economic recovery by promoting the sale of B.C. products in world markets, and by restoring investor confidence in the province at a time when there was little confidence elsewhere in the western world. I think that's the one great thing that happened in this May 5 election: investor confidence has been reinstalled in British Columbia. We should all be proud of this achievement. It has gone a long way towards keeping our economy going during these very difficult times. Let me assure you that this government will continue to work for their corporate citizens to ensure that B.C.'s business climate is a healthy one, one which encourages and promotes job creating opportunities in the private sector, and where the spirit of entrepreneurship will feel wanted and welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to some of the exciting things which are happening in this province as a result of this government's initiative. The most famous project is northeast coal, the largest single resource-development project in Canada today. Construction work on the northeast coal project has already provided direct employment for 6,800 people this year. In addition there will be another 2, 230 permanent jobs in mining, transportation and port-handling created when the mines begin operating later in the year. The project will also create thousands of spin-off jobs as businesses throughout British Columbia gear up to supplying the goods and services needed by these new industries and by the men and women who work in them. It has been estimated that northeast coal could generate as many as 18,000 to 28,000 direct and indirect jobs, depending on the future market and economic conditions. These are real jobs, not temporary, make-work jobs sponsored by governments. These are permanent jobs created through the private sector — jobs which will produce real goods and services for the benefit of everyone in this province, and pay taxes to support the social services that we are providing.

B.C. Place is another example of government allowing the private sector to work for everyone. The B.C. Place stadium, which opened right on schedule on June 19, is the showpiece of the greatest urban renewal project in Canadian history. This stadium will employ about 1,000 people on a full- and part-time basis and will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the economy of British Columbia. I would hope that the labour problems that are being looked at there now will not be serious or detrimental to the B.C. stadium. In addition, the B.C. Place development will create about 2,000 jobs every year during the 20 years of the project's development.

Greater Vancouver's advanced light rapid transit system is another example of....

AN HON. MEMBER: The spirit of B.C.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right on! The Spirit of B.C. is a job-creation project which will benefit everyone when it is finished in 1986. The system will be one of the most modern and innovative urban transportation systems in the world. It will be quiet and cost-efficient, yet it will be capable of carrying up to 20,000 people per hour The first phase of the ALRT project will create 3,400 full- and part-time jobs and will generate 6,000 to 8,000 spin-off jobs in construction and fabricating industries. ALRT will also provide a tremendous boost to British Columbia's growing high-technology industries.

While I'm on the subject, I think that most of us realize the importance of promoting the high-technology sectors of our economy. The development of our high-technology industries is essential to our future economic growth and prosperity. For this reason our government is funding research and development programs which will help British Columbian entrepreneurs make effective use of our natural and human resources. These initiatives are an integral part of the recovery process in British Columbia. They are creating opportunities for the private sector to act. They are reducing the need for people to rely on the government for solutions. They are encouraging individuals to achieve their full potential through their own initiative and effort. At the same time, Premier Bennett's program for economic recovery is based on sound financial planning and cooperation with the private sector. It has enabled us to promote recovery while maintaining a high standard of government service and the high quality of life British Columbians expect and deserve.

British Columbia has an excellent educational system, and the government is committed to keeping it that way. We will continue to provide positive, effective leadership in the financial management of the school system and in the area of educational reform. Although the government has been forced to adopt stringent measures to deal with our current economic times, it has refused to jeopardize the quality of education in this province. In fact, last year's increase of 16 percent in the education budget was designed to prevent any possible deterioration of the province's public school system.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that we have excellent care facilities in this province. We may consider

[ Page 101 ]

ourselves very fortunate in that we enjoy one of the finest and most comprehensive health care systems in the world.

Health care continues to be the government's number one priority. Despite all our well-publicized spending restraints, a higher proportion of the 1982-83 provincial budget was devoted to health care than in any other province: about 30 percent. This represented a 13 percent increase over the 1981-82 budget.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Premier Bennett has demonstrated its competence, its courage and its compassion in adopting these measures. Introducing the restraint program and encouraging the private sector have not been popular decisions in some ways, but they were the right decisions.

This province cannot afford those socialistic quick-fix and make-work programs to stimulate the economy, and the voters agreed with this concept on May 5. The days when problem-solving consisted of pouring millions of dollars on an issue are gone. This thinking left with the demise of the socialist government in 1975. No, Mr. Speaker, wasteful spending is not the answer to our problem. The answer to our problem lies in the courage and determination of our people who want to work.

Mr. Speaker, the fruit-growing industry is another place that I would like to elaborate on, and that does need reviewing. The fruit-growers in the Okanagan are going through very difficult times financially. The naked price of apples to our growers for the 1982 crop year is just in excess of 5 cents per pound. The growers cannot continue to produce with these returns. I believe the tree-fruit industry must examine all phases of operation so that a greater return can be achieved by the growers. I do believe this government must restore worker democracy to the workplace. I believe changes are needed in the Labour Relations Act, changes that will bring more stability to our province and less confrontation between workers and management.

[5:45]

The previous speaker said that basically all Crown corporations had been set up by the Social Credit government. The following Crown corporations were set up by the NDP government: B.C. Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Development Corporation, Ocean Falls Corporation, B.C. Cellulose Company, Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products and the granddaddy of them all, ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying how proud I am to be a member of this government. I am proud to be a member of the Bennett team in building the future of British Columbia. I am proud to be a member of this House and to have this chance to serve my constituents in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I am somewhat awed by the responsibility which comes with being a government member during these very difficult times, but I would like to assure the other members of this House that I will do my best to live up to those responsibilities in the days to come. I look forward to the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Campbell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon Mr. Brummet tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Environment for the year 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the financial statements for the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.