[ Page 133 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M202). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 133

Oral Questions

Duties of Doug Heal. Mr. Hanson –– 133

Jesco Financial Services contract. Mr. Macdonald –– 134

Rentalsman's office. Mr. Blencoe –– 134

Hospital user fees in Quesnel. Mrs. Dailly –– 134

Removal of Spetifore land from ALR. Hon. Mr. Schroeder replies –– 135

Throne speech debate

Ms. Sanford –– 135

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 139

Mr. Lea –– 143

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 147

Mr. Lauk –– 149

Mr. Reynolds –– 154

Division –– 157

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon is the bursar of one of Vancouver Island's fine vocational technical institutions, Camosun College, Mr. Beryl Hastings. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.

MR. HANSON: Last evening, at 8:18 p.m., the second member for Victoria and his wife Victoria Blencoe gave birth to a child. I would like you to join me in welcoming this new young son.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to welcome a young Richmond resident who is in the gallery today to watch the proceedings, Mr. Joshua Chamberlain.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Frieda Smith and Miss Elsie Hager, who have been very active in the federal political scene with the Conservative Party for years. I would ask this House to welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like the House to join me in welcoming two people from the ferry workers' union, Mr. Eric Payne and Mr. Roger Carter.

HON. MR. McGEER: If you have a very sharp eye, Mr. Speaker, you will detect in my lapel a button for the World University Games now being held in Edmonton. A number of our athletes have been extremely successful so far in winning medals for Canada; others are still in competition. I'm sure that the Legislative Assembly would want to wish all of our athletes participating in those university games well, and to know that many of them have held athletic scholarships from this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon are two very good friends of mine, Mayor Danny Sharpe and alderman Arvo Lige from the beautiful municipality of Pitt Meadows. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the Speaker's gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Irwin Van Vorst of Osoyoos and their son Warren and daughter Michele. Michele is the winner of the "Hands Across the Border" essay contest, and is here as a guest of the Ministry of Tourism. On behalf of the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and myself, I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Seated in the gallery today with my wife and her father, who I have had the opportunity to introduce at a previous occasion, are a couple more visiting Australians: good friends of mine from Sydney, Australia, Dick and Audrey Webster. Mr. and Mrs. Webster are on the tail end of a world trip, and I want to tell you that they left the best until the last. They're very impressed with British Columbia, and they think that Vancouver, while not as nice as Sydney, is certainly up to Sydney's standard. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this afternoon are two good friends of my great secretary, Ina Ludtke — Margaret and Christine McDonald. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: We have in the House today four people from Vernon of the great constituency of Okanagan North, David, Merna, Aileen and Al King. Would you give a good welcome to them, please.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M 202, Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1983, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DUTIES OF DOUGLAS HEAL

MR. HANSON: I'd like to address a question to the Premier with respect to restraint coming from the cabinet orders-in-council, namely Mr. Heal's recent pay increase. Can the Premier advise the House why the government gave its chief image-maker, Mr. Douglas Heal, a pay increase of more than $10,000 — an 18 percent increase per annum by a cabinet order of June 16?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would propose that this question normally be given to the minister responsible for information, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). But I think if the member has been aware, Mr. Heal's duties and responsibilities have been greatly expanded.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the Premier that his signature is on the order. Surely he would like to be informed of what the matter is. Would the Premier advise the House in detail of the scope of Mr. Heal's new duties?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that might elicit a rather lengthy response. Quite possibly it might be a question better placed on the order paper. Members who ask questions which are rather open-ended have very little reason for debate if the question carries on. I would remind the member of that. Possibly he could reduce the scope of the question or rephrase it, or if the Premier wishes to answer....

MR. HANSON: What are Mr. Heal's new duties?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member is probably aware, because it has received a great deal of attention from those who report the goings on in the government and what's happening, Mr. Heal's responsibilities now are to coordinate the information services of government to effect great savings for the people; to be able to coordinate and bring together the number of people with a view to reducing the number of people needed to provide information, with a view to reducing the number of publications, with a view to getting more efficiency. The member was quite correct in prefacing his first question by saying that this was a restraint measure. He's absolutely right.

[ Page 134 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has put his signature on three orders-in-council recently for pay reclassifications for Mr. Bailey, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Heal. Has the Premier decided to refer this whole matter to Mr. Peck in the compensation stabilization program?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Peck is quite able to review any appointment made in government. As you know, Mr. Peck has already commented on the other appointments.

MR. HANSON: Is the Premier then advising all other ministries that they can reclassify upward to the tune of $10,000 per annum at their own discretion, separate and apart from any restraint program? Is that what you're saying to the other ministers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. You've already asked me about my own office and one other ministry because of the fact that I sign all orders-in-council. So you've already started embarking on other ministries.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier advised me last week that Norman Spector had the authority in his office to develop a $100,000 severance package for himself without even referring to you. Will you then invite the Auditor-General to come in and review the auditing procedures in your office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not advise the member that the other day.

JESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES CONTRACT

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. His department has had a contract with Jesco Financial Services to engage Mr. Ian Jessiman on the civil side in the department, and he flies back between Winnipeg to Victoria for his duties. Has that contract been extended effective July 1, or any other date?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will give the member a long answer to his question, but the short answer is that there's been no extension to that contract during my term. The contract is still running and has some time to run. I can give the details of the duration of it to the member, and I will do so.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary question. Does the public of British Columbia pay the flying expenses, or any part of them, for Mr. Jessiman so he can do his business in Winnipeg and his business at a figure of $5,400 a month paid to his company? Do we pay travel expenses too?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would think not, but I will review the contract, as I said, and I'll inform the member. As I recall the contract, it gives the other party the right to spend a certain amount of time, for business purposes, in Winnipeg, but he does that at his own expense, including travel.

MR. MACDONALD: Since the Attorney-General doesn't know too much about it and I don't know too much about it, will you table the contract in this House? It's public business. Will you give that undertaking now?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General decided to table that contract in this House?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, but he's decided to give a prompt response to your question upon perusing the contract.

RENTALSMAN'S OFFICE

MR. BLENCOE: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the rentalsman, Mr. Jim Patterson, has been recalled urgently from vacation leave to attend a meeting in Vancouver tomorrow, that meeting to be chaired by the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Victoria on the birth of his son. Secondly, no, I can't confirm that.

MR. BLENCOE: On a supplementary to the same minister, can the minister confirm that the substance of that meeting or any subsequent meeting is to inform Mr. Patterson that the government has decided to withdraw all protection against unjustified rent increases from B.C. tenants?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, hon. member, may or may not be answered by the minister.

HOSPITAL USER FEES IN QUESNEL

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health. In view of the report that the hospital in Quesnel is now asking and demanding cash in advance for the full length of projected hospital stays, could the minister advise this House whether he agrees with this requirement of prepayment for hospital user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know of the report. Nonetheless, the hospitals are autonomous bodies and have a duty to manage their affairs, including their financial affairs. I've had no complaints from anyone with respect to this prepayment requirement, and I have had no information provided to me from anyone who objects to it.

The hospitals have an opportunity and a responsibility in their financial affairs, and if they deem it necessary to seek some prepayment — I don't know whether it's for the entire stay — it may be to their advantage in limiting any bad debts. I don't know whether it would be causing a hardship on any individuals, but the hospitals, to a very large degree, have autonomy. I'd have to find out what negative effect it may be causing before we would determine if it were a policy we would support.

MRS. DAILLY: In view of the fact that the minister was on a CBC morning program commenting on the hospital administrator in Quesnel's rationalization for the imposition of these fees, would he confirm that he was not aware of this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, for many years I have not presumed CBC to be a reliable source of information.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the minister followed the administrator and commented on what the administrator in

[ Page 135 ]

Quesnel had said, so I would say that there is something here that isn't quite coming together. I would like to ask a supplementary to the minister. You still have not answered my basic question: are you in favour of prepayment of hospital user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't be responsible for the production of a CBC program. If they had an interview with the administrator on, that's their decision to make. I was not privy to it. I did not hear that interview, and I was only speaking with the broadcaster, not the administrator.

If it is to better serve the need of the hospital, with respect to limiting bad debts, I would think that we may agree with the hospitals that they utilize that method of fiscal management, if it is to their advantage and does not create unnecessary hardship for citizens of the province.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is not concerned, then, about this imposition, but I would also like to ask him this: is he not aware that the hospital administrator did suggest that the reason for the imposition was because of lack of government financing, not their bad debts?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware that the administrator of that hospital has made contact with the ministry at all. What private conversation or public conversation he may have had with the CBC broadcaster is not determining policy in the ministry or at the hospital, presumably.

MRS. DAILLY: A further supplementary. Is the Minister of Health not concerned that one of the hospitals under his jurisdiction as Minister of Health is creating an atmosphere of extreme trauma for people who enter the hospital and who do not have the money yet are told they must pay before they can be accepted? Does this not concern the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned if any action by any hospital is causing extreme trauma. I would also be very appreciative of receiving any information that would support that claim.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister telling this House that if a hospital decides to impose these fees he does not consider, without waiting for a report on it, that this would cause trauma to someone on any occasion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think I would at least like to have some of the information and perhaps some reports as to what effect this is having on any person. I am not going to presume that being asked to pay a $7.50 per diem for four days is going to result in a person suffering extreme trauma.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a final supplementary. I don't think the minister quite understands that someone could arrive in a hospital and be told that they cannot enter unless they have the money now. Is the minister accepting that kind of policy now being implemented in this province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I guess we're developing a hypothetical situation now, since the member has not produced any information that supports her argument that this is occurring. If the member has any information about a person having been denied service in a hospital in British Columbia because they are unable to prepay their per diem rate and therefore having suffered from extreme trauma, I would be very interested in seeing that information; otherwise, it's hypothetical.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to ask the minister again whether he is not concerned about the traumatic conditions being created in hospitals in B.C. by the question being asked of ill patients when they enter: "Have you the money to pay the prepayment for your fee?"

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept from the member for Burnaby North that extreme trauma is being created in hospitals because of what she presumes is occurring in some hospital, be it Quesnel or elsewhere. If extreme trauma is occurring because of actions taken by persons within some hospitals, we'd be very pleased to review it. The information has not been provided to me in any form. I repeat: a broadcast on CBC does not constitute, in my mind, evidence of extreme trauma being created.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister assure this House that he will look into the matter of the present situation in the hospital in. Quesnel. where these prepayments are being charged? Would he report back to the House on it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr, Speaker, I would be most pleased to respond to any case the member identifies — in some detail, I hope.

REMOVAL OF SPETIFORE
LAND FROM ALR

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, in the question period just before today's I took as notice a question, the operative part of which is: "Has the government decided to rescind order-in-council 3381?" The answer is no.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I've had to add my congratulations on your election as Speaker of this Legislature. It's also the first opportunity that I've had to add my congratulations to those of the other members to the Deputy Speaker on his appointment to his new position.

Mr. Speaker, you’re getting a great deal of publicity these days. This is more publicity than I have known any other Speaker to obtain in recent years. Now usually Speakers do not get quoted in the papers, and usually Speakers do not have the opportunity to be heard on the radio, and usually Speakers do not meet with reporters in the offices of their chambers. So this is really quite an unusual occurrence that we have seen here, Mr. Speaker. We know that Speakers generally do not like that kind of publicity and do not seek it.

[ Page 136 ]

[2:30]

MR SPEAKER: Order, please. I must caution the member that the current course the member is pursuing is somewhat out of order in regard to the standards and traditions of this chamber.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, well, now that's a very interesting comment coming from Mr. Speaker this afternoon. I am simply referring to the usual conduct of members in this Legislature, which I think is quite acceptable during a throne speech debate. I see nothing wrong with it. I don't know why you should be objecting, Mr. Speaker.

Over the years we have found we know very little about the constituencies represented by Speakers of this Legislature. Very rarely do we hear anything about the hospital problems in the constituency of Delta; nor do we hear about Human Resources problems or ICBC problems that people might face in the constituency of Delta. But this issue, which relates first of all to the removal of land from the agricultural land reserve, and then to a decision by an elected body — namely the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which does not wish to rezone that land at this point for development — is of such import to the MLA for Delta that he has felt he must change his usual course and comment on a land deal within his own constituency. He has broken tradition. He has spoken his mind, and he certainly left very little doubt of his feelings about a decision of the GVRD respecting the development of that particular land. For the information of those in the gallery, that land used to be the Spetifore farm.

MR. REID: It used to be. It won't be farmed again.

MS. SANFORD: It won't be farmed again. I see.

This particular land was once the Spetifore farm, a potato farm out in the Delta area. It was removed by cabinet from the agricultural land reserve and now, some two years later, this land is proposed for the development of a massive housing development and for some parkland. An order-in-council was passed in 1981, removing that land from the ALR. The order-in-council stated that the land would be removed from the ALR and could be developed, with the provision that some of it be set aside for housing and parkland, that proper diking be done, etc. Now that the GVRD has decided the land will not be used for development — they have turned down the rezoning request — it seems to me this government has the duty to cancel that order-in-council passed in 1981 in order to restore the land to the ALR, where it belongs. That land is good farmland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you ever been out there to look at it?

MS. SANFORD: I have read the reports of the soils experts, Mr. Minister. They know far more than I do about soils and the capabilities of soils to produce food. Obviously the Speaker has said he has no faith in the decision of the agrologists on this; no faith in the decision of the soils specialists; no faith in the government-appointed Land Commission, which said: "Leave the land in the ALR, because it is capable of producing food." This Speaker has said that the land indeed should be developed. He supports his friend the developer in an attempt to have housing put on that land. At the same time, he also tells us that he somehow feels the Premier and his cabinet colleagues are somewhat superior to other elected bodies, such as the GVRD, and that they should be overruled and the decision changed to let the development go ahead.

We know there is a tremendous amount of money to be made in that particular development. We know, when you have housing that is going to serve some 10,000 people, there are people who stand to make millions on this particular development. We know the speculators and developers, just can't wait to get started on developing that agricultural land for housing purposes. I support the GVRD and the decision it made the other day to turn down this application at this point.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor and should be allowed to continue uninterrupted.

MS. SANFORD: I was disappointed at the end of question period to hear the response of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) when he said that the government has decided that they're not going to rescind that order-in-council. That certainly is an issue that we will be pursuing further during the debate on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's estimated expenditures later on.

With respect to the direction that has been outlined in the throne speech itself, I have a great number of concerns. I think that this government has embarked on a direction that certainly alarms a lot of people in this province, and those of us who sit on this side of the Legislature. I think that the actions and the direction that the government points to in its throne speech show a particularly short-sighted attitude on the part of those people who are elected to govern this province. It's really tunnel vision, because it's those people who are at the bottom end of the income scale in this province who are the ones who are hardest hit by the direction and actions of this particular government.

We heard the other day from the MLA for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), who pointed out to the Legislature that in this country today 20 percent of the population shares 43 percent of the total wealth of the country. We also found out that 20 percent of the population share only 4 percent of the total income of Canada. He pointed out that this was an unfair situation, and a situation which has not changed, even after a number of government programs have been introduced over the years, such as UIC, old age pensions, medicare, and hospitalization — aside from the user fees that this government wants to charge the people of the province. What it means is that you have a tunnel-vision approach in terms of the directions that the government is taking in cutting services left, right and centre, tied in with a callous attitude towards the people. They obviously have no concern about the fact that 20 percent of the population shares only 4 percent of the income, and they're the ones that are going to be hardest hit by the kind of cuts that these people are embarked upon. You tie that in with callousness and arrogance — the kind of arrogance displayed by that Premier, which we've never seen in this province before — and it's the people of the province who are going to be suffering over the next few

[ Page 137 ]

years with the kind of right-wing direction that this government has taken. They're going to be suffering.

I would like to give you a couple of examples of the kind of cuts that we have already seen. In the city of Courtenay, we've just recently had the closure of an alcohol treatment centre for women. That alcohol treatment centre was closed because of lack of government funding. That centre treated many women on Vancouver Island who needed alcohol treatment programs in order to take their place back in society. I happen to know one person in particular who successfully went through that alcohol treatment program in Courtenay. As a result, her family is now able to cope and is prevented from having to call on all kinds of other resources in this province, such as those provided through the Attorney-General's ministry for juvenile delinquents and the health services for mental health problems that develop. The family of this particular person who went through that particular alcohol treatment program successfully is now doing extremely well, thanks to the money that was made available at that time in order to ensure that that family could be held together. That program has now been cancelled. The doors of that treatment centre have been shut. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that through the tunnel vision of that particular government, the cost to the taxpayers down the road for the other families of those people who will no longer receive treatment at that centre are going to be building up to the extent where we are going to face higher and higher costs down the road because of the immediate actions of this government in its right-wing approach to economics.

What they do not see is that for every service cut that they are making at this point, it is going to cost us more money down the road. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) this morning talked about the NDP and their desire to pay counsellors to assist young people who were suffering from various mental disorders or breakdowns in personality for one reason or another. She said at that time that they cannot afford to pay that kind of money to provide counsellors to ensure that there are alcohol treatment centres and that these various services are provided.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's fine, Mr. Speaker, if you have the money with which to buy the various services that you might need. It's fine if you are a woman who is facing a divorce and has to go to court and has enough money to pay for a lawyer to ensure that she gets a decent deal out of the whole thing. Then it's fine, but most of those women who are facing a divorce do not have any money and they don't have any legal representation. As a result they fall even further down in that 20 percent who are already sharing 4 percent of the income.

[2:45]

The comments that I hear around this chamber on the government side, Mr. Speaker, are indeed frightening. I hear the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) talking about privatizing the hospitals. He does not want any government involvement at all in the delivery of hospital services in this province. He has said that time and time again. I hear those comments day after day from this particular seat. This morning I heard the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) applauding the fact that perhaps the rentalsman's office will be done away with. She was applauding it. Does she not have any of those people who are in that 20 percent who are sharing 4 percent of the income of this province and who need the services of a rentalsman because they do not have the money to go to court when they have a problem with their particular landlord? If you don't have the rentalsman, that's going to be their alternative. There is no legal aid for them. Does that first member for Surrey not understand that the rentalsman's office in this province provides a service to try to keep these various difficulties that develop between landlord and tenant out of court? I don't think she understands that, Mr. Speaker. Based on what I've heard. I don’t think that most of the newly elected members to this Legislature have any understanding at all of the 20 percent of the people within their constituencies that they are supposed to represent in this House who currently are sharing only 4 percent of the total income. Those are the people who need the services in health. Those are the ones that don't want to prepay their hospital bills when they go in, because they don't have the money. Those are the ones who need the services of a rentalsman. Many of them are the ones who need the services of a counsellor in the Attorney-General's ministry because of the difficulties that the young people in that family are having with the law. Those are the people who need alcohol treatment centres.

Right here in Victoria the funding has now been discontinued for an organization called SAVA, which is the Sexual Abuse Victims Anonymous. They've now had to discontinue their services because the government does not think that these services are important enough. Yet we hear the Minister of Human Resources this morning bragging about the kind of money they are pouring into places like B.C. Place, Transpo and all of these things, which is okay, but for heaven's sake provide the services for the people who need them.

When you cut out legal aid you present problems for those people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income levels. You cut back on services such as alcohol treatment, those who are victims of sexual abuse, and those who, for instance, are attempting to fund group homes and prevent the kind of expenditures that society will have to face in the future when these people end up in jails — like the organization in Richmond. Those are the people who right now are going to be suffering even more under this government and the approach that it is taking. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it's going to cost us all more in the long run. and I think they know it.

The other thing is that it's all done in the name of restraint. But restraint is not the Premier's objective. We know that. He knows that. The government knows that, and even the backbenchers know that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You just squeaked in by your teeth, didn't you?

MS. SANFORD: You tried hard, didn't you" You weren't very successful, were you? You should have come to my constituency more often and I would have gotten a bigger majority, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, restraint is not the Premier's objective. It certainly is not, or we wouldn't be hearing about the kinds of increases in salaries that we've heard about since this government was re-elected. We wouldn't hear about the appointments and the increase in salary of somebody like Doug Heal. We hear that Doug Heal now has new responsibilities. I would venture that all of those people who work in Human Resources who have been faced with the kinds of caseloads they have had to face over the last two years also have

[ Page 138 ]

increased responsibilities and an increased workload. They're not getting an 18 percent increase at all. So it's the privileged few, and it helps if you're sort of a detached relative. Then you're okay as far this government is concerned. This restraint is not restraint; it's scapegoating. Most of us know that. It's the public service workers and those who need services who are being scapegoated in this province.

Now we have the Prime Minister. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think we're going to have a federal election pretty soon, because we had the Prime Minister on TV going through the same kind of restraint dialogue with the people of Canada. They know that the word "restraint" is popular with the public, and he was going through the same kind of restraint dialogue that the Premier went through just prior to the election. It's not restraint. I think the critics of the Prime Minister's speech were quite correct when they pointed out that the 6 and 5, as it had been applied to the public service, did not make the difference in terms of bringing down inflation. Even the Finance ministers from Ontario and Saskatchewan meeting with the federal Minister of Finance within the last few days are saying that unemployment is a much bigger issue in this country today than is that 6-and-5 program. That's the area in which we should be working. That comes from the ministers of finance of the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan.

MR. CAMPBELL: Job creation is our program.

MS. SANFORD: Job creation! Good grief, they just got out of a job creation program. What on earth are they talking about?

You know, Mr. Speaker, even if the Premier's response that restraint is the answer is genuine on his part, it is totally inept and inappropriate. We've been through this before. We've seen what R.B. Bennett did during the time that we had an economic recession which is very similar to today's. We know what happened at that time. So even if he were genuine in assuming that restraint is going to solve any economic problems, then he's completely wrong. It's totally inept to assume that we're going to solve any of the economic problems through that restraint program. But it is politically popular, and I think that the Prime Minister of Canada is reading the same polls that the Premier read prior to this last election.

But it's not an economic approach at all, it's not a genuine approach, I don't think, to the economic problems, but it is, rather ruthless and vindictive. It's an attack on all those victims and workers and the users of the various services of the province — the low-income people. Those are the ones who are paying. The reason inflation has come down in this country is that we've had tens of thousands of people who have been unable to find work. They're the ones who have paid the price, and they're the ones who have brought down inflation in this country at this point. So why are they using this approach? Why are they busy cutting services? In my view, it's to pay off the high-rollers of the corporate world. That's what it's all about. I was not at all surprised, on opening day, when this government turned down the request by the House Leader for the opposition to include a special legislative committee to deal with ethics in banking. Their interest is in protecting those high-rollers, and they obviously don't have any interest in those people who are most adversely affected by the policies and the direction in which they have embarked.

The government believes in the trickle-down theory: that if everybody has lots of money at the top, it'll trickle down and those people who are sharing the 4 percent at the bottom will somehow manage to do okay. They say, let the corporate sector do as it pleases; give it as much assistance as you can. It doesn't matter too much about environmental concerns, like Buttle Lake and some of the other issues that we've had to put up with over the years as a result of decisions based on that philosophy. Regardless of any other adverse impact that it might have, let them make maximum profits here, this group says. It doesn't matter whether they take their money.... They can do exactly as they see fit with their money: they can invest it overseas, or do whatever they like, while our people here go without work. That's what happens.

Creating jobs is not the objective of the corporate world. We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is responsible for that employment development committee, saying: "Oh, well, we'll get out of EBAP now; that employment-bridging assistance program is no longer needed. We'll have the corporate people take over and they can provide all of the work." But the Minister of Human Resources should know that the corporate world is not interested in providing work. Their interest is in making profits. If they can change the machinery, bring in all of the automation and all the new technological change that's available to them, they will do that without one consideration for those people who are left without work. But the government feels that it has no responsibility in that direction at all.

I've had telegrams from an organization in Parksville, an outreach program funded by the federal government which has worked very hard over the last few years trying to ensure that at least some of the people in the Parksville area are able to get some employment. They were sending telegrams expressing their dismay at the attitude of the provincial government here cancelling out on EBAP. Here we have a chance to bring in $3 of federal money for every $1 that the province puts up in order to provide some work for the people in B.C., and the provincial government cancels out, even though just prior to that we had the Minister of Human Resources, acting in her capacity as chairman of that employment development program, pleading with the federal government to ensure that EBAP was continued here in B.C. And then, much to the surprise of the federal Minister of Labour, suddenly the provincial government ducks out, because they don't feel that putting people to work is important enough to put up $1 for every $3 that the federal government puts up.

[3:00]

The most tragic victims of this kind of attitude are the young, because they are the ones who can't find employment, who need the experience and work, who have the energy, who can make the contribution to society, and they are out there for the most part sitting at home in front of their TVs because there is no work for them. What a tragic waste of our young people! I think that the best investment the government can make is in people. Cancelling out on all of these programs, including EBAP, is not making an investment in people.

It's my view, also, Mr. Speaker, that when there is serious economic recession it is the duty of government to ensure that those people who can least protect themselves against that downturn in the economy are the ones who are protected by government through the provision and, if necessary, the expansion of services. This government takes the opposite viewpoint and approach and very much adopts the

[ Page 139 ]

philosophy of Ronald Reagan in his approach to the problems of the United States.

We've had some hints that the government wishes to make some changes in labour legislation. They made some reference in the throne speech to the industrial relations in the province. I just want to add my word of caution to that of Bill Hamilton and a number of others in the corporate world, as well as those people who know labour legislation through the B.C. Federation of Labour, that any move in this direction must be made very, very carefully. It must be made with consultation and in such a way that the Labour Code remains intact, and that the changes that are brought about will not lead to the kind of chaos that many people out there are predicting will happen if the government proceeds with the suggestions that have come from some people, including the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). If you have people who are able to decertify at the drop of a hat, I can assure this House that we will have chaos on the labour scene in this province. I hope that the government has more sense than to adopt that approach.

In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we have reference, at one point, to highways and bridges. I think Annacis Island is mentioned, and the Coquihalla Pass, and coal-mining roads in the Elk Valley, and the Laird Highway. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here, because I would point out to him that I'm sure he didn't have an opportunity to put into the throne speech the reference to the bypass route between Parksville and Campbell River on Vancouver Island which is so desperately needed. It's not that the minister doesn't know about this problem, or that the minister has not had this particular issue brought to his attention before, because he's had it brought to his attention many, many times. The minister knows that the present Island Highway route is one of the most dangerous in North America; he has as much as said so in this Legislature. While we had signs go up before the election talking about great highway improvement projects.... We had those signs; oh my, they were all over the place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice signs.

MS. SANFORD: Nice signs, you're right. Too bad they didn't represent a bypass route, because the only thing that is going to happen along that island Highway is that we're getting some widening and a couple of left-hand turns, I understand, but no money for a bypass route, and no mention of a bypass route between Parksville and Campbell River. That is very much overdue. We have references to all kinds of other roads and bridges in the province, but somehow or other the minister.... I'm sure he will correct that when the estimates come up, and he will tell the House that it was just an oversight in the throne speech and that the Island Highway bypass route is going to go ahead this year.

How much time do I have? Four minutes? I'm glad to see the Premier's back in the House.

MR. CAMPBELL: Four minutes early.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, four minutes early. It's too bad, because I have a little comment that I would like to make about the Premier and the arrogance that he has displayed, particularly with the appointment of Mr. Tozer, bypassing all the regular procedures that have been developed by government for I don't know how many years, The Premier decided that he would bypass all those and appoint a detached relative, a somewhat distant relative by the name of Mr. Tozer, to the position of government agent. We've had the Prime Minister of the country show his disdain for the people with his one-fingered salute that we have come to expect from him on a number of occasions, and I would submit that the appointment of Mr. Tozer at this time is the Premier's one fingered salute to the people of this province. That certainly is the way I would view it. He has ignored all the procedures. He has gone ahead and made this appointment without any reference whatsoever to the civil service. The guy hasn’t written any tests, he hasn't had any interview. He has simply been appointed because he is a detached relative. I am opposed to that kind of action, and I'm opposed to the kind of arrogance the Premier has displayed in connection with that appointment.

One last thing. This morning the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) referred to a study on the attitudes of young people, and the fact that so many young people these days are very depressed and feel they don't have any future beyond the age of 25. With the international situation one can well understand why young people are feeling so disgruntled and depressed about the situation at this point. I would just like to say that I hope all those people, such as the 80,000 who turned out for the disarmament walk in Vancouver, continue the kind of work they are doing, continue to demonstrate their concern about the future of mankind. We want to give our young people some hope, and it is this kind of action, this kind of demonstration by people concerned about that issue, that is going to give them that kind of hope.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly a pleasure to take my place in this debate; to congratulate you on your election to this responsible position, as well as Mr. Speaker, and to welcome the other members who were successful in returning to the House. I would also like to thank the constituency of North Peace River, those people who again asked me to represent their interests here with the government.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that with all the complaints from some of the members opposite, the constituency of North Peace River was probably one of the hardest hit in the province as a result of the recession. Because of its dependence on the oil and gas industry  and on products that have to be marketed elsewhere, they have been hard hit and are hurting. There are many vacancies and many businesses have shut down. I would like to point out that despite that situation, those people went up there of their own volition to try to make a living under the free enterprise system, and as badly as those people are hurting in my constituency, overwhelmingly they reject socialism as a far greater evil. From past experience they realize that at least under the free enterprise system they have some hope. They saw what happened under socialism. During a period of buoyant world economy and good times, they were hit even worse during that short period of socialism than during this worldwide recession.

So they know where they can put their faith. Their hope lies in the free enterprise system. The situation there could have been much worse had it not been that some of the industries and their employees took a responsible position. They did everything possible to keep in operation whatever sawmills, businesses and industries they could. For instance, Canfor operated at a loss for a considerable time; so did Peace Woods, Tackama and Fort Nelson Forest Industries. We just heard the previous speaker, the member for Comox (Ms.

[ Page 140 ]

Sanford) say that these industries are strictly interested in a profit. Had they been, they would have shut down a year ago; they kept going at great losses, because they too hoped the market would recover. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to those people and their workers who put out a little bit more, who were willing not to make excessive demands to keep those companies alive. We owe a great deal to those people and those industries who, despite the losses they were suffering, and who could have cut their losses, instead took the responsible action and tried to keep those constituents working. That involved hundreds of people.

Some of the people in my area look to the government for help too, and there are many who did get jobs as a result of the employment development fund. I might point out that last year the rural gasification program did create quite a few jobs and put about $1.4 million into the economy there in difficult times. Again this helps the ancillary and the other industries. The ultimate benefit was that the people who were paying $200 to $250 a month for their oil heating bills are now paying $70 to $90 a month on some of those farms. Those people are grateful for the help that was provided to them. I would hope that whatever possible will be done to extend that program, because it wouldn't take that much in relative terms. One less convention centre in Victoria would probably do the whole rural gasification program in our area.

I have a difficult time bleeding for more provincial government money, which comes from the taxpayers throughout this province who are producing, to try to create more tourist attractions for the Victoria area when the taxpayers of this province already fund the parliament buildings — which are a great attraction — the Provincial Museum and many of these other things which attract tourists here. The taxpayers are already paying that shot, and these few members have the audacity to scream for more when people in other parts, where the money and the revenue is produced to keep this place going.... I would say I'm startled by what some of these members complain about when you see the businesses as busy as they are here, and comparatively when you see the producing areas and the businesses that are shut down.

[3:15]

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) mentioned this morning something about the people here in Victoria knowing how to vote, and they voted for the NDP with a 60 percent majority. I suppose those figures are correct. But I can't help but point out some of the things that the member mentioned. There are a lot of retired seniors in the area, and that party went out during the election campaign with a deliberate scare campaign and told seniors that this government would not care about them. This government has done more for seniors than any other government in this country. They tried to buy those votes with scare tactics. They went out and told the government employees that if they became government they would make sure that they got whatever wage increases they wanted and that there would be absolutely no cuts in government. It was a completely unrealistic promise that nobody could have lived up to in these times, yet they promised that to buy those votes. I guess they got a lot of those votes. Even their leader circulated a letter to the B.C. Teacher's Federation — and there are a lot of people involved in education in Victoria — and that letter said: "If we are elected, we will restore all cutbacks in education." In other words, they would return all the wage increases and all of the money that had been taken out of education to provide other services. In other words: "Vote for us, and we'll promise you the sky." At no time did they say where they were going to get this money. Even in all the speeches that I've heard here, I have not heard that other magic side of the story. Where were you going to get the money to do all the things that you promised you were going to be doing? I guess you could say that the NDP has creative programs: they create illusions, false impressions, negative attitudes and they would create debt by the truckload if they had the opportunity. So that's creativity.

The member for Comox was just talking about jobs.

MS. SANFORD: Look who's talking. Some $14 billion in provincial debt.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's talk about this borrowing in relation to the job creation program that you promised during the election campaign. You were going to borrow $500 million to create 50,000 jobs in this province. If you take a little bit of simple arithmetic and you divide that $500 million by 50,000, you have about $5,000 per job. That would be what? With about half of that money for supplies and equipment, you would end up with approximately two months' worth of work for about 100,000 people. I believe the 100,000 figure is the one I wanted to use for the $5,000 per job. You would have approximately $5,000 for 100,000 people and so you would have....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm nervous with the wrath that's coming at me. I think I now have the figures correct. The figures would be about $5,000 per job. Take half of that for supplies and equipment, which is not an unrealistic assumption, and you would have $2,500 left per job, which at say $1, 250 per month, for a rough calculation, leaves you about two months' work for 100,000 people. That's great. At which point the $500 million is gone; it has been expended.

Now where were they going to get that $500 million from? They were going to borrow it against future revenues from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and their leader said that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation had taken in, in the last ten years, some $1.3 billion in revenue for the province. I am assuming that his figures were correct; I think they're pretty close. So that works out to $130 million per year on an average. If you took that $500 million, they had to borrow it against future revenue, and even if you amortized that over ten years at the best possible deal you could get, 10 percent — a low interest rate — you'd have to be paying back about $50 million a year in interest charges, and if you paid $50 million a year on the principle that's $100 million out of the average of $130 million per year. So the government revenue is left with $30 million for all the social services, all the other programs, instead of the $130 million a year that the government was taking in under this system. And they call that a fancy scheme. I think some of the people in this province may not have worked out those exact figures, but they could work out that concept. And where would they have gotten the next $500 million for the next two months' work?

So that is the illusion that these people are creating — that if you keep borrowing and borrowing to create some jobs, somehow or other you are going to have more people working. Mr. Speaker, I would contend that in the long run you will have a lot fewer people working, because as you have to

[ Page 141 ]

pay back that $500 million and the next $500 million and so on, you are going to have to tax out of existence the industries that are producing revenues to the government in this province. So the only way that you can create those jobs is to avoid that false illusion that they try to create that somehow government — not taxpayers, not the taxpaying industries in this province, but government — can continue to create jobs. It's a short-term cop-out. It's a short-term solution. It's not a responsible answer to what we need in this province.

We have the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) again saying that industries are interested in a profit. I've already dealt partially with that. Would you like to suggest that industries in this province or anywhere in this world will continue to keep operating with their objective being to suffer losses? If those industries don't operate, then we don't have jobs. So you need an industry to create a job, and often they need a factory. I might draw an analogy with something like B.C. Place. It seems to me there is resentment: "You shouldn't spend the money on buildings like B.C. Place; you should give it to the people instead." It's a great theory. It might last up to six months, but then you run out of money and you don't have a source to replenish it with. You talk about creating jobs. B.C. Place created the construction jobs, B.C. Place will continue the operating jobs and something like B.C. Place will continue to bring people into this province and will create a need for service industry jobs. So that is where jobs are created — by building a factory. You are saying: "Tear down the factories, don't build any factories, don't build any industries, but keep providing jobs." That could be true in any situation. How can you possibly keep creating jobs if you don't have a source of revenue? You cannot do this. It's an illusion. It's a short-term promise that cannot be fulfilled. Lord knows the federal government has been trying to prove it, and is doing quite well if it does prove it.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

However, Mr. Speaker, you have changed. The throne speech — I knew you might call me to order, so I thought I'd better refer to the throne speech — does honestly and realistically identify a situation which must be recognized in this province — in other words, the recession that we are facing, the difficult times. I think it outlines, as well, the directions which must be taken to manage our economy. These are not easy answers. They are difficult answers, much more difficult than the short-term easy cop-out of government spending to solve the problem. It doesn't work. So what we're talking about is a more difficult route but a much more responsible route that will benefit everybody far more in the long run.

MR. REID: That's good government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, that's responsible government. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. I think you have to manage your way out of it, and that is what we are attempting to do.

It's rather interesting, too, that the member for Comox also said that — I made a note of this — restraint is popular with the people. She spent almost all of her speech attacking government restraint, but "restraint is popular with the people." Are you suggesting, Madam Member, that we should ignore the people? Or perhaps the people have spoken out that silent majority that we don't often hear from has spoken out.

We've heard all kinds of suggestions about what you would spend on this, what you would spend on that, and somehow or other you don't expect the people of this province to be intelligent enough to connect the fact that as government spends more, those people — the taxpayers — have to provide more. So that's one reality — where the funds come from — that they never face up to.

Oh, there's much material here. Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting reading in some of the campaign literature for the NDP that most of their campaign theme seemed to be "defeat the present government" rather than "elect us." Why would you not want to stand up and say "elect us, " rather than using your usual negative approach of "defeat the present government"? So in other words, again it points out what these people are against rather than what they are for.

MR. LAUK: They voted for your positive campaign. It was very refreshingly positive, wasn't it, Barney?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: At least I think we can say that we did not get elected on false pretences. We did not tell the people things that we could not do. We said to them: "Times are tough; we're going to have to continue with restraint. We're all going to have to bite the bullet, and this is what will have to be done in this province." They voted for us by a considerable majority. And you notice that you promised them all the things that you might spend, and you promised them that we were bad guys, and they still voted for us because I believe they are intelligent enough to realize that....

MR. LAUK: Did you condone your TV ads, Barney?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I never had time to watch TV during the election campaign: I was busy on the campaign trail. I usually work during elections.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the people in my area also, I think, voted very strongly in favour of free enterprise because they had seen the 1972-75 period in B.C. history and the national energy program; they have seen just how helpful government intervention is. As you know, just a few years ago we were promised by the federal government that nationalizing the oil industry would be the solution; it would help to keep oil and gas prices down. It would help us. Now, since the national energy program has gone in, I defy anybody to see how those prices have stayed down. Instead of that, what we have is an additional tax for Canadian ownership, and that tax is imposed on us to buy service stations across a good part of the country. The sellers must have been smiling all the way to the bank when they saw the federal government come up with that. So what was supposed to be great what was supposed to assure our supply, what was supposed to keep our prices down, has done nothing but the opposite. These people have seen what government intervention would do. Instead of allowing the free market system — or the private enterprise system — to work, they saw what had happened to them because of the nationalization policies, and here was the NDP promising to take over more, to do more things, to help more people without ever saying here they were going to get the funds to do it.

[3:30]

Just as one example of the type of thing we get from them,

[ Page 142 ]

this business that the coal markets are dead, that coal won't sell..... These are the theorists, these are the economic experts, who tell us that. I don't know, somehow or other I'm far more inclined to listen to the people who are willing to put up $10 million for a feasibility study — the people who are still asking for rights to mine coal in this province at a development cost, and who are willing to spend $10 million or $15 million just for initial studies in order to go ahead. These people are putting money — not ideas — forth; they're putting money as well as ideas forth, and surely they must have information as good as that of the theorists who say that coal won't sell, that the world is going down. If you look at the figures of southeast coal over the past years, they have gone up every year. We need those jobs, and we need that revenue in order to....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're giving it away.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's the other theory that they espouse: you should not sell our products at what the buyers will pay; you should leave it in the ground. There are only two ways that you can avoid that market situation. One of them is to take more money from the taxpayers and subsidize the production at this end, which sounds great. It sounds like you're helping your own people. You subsidize it. The other thing is to try and somehow or other force people to pay more than they are willing to pay, and they don't. People sort of decide that they will only pay so much for a product, and so you've got to.... You can't sell products if there are no buyers.

MR. LAUK: If I offered you $5 for your house, would you sell it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No way. I wouldn't sell it to you for anything. But I would suggest that perhaps what the banker across the hall there is trying to suggest is that if houses are all selling for $5, to use his ludicrous example, then we should not build or sell houses for less than $10 when nobody is paying more than $5. So I suppose your analogy is correct.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would like to point out some of our achievements, even during these difficult times. The B.C. home program received considerable support, even though some people said that it wouldn't work. Some $40 million went out to some 50,000 applicants in this province in a six-month period. It was handled quite efficiently. That was $40 million that went into the economy that the people in effect have borrowed from the government and are willing to pay back, because they got a helping hand. They didn't get a handout, and that's what the people in this province really want. We carried on the program of housing for seniors, even during these difficult times. We carried on the program and came out with more.

For the disabled we managed to issue a number of land dispositions and land developments. People out there must have faith in the future because they have picked up these lots, built on them, and are carrying on.

We had that accelerated highway program; we had student employment programs. Health care and Human Resources carried on, plus projects like B.C. Place, northeast coal, southeast coal, railway work, and the development of Prince Rupert. All of these things have gone on.

I know there's the theory, "Well, government is putting some money into that," but what the opposition seldom mentions is that for the dollars we are putting into that, there's $3 to $5 to $10 more coming from the private sector to create those jobs and those industries which are going to be ongoing industries. Again, one of the members said something about us turning down.... They said we wouldn't spend $1 in order to get $3 of federal money. Well, that money runs out — it doesn't create those industries that we need; it creates short-term jobs. I think it might be a far better investment for government to spend $1, along with $5 from the private sector, in order to have these people create ongoing jobs that will also generate ongoing revenue to the government. We are willing to work with the partners in industry, labour and education. We like to encourage people to use their skills; mention has been made of the TRAC program, which allows more people to become trained and skilled.

I think we have to maintain good relations with our trading partners. There seems to be a theory afloat among some people that you can somehow or other market your, goods to other countries but you don't have to buy anything back. That does not make for international trade. If you do not buy anything from other countries, they do not buy from you. So we have to keep trading with other countries.

There's been a lot of criticism about some of our jobs going out of the province. But to use one example, if the Japanese were not interested in buying our coal for whatever reason, then there wouldn't be the other thousands of jobs in this province as a result of that. There may be some jobs going out of the province, but because of that we get thousands of jobs here that would not have happened without that international trade. I think we have to recognize that as well.

I'd like to touch on one thing before closing. I suppose it is somewhat of a remote connection, but the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was talking about the tragedy of young people and the mental concerns, the suicides, which in relative terms are really quite small; nevertheless, he made quite a point of it. I suppose I'm relating somewhat to my background in education. Where do these attitudes of hopelessness and despair come from? They come from people like you who go out and preach doom and gloom, who say that the world is coming to an end, the sky is falling and so on. No wonder these people have no hope! When people say: "Look, it could be better tomorrow, there's a better day around the corner", and so on, then people are not as inclined to despair and gloom. So you actually contribute with that negative, attacking attitude, constantly against every bad thing in society. You point it out and put it completely out of proportion, and say that the world is bad because two people are bad. I went through this over and over again in the school system. As a school principal of some 600 pupils I saw 20 kids in my office time and again, but there were 580 that I didn't see because they were behaving themselves and doing a good job. You people would concentrate on those 20 and say that is what the school is like, instead of what the 580 are like.

I could maybe draw the analogy that is sometimes used in meetings and conferences, where the speaker puts a large sheet of paper on the wall, puts a black dot in the middle of it, and asks one person after another: "What do you see?" One after another those people will say: "Oh, I see a black dot." That's about the style of the NDP. They don't see the large

[ Page 143 ]

white sheet of paper that's also on that wall; they constantly see that black dot. That's all they focus on, to the point where they get.... Well, they've got blinders on. That's typical of the NDP. They focus on any small black dot and try to expand it as though that's all that is on that wall. Really there's a large white sheet of paper on that wall, but they don't see that. There are a lot of good things going on in this province, and they will look for a gloomy spot somewhere and try to build it into something as though that is representative of our society.

I think there is a great future in this province. The potential is here, but we do have to develop it. We have to develop some of our resource industries, and we can do that and maintain a suitable environment. There are those who would try to tell us that at the rate we are going the world is going to end within 20 years, or something of that nature; that we're going to destroy ourselves. I've heard that for a number of years. What I see happening, and what I've seen happening in my lifetime, is a great improvement in our lifestyle, environment, living conditions; in the social services that are provided to people; in our health and education systems. All of these have certainly improved immensely even since I first went into education, at the same time as the negative, carping critics are saying things are getting worse, things are getting gloomy. They just keep harping on that black spot and never see the large white sheet of paper — the good things that are going on in this world.

With our resources and people in this province, and the fact that every time we run into a problem and solve it, whether it be social, housing, environment or industrial, we have made progress; we're further ahead and better off than before we started. So I do not accept the fact that we have to look at the doom and gloom and the negative critics. For many years I have been fond of the expression: "What did the critics ever build?" When you look around this province, what did they build? Would they have developed the northeast coal, B.C. Place, the railways, the farming country, the logging industry? No, they would not have done that. It's the people who had a dream and were willing to put their money where their theories were, willing to go out and try to create those jobs. We wouldn't have nearly the jobs.... Again, they focus on the jobs that we don't have in this province, and they will focus constantly and forever on the 14 or 15 percent who are unemployed in this province. What about the other 85 percent who are employed, to whom we are saying as a government: "Will you people accept some restraint? Will you help out the 14 or 15 percent who aren't employed?" Those are the 85 percent of the people in this province who are working when 15 percent are unemployed. I think we do have to focus on that. I think we have to remember that we can build on what we have, rather than constantly attacking for what we do not have.

There are many golden opportunities in this province. The resources, the people and the skills are there. We need to develop more of them, and we can and will. But we certainly will not develop this province if we take a leaf out of the socialists' book and say: "Take the money away from those developers and give it to the government so that the government can spread it around." They forget that that source runs out if you do not deal with it.

I could go on and mention a number of other things, However, I think I'll conclude with a quotation that I think typifies the difference between the socialists and the people on this side, the free-enterprisers.

MR. LAUK: Who said it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Author unknown. I made it up.

[3:45]

That quotation goes something like this: "You see things as they are and you ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not." That is, I think, the typical difference. You keep asking why this, why that; on this side of the House there have been dreams, these dreams have been put into practice and these dreams have developed this province. When someone said to W.A.C. Bennett, "You can't dam the Peace River, " he said: "Why not?" Let me tell you, thank goodness we didn't have those negative people in power then, who would have said: "Why dam it? You can't do it. It's too difficult." What would we have had without that electricity program? A lot of industries would not have developed if those people had not looked at something, had a dream and said why not.

I would think that the development at Prince Rupert is probably pretty important to that member — one of the carping critics — at least in speeches up there. The development at Prince Rupert would not have happened, because when they had the opportunity their members kept saying: "Why do it?" This side said: "Why not? It can be done. Why not do it?" That is why Prince Rupert is a lot better off — not because of that member's party's views, but because of the people on this side of the House who have made that happen. These things have happened.

Let us keep dreaming, because those who dare to dream and also take some action to put it into effect are certainly going to do a lot more for this world than the people who are the prophets of doom and gloom and the critics who say nothing can be done and attack everything that shouldn't be done. With that I will conclude.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here. I had a few doubts for a while, but it is a pleasure to be back here. I know I'm honoured to be here. I'd like to thank both you and the people of Prince Rupert for allowing me to be here and to speak.

The member who has just taken his place pointed out that the opposition tends to be critical at times, and he feels that it's wrong to do that, that the opposition should always be positive and always endorse, sight unseen, government programs.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, thanks.

I think he's right. I think that there is a time for criticism from the opposition — constructive and negative — and I also think there's a time for praise and credit where that's due. I would like to hand out some of that praise before I carry on with the throne speech debate.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to talk about two projects: B.C. Stadium and ALRT. My party has been critical of both projects. We were critical of the stadium. We were critical of where it would be and the time schedule. We were critical of the traffic approaches. But after listening to that criticism and to our suggestions, the government made its decision; and that's as it should be. The stadium is there where it is as it is, and it's a

[ Page 144 ]

magnificent, beautiful building. Every British Columbian is and should be proud of that building.

The ALRT is a fact of life. It may not be the system we would have implemented had we been government, but that isn't to say it's going to fall apart at the seams, although there is some indication that may be happening just a little bit. The system is there. It's the system we're going to have in this province. I think the only criticisms you're going to get from now on from this side of the House will be about the details of finishing it. But as a concept it's too far down the track to pull an emergency stop on the project. We should only offer criticism about how to complete it as we see it from this side.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The system that's there; the member is absolutely correct. Only time will tell whether the system chosen by government was the best system. That's the way history seems to be. You can take a look at the Deas Tunnel. At the time there was criticism from our side of the House about the Deas Tunnel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. LEA: Not necessarily. But we'll never know whether or not the Deas Tunnel was the proper decision to make at that time, because we only have the Deas Tunnel to look at.

We're at the beginning of a new parliament. I think it's probably important in each new parliament during the throne speech that we talk a little bit about the reasons we were sent here: why we were sent, the job we have to do, how we should make those decisions and on what basis. We are here in two capacities. We're here to represent the people, but we're also here as representatives of the people. It's the latter that we have to base our decisions on. We can only make decisions based on our own experience and knowledge. On any given issue it is impossible to go to the constituents whom you represent and have a referendum to see whether your decision about how you're going to vote in here is going to be one that represents the minority or the majority. The representative democratic system calls for us to use our own wisdom. It calls for us to use our own knowledge and experience. It's amazing how the electoral system sorts that all out.

In this parliament, this House, this Legislature we not only come from every geographic area of the province, but we come from every walk of life. In here we have trade unionists, lawyers, engineers, everybody. We truly are representative of British Columbia in this chamber. We're different in some ways, but in some respects we're very much alike. I don't believe there is anyone in this House who does not have the best interests of British Columbia in his heart and mind. I think we're all here to work for a better British Columbia, so we have that in common. We probably also agree that the democratic system is the best system. We probably also agree that the British parliamentary system is the best way to govern ourselves under a democracy.

The throne speech deals with three main themes: it deals with what is "desirable" and "essential"; it deals with the words "cooperation" and "team"; and it deals with the need for restraint. I'd like to take each of those topics dealt with in the throne speech and take a look at them. A little earlier I mentioned that we are here to vote on our own conscience and wisdom. In my speech I intend to prove that if you are here to vote your conscience and not always to party loyalty, you will have to vote with us on this side of the House when it comes to the throne speech.

Let's take the terms "essential" and "desirable." They're big words, but what do they really mean? "Desirable" means that you want something but may not necessarily need it. I think everyone would agree with that. "Essential" probably means that you want it and need it at the same time. One is "want" and one is "need." Let's take a look at a number of items mentioned by members opposite and in the throne speech.

Let's take a took at education. All through the ages of civilization all great thinkers have said that in order to have a democracy that works you must have an educated people — not only how to build things, but you also have to understand where we come from. You have to understand the system that we live under. In school that's probably called a liberal education. All of the great thinkers through history — whether they have been conservative or liberal, whether it was Adam Smith, David Hume or Thomas Jefferson — agree with us that you have to be well-educated in the liberal side of education in order to be a good citizen. An educated citizen is a good citizen, and a good citizen is an educated citizen, or democracy doesn't work.

The difference between us on this side of the House and that side of the House is that we believe that in a civilized society your needs and your desires change from what they were when living in a primitive society. Needs in a civilized society are quite different than in a primitive society. The basic needs are, I suppose, food, shelter and clothing. But in a civilized society, where you want to be democratic and have a system that works for everyone, there are other needs — other than food, shelter and clothing. I've mentioned one in education. You need to be well educated. A good liberal education is needed in order to be a good citizen. On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we feel that that's essential. On the other side of the House they feel it's only desirable. That's a difference of values, I suppose.

Health care. No one's going to deny that when there's less money coming into the government coffers you may have to cut back on health care. But in a democracy shouldn't everyone have equal access to what's left of the health care system? And yet this government is saying: what about user fees? The minute you apply user fees in the health care system, you are making that system more accessible for some than for others. We on this side of the House feel that it's essential that everyone have equal access to health care. On the other side of the House they feel it's only desirable.

Legal services, what civilization has ever come up with a theory that there should be inequality under the law? The hallmark of every civilization is that all citizens have equality under the law, regardless of whether they're rich or poor, black or white, Christian or Jew — it doesn't matter: equal access to the law. But, Mr. Speaker, we see a government that is cutting back on legal services, meaning that there are people in this province who are going to court facing criminal charges without the benefit of legal counsel. We believe in a civilized society. It is essential to have legal counsel when you go to court on criminal charges. The other side feels it's merely desirable. And to top it all off, they're talking about transferring the jurisdiction for civil rights to the courts. Isn't it ironic that they cut the funding for citizens to have legal counsel, and then they transfer your civil rights to the courts?

[ Page 145 ]

Yes, there is a difference between that side and this. We define "essential" and "desirable" in different ways. We are not a primitive society, we are a democratic society, And we have different needs than the primitive. They aren't just desirable, they are essential, or we no longer have a higher society. We will revert back to the primitive. And that thin line between primitive and democratic is very fine indeed.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of priorities. The hon. minister asked where we would get the money to make these essential things in fact true. I think both sides of the House had better own up to the fact that the economic levers that are available to us as a province are different than they are at the federal level. We only have certain powers when it comes to economics in the province, and they're really quite simple. We only have the power to tax and the power to spend the money. That's the only power we have. Or we have power to borrow, and spend the money. But we don't have power over interest rates; we don't have power over tariffs; we don't have power over a number of things that are vitally important to running your own economy. So we can only do what we can do, and all we can do is raise money through taxation and borrowing, and spend that money. A provincial government can only be judged on where and how they raise that money, and on what and on whom they spend that money. They ask: "Where are we going to get the money?" Well, we have different priorities — different priorities of taxation, different priorities of spending. We don't agree with government spending on advertising and cutbacks in health care. We don't agree with government spending on Whistler and cutbacks in legal aid, or government spending on jobs for the boys and cutbacks in silviculture. It's a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker.

Cooperation is a big word. It's a word that the throne speech uses a number of times. It's a word I heard a new member using repeatedly this morning — cooperation. It's a new word for these conservatives. Here we are in hard times. What is the government, in the throne speech, asking us and the people of British Columbia to do? They are asking us to join a team. That implies orderliness, Mr. Speaker, because a team without orderliness is a team that has very little, if any, chance of having any success. So they want us to join a team. They want us to be orderly and they want us to join that team with a spirit of cooperation. Because we are in hard times they want us to cooperate on that orderly team in order to get the economy going again.

Where are the conservatives on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker? Why aren't they telling us: "Here's our conservative message. We're in hard times. We want the citizens of this province not to cooperate with one another but we want them to compete with one another more than they've ever done, to get us out of this recession and to get the economy going." No, the buzzword is cooperation.

Simply, what they are asking us to do, Mr. Speaker, is to have a cooperative commonwealth. They've got two C's; they've just left out the F. Yet on the other side of the House, they say: "You fuzzy-headed NDPers, don't you know that your philosophy is evil?" The spirit of cooperation has been the hallmark of this party for 50 years, but when they're in hard times — when they need the people to be with them — they ask for cooperation from the people, Mr. Speaker, because they know that in hard times competition amongst people isn't going to get us anywhere. They know that.

You might ask, Mr. Speaker, why it is then that the throne speech asks the people of this province to adopt the theories and the policies of the social democrats, and yet the social democrats in the House won't vote for the throne speech. I think that's a fair question. It lies in why they are asking us to join the team, what they're asking us to cooperate to do. Mr. Speaker, they are asking us to cooperate with them on that team to destroy medicare. The answer is no. They are asking us to cooperate with them to stop the silviculture program. The answer is no. They are asking us to cooperate with them and to join the team to make sure that people in this province go to court without a lawyer. The answer is no. They are asking us to cooperate with them to move the jurisdiction of civil rights from the Human Rights Commission into the courts. The answer is "No, we will not cooperate for those reasons." You use the buzzwords of the social democrats because you've taken your polls and you've found out through taking those polls that people do have a spirit of cooperation, that they do want to cooperate; hence the buzzwords. But do they want to cooperate in ruining some of the essential services that government supplies — essential if you are civilized, desirable if you are not?

During the election campaign the Premier labelled us the New Democratic Party and others — the coalition of dissent. Dissent means to withhold assent or to differ in opinion. Mr. Speaker, we do both. On this throne speech we do withhold our assent and we do differ in opinion. That is the difference between this side of the House and the other. We are co-operators. It is the very basis of our party, and at one time was the basis of yours. That was when they were Social Credit, Mr. Speaker — before they were Conservatives. At one time Social Credit looked upon the Conservatives as evil, but no more. At one time the Social Credit was willing to take on the banking system. Now they won't even vote to have an investigation into the banking system — not since the Social Credit have become Conservatives.

What about restraint, the item that's sprinkled throughout the throne speech? People want it, they say. But do they want it at the price of being civilized, I doubt that. I mentioned that "desirable" and "essential" are big words. "Need” and "want" may have been better. When we're talking about restraint, we're talking about a very complex thing – the economy of British Columbia or of Canada. It has become a very complicated issue to academics and others. But is it really? I grew up in this province on a mixed farm. I guess that's what you'd call it, because we had a logging operation and a sawmill, we raised some cattle, we had an orchard and we grew some wheat and produce. There were farms throughout the valley.

I think if you take a look at economics, you have to look at it in a simpler way, and I'm quite capable of that. What if you had 200 people living on that mixed farm, and they owned that farm collectively, such as we citizens of B.C. own this province. Say, on that farm, that every four to five years we had an election and voted a committee of our fellow residents on the farm to be our government. Let's imagine that this farm is a little different than the one that I grew up on or the farms of the rest of you who grew up on farms. On this farm we run it exactly through our committee the way we would run this province. The sawmill itself could be fee-simple land, privately owned land. It could be a sawmill owned by a family, not necessarily by the collective. We could be selling all sorts of things. The economy is good and we're selling pigs so we're living high on the hog. We're selling our orchard produce, vegetables, lumber and the logging operation's going good. Everything is fine and we've got markets

[ Page 146 ]

for our produce. The committee that we've elected to look after our farm collectively, our government....

HON. MR. HEWITT: A state family, is that what you're trying to say?

MR. LEA: No, I'm describing democracy in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Minister. You may not recognize it.

Mr. Speaker, everything has been going fine, we can sell everything, money is coming in and the committee said: "Look, as a service to the citizens of the farm, why don't we start up a dispensary? We may as well have a little hospital on the farm to serve the people." That's public service, though, not the private service of the sawmill that operates out on the back of the farm. "Maybe we should also start a schoolhouse because probably they'd be better citizens of the farm if they had an education." So this committee that we've elected on the farm starts up a number of public services for the citizens of the farm. Then, all of a sudden, the places that we've been selling our produce from the farm to aren't buying at such a big rate any more....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's the reason, he says, that's exactly the reason.

So because we're not selling as many pigs, we're not selling as much lumber and revenue is down, we have to practise restraint on the farm. Now the government would have us believe that if we were to put restraint on the dispensary and on the schoolhouse, somehow or other we'd start selling more pigs and lumber. Just the fact that we cut down on spending in the schoolhouse is going to make our markets better and our economy is going to grow — fragile as it is they say. If we were to cut down on spending for education, the dispensary and all of those things that the committee is supplying to us, then everything's going to be fine.

No one has denied that when the revenue is coming in at a slower pace, you probably can't live as high off the hog as you did when revenues were great. But as a fair committee, don't you have to make sure that everyone is under restraint — not just the people in the schoolhouse and in the dispensary, but wouldn't everybody on the farm have to take a little bit of a cut? Wouldn't the profit from the sawmill have to go down just a little or the profit from the pig-farmer on the farm?

But no, the government took another poll. They found out that the people wanted restraint, that they wanted to cooperate in order to build a better economy, and that there were some bigots out there. They directed their government programs and propaganda not to cooperation or a better life for British Columbia, but towards bigots — an unforgivable act. What would we do as citizens of my imaginary farm if the committee we had elected to look after our common interests did that? On a farm it's a little easier. There are 200 people on my farm, so everybody would be pretty much informed as to what's going on. It's small and efficient enough that the word would get around. That committee wouldn't last very long; they'd be voted out of office at the next election. If that committee started taking some of our common money to pay for advertising to convince the other members of the farm that they were right, that committee wouldn't last very long either.

That's what this government has done. This government has taken advantage of the fact that we are living in a complex society. They're taking advantage of the fact that the medium is the message. Do you know what the power of the Big Blue Machine was, Mr. Speaker? It wasn't what happened from the time the election was called; it was what happened before the, election was called. I think even the Social Crediters were surprised at their victory.

[4:15]

People who watch the news every night and take an interest in public affairs and have the education to be able to do that had made up their minds quite a while ago, for whatever reason, that they were going to vote either NDP or Social Credit. That advertising wasn't going after NDPers, and it wasn't going after Social Crediters. That advertising wasn't going after the people who watch the news and keep up on public affairs. That advertising was placed in the station break on "Three's Company, " for the most vulnerable members of our society. In between the station breaks in "Tic Tac Dough" — that's who they were aiming at. They didn't care whether their own members thought it was horrible that they spend taxpayer's money for partisan purposes. They didn't care that we thought it. They didn't care that the informed people were against it. They were going after the ill-informed. I think the Social Credit were as surprised as we were at the results of the Blue Machine. The question is one of morality.

The new members in this House have to face an anguish that I suppose we've all faced. It's the anguish of voting your conscience or voting party loyalty. It is anguish for us, because we not only come here as citizens and as representatives of citizens, we come here representing political parties. If those new members can stand up and say that the things that I've named in my speech in terms of education, health care and legal aid are not essential to a free democratic society, then I don't think they're being true to themselves. They have an opportunity to be true to themselves and the citizens of this province. In a very short while, we'll know whether they're true to that or true to the political party they serve.

I haven't heard one of them defend these cuts. One after another, almost as if they're disquieted, they get up and proclaim: "I am a conservative. The conservative philosophy is best." But they don't defend the specifics. It's just riot enough to stand up and say, "I'm a New Democrat, " or, "I'm a Socred." You should have defended this throne speech. In my opinion, that task would have been impossible, and that's why the the members opposite didn't try — because it would have been impossible to defend the specifics. That's why they stood up and said things like: "Less government is good government. No government is excellent government." The only one over there that I heard speak about anything except the conservative claptrap was the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), who got up and brought with him his conscience, his wisdom, his humour and his background as a British Columbia citizen and, I suspect, a Social Crediter as opposed to a conservative. We will see how far that conscience takes him at the end of today. Will he vote for the primitive or for the civilized? Will he vote to send people to court without a lawyer? Will he vote to educate people in the trades but not in the liberal arts? Time will tell. But, Mr. Speaker, yes we do withhold our assent, and we do differ in opinion, and we will be voting against this throne speech.

[ Page 147 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise here today to speak in the throne debate and to observe the formalities of adding to the many congratulations to you and to your Speaker; also, to congratulate very sincerely the members for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) and for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) for their excellent addresses in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both maiden speeches were good; they were heartfelt, simple and clear. I enjoyed them very much.

I also congratulate other new members in this House who spoke — members from both sides. As they say at the track, all of them broke their maidens very well. I thought that in the last week or so we had a good quality of oratory here — some direct personal comments and philosophy. I think it was an absolutely superb experience to sit here and listen to new members speaking in this place. I should also observe some absent former members who are not with us — some voluntarily and some involuntarily. I have affection, regardless of the side of the House that they sat on, for all of them. I think the three on the other side that are gone involuntarily were all highly decent men. I miss them on a personal note, I might add, not on a political note. We have two on our side, too, whom we miss, but they made the decision.

I would like to say that our caucus has been enriched by the addition of new members. We have a great deal of vitality and energy in that caucus, and I think that's superb. I would observe as well that we have two additions from Ottawa whom I welcome here; one is from West Vancouver Howe Sound, and the other is the new member for the Fraser Valley, Both are welcomed to this House, and it should be an addition.

It's traditional that we talk about past elections in this House, particularly in the throne speech. I am going to try and confine myself to the election that we just went through and not go back, as is characteristic, to the elections of 1966, 1969, 1972, 1975, and 1979.

MS. SANFORD: Didn't you like McGeer's speech?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) does that one better than I can, so I am going to confine myself to a recent election, because about all I can remember in elections are recent ones. Having worked for a federal party for many years that wasn't too successful in winning elections.... I always felt that I attended more wakes than anyone in the western world besides Harold Stassen. So I try and think of recent elections and ones that I was involved in.

This election was a victory against all odds and against all predictions. It was very difficult after it was all over — victory was very sweet — to find any of the predictors who really believed that we were going to lose. They all had hedged their bets, they told us, and they all really had known all along that we were going to win this election. I don't think that I met more than two or three of the predictors who actually didn't make the point that they knew all along that we were going to win.

Why did we win this election? We won the election basically because people understood that this party offered the best hope for recovery in this province and for the creation of real long-term jobs. That was the mandate, and that's why we won. We won because we had a superior leader, a much better team, and good candidates. There were many other reasons as well. We won because we had good campaign organization, and we had the superb assistance of Patrick Kinsella, whom I fully acknowledge with great pride. We won because the Premier did a first-rate job, not just for four years but also during that campaign.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But the mandate was recovery and how you bring about recovery. I think the interesting thing about the election is that we had a pretty clear philosophical difference as to how the recovery should take place and how jobs should be created. That issue was joined in a straightforward way, and the opposition put forward their antidotes for recovery and we put forward ours. People believed that there was a better chance with us, that we could create those jobs by stimulating the private sector, that that would create permanent jobs and not the kind of make-work project jobs that the gentlemen opposite were proposing during the campaign.

I guess I knew that that message was getting across. You always distrust what you hear as a candidate during a campaign, but I guess I knew that that message was really getting across when I was at the doorstep and ran into a number of people — oh, about a dozen or so in a row — some of whom would advise me that they were members of a particular trade union and that maybe they weren't in the habit of voting for my party, but they were going to. do so this time. They were going to do so because they felt that there was a better chance to create jobs and to maintain employment with us than there was with the NDP's policy of creating public-sector jobs, borrowing money and trying to create jobs that municipalities and other levels of government....

Somebody observed earlier in this debate — I think it was the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) — that their solutions were reminiscent of Eleanor Roosevelt and went back to the days of Herbert Hoover. Certainly the main solution for stimulating the economy was a rather tired Rooseveltian New Deal one applied to the eighties. I guess people thought that it just wasn't going to work and that you couldn't take some pass-through taxing agency like the Petroleum Corporation and expect to borrow money on the credit of the Petroleum Corporation and increase the debt. It would not create any long-term jobs, with $500 million being borrowed, but would just add more debt burden. I don't think that that approach did them any good.

Of course, one thing that the election campaign did was to induce the gentlemen opposite to actually lay out a few things that they would do if they became government. For four years they seldom did that, but during the campaign they started to lay it out, and they laid out the job creation scheme. One of the next things they laid out — which I remember with some pleasure and amusement — was the brand-new mining policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it was the blue, pin-stripe suit policy that was laid out, and it was a kiss-and-make-up-with the-mining-industry policy. "Now we're going to be sympathetic," they said. "We're going to be sympathetic to the needs of the mining industry, we're going to do things to help them, we're going to encourage them and we've got a few little proposals for doing that. But we're going to encourage them and we're going to be supportive." It really sounded very good. The Leader of the Opposition put on his best

[ Page 148 ]

conservative tie, and he looked very moderate and corporate, and everybody thought, my gosh, maybe there's been a reform in mining policy.

[4:30]

But, lo and behold, they had a candidate in Omineca with the unfortunate name of Kanary and he had a different policy. He had the red-flannel underwear policy. He had the real policy, the policy of how they were going to help mining. That was that they were going to set up corporations that would control the means of production, control the marketing and control the distribution of all the products from the mine. They would sell for us in the markets and they would do all the things that the private sector, after all, couldn't do as well as big government could do. That policy of Mr. Kanary's proved a little bit embarrassing to them, and he was put in his cage for the rest of the campaign, poor fellow, and they had some difficulty with the credibility of the rest of their newfound mining policy. I don't think that the mining industry believed that their conversion was anything more than a deathbed repentance, and not one that would seriously help their industry.

That was one of the first sort of turning points in the campaign. That was about the second week, and I began to feel considerably more heartened about that stage. Then, of course, at about the midpoint in the campaign the famous speech about how the restraint program was going to be dismantled was made. First of all, it was going to be dismantled, and then it was just going to be readjusted and adapted, and then maybe it wasn't going to be dismantled at all. But it didn't matter because the damage was done. I think people said at that stage: "Well, gosh, if the only solution these guys have got for the economy is to take away the restraint program which seems to be working and setting a good example — if that's what they're going to do — we don't trust them." I think it was downhill all the way from there.

MR. LEA: Don't keep us in suspense. Who won?

HON. MR. SMITH: Oh, yes, the result. That's right. As underdogs and written off by all the pollsters and polemicists and publicists, we won the campaign and, indeed, won it very handily. I'm not going to rub that one in for the next four years. This is the only day I'm going to do that.

I would also like to thank my campaign manager and my work team of some 600 for their efforts in my riding. It was a good campaign and a clean campaign, and I enjoyed it.

Now to get on to the magnificent throne speech and the observations made in it, which, I notice, have been characterized by the opposition as being buzzwords. There was other praise that we were borrowing Reaganomic expressions and that we're captive of the intellectual brains trust at the Fraser Institute. I took a lot of this as very high praise. I think institutions such as the Fraser Institute are coming into their own. They are extremely useful.

MR. LEA: Who funds them, do you know?

HON. MR. SMITH: They're funded by concerned citizens, not by Commonwealth societies in Nanaimo. Concerned citizens fund them, as well as small business.

I think the throne speech spells out a pretty clear direction: that since this election we have a mandate to move towards what I would call the right part of the centre spectrum, which is what we're doing. As I see it now, we are a moderate, centrist, conservative administration, in every sense of the word. We have a mandate to try to stimulate the economy, which is what we're doing. We have a mandate to stay away from putting additional burdens onto the taxpayer, by trying to keep taxes down or reducing them. That is being done, not just in the sense of not increasing taxes but also in the sense of changing some of the burdens by bringing in the variable mill rate and allowing municipalities and local governments to do things to assist a class of taxpayers who perhaps have not been assisted in the past — that is, the small businessman. The direction of the throne speech is towards the stimulation of private business and job creation by that route, not by massive public-sector spending.

I think the throne speech and the direction of this government will probably be one of more decentralization; that there will be an approach towards less government and a streamlining of the way we, do business, the modernization of some of our techniques and, of course, some privatization, and also some pruning of boards and commissions, all of which I think are long overdue. I think the growth of government over the last 10 or 12 years is something that has to be laid at the door of both administrations. With revenues down in today's economy, the public expects us to take direct and immediate steps to ensure that that growth does not continue. That's what the throne speech postulates and anticipates, and it is the direction in which we are moving.

I think also that one of the other mandates from the election was a mandate approving some of the major projects in this province that this government conceived and has gone ahead with with a great deal of verve and foresight. Northeast coal is one. It's probably the only energy megaproject in Canada that is active and going ahead right now. It's important not only because it's creating a townsite and employment at Tumbler Ridge, but also because it's opening up a whole new part of the province and developing new opportunities in the north. The railway spur line is being constructed; the track to Prince Rupert is being widened; tremendous bounties are flowing into the port of Prince Rupert because of additional grain facilities. It is hoped that with the addition of an LNG plant Prince Rupert will in the future become a major North American port — as a result of the government's initiatives in the northwest. That's tremendously important, because it's symbolic to the north. It's really a continuation of the kinds of policies the government has pursued since 1976. The former Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett drew his strength from northern development and from opening up undeveloped parts of this province through the late fifties and sixties. An imaginative kind of development thrust is what has really characterized Social Credit in this province in the very best sense of the party, and that's really what we've returned to.

With Expo '86 and B.C. Place in Vancouver you really have the civilizing of the life of our major city. The advantages that are going to flow from those projects and from the development that will surround the stadium at B.C. Place during the next 10 or 15 years and the commercial spin-offs that will flow from Expo '86 are going to be enormous. When I am in other parts of the country, talking to people in Toronto and Montreal, they cannot imagine how we could create a dome here for about $125 million — under budget and early. They are particularly envious in Montreal about the way in which the dome proceeded.

[ Page 149 ]

I think we have a mandate as well to assert a very strong position on behalf of this province in federal-provincial negotiations of all kinds. We're trying to achieve what it has taken years to achieve in the Crow bill changes, by supporting those changes. I'm supportive of what the federal government is endeavouring to do by reforming the Crow rate. I think it absolutely monstrous and antiquated that you can mail a letter from Swift Current to Vancouver for less money than you can send a bushel of grain. The difference, of course, is that you know that the bushel of grain will arrive six months earlier than the letter — they both go for about the same price.

MR. LAUK: The Tories are against you on that.

HON. MR. SMITH: Some of the Tories are, some are not. I think what you should be asking yourself, on the opposite side of the House, is how on earth your party can be in favour of clinging to the Crow when clinging to the Crow is going to hurt the very people who have supported you in federal and provincial ridings in this province. It's going to cost jobs and greatly injure the ability of a number of our raw processing industries to compete and to transport their products on any competitive basis, because they can't do so as long as not just the passage of grain but also the uneconomic distribution and movement of grain are being subsidized by that 1897 policy.

[Mr, Strachan in the chair.]

The New Democratic federal members from this province have voted in support of a continuation of the old Crow rate, and I take it that that is the position as well of the provincial party. I've never heard anything different.

The New Democratic Party had a gathering — a spiritual reunion — in Regina last week, and I know some of the members opposite attended. I hope that at that meeting they did more business behind closed doors than was reported in the press. In the reports in the press it did not appear that they dealt with many of their divisions and dilemmas — they were papered over. While the Leader of the Opposition in this House apparently made a rousing and good speech — and I wish him well on a personal basis — they have a number of national as well as provincial problems that they have not begun to resolve or think through. They'll have four years to do that, and during those four years it may well be that we'll hear more.

I'd like to say a few things about social services and the treatment of social services in the throne speech. Also as a result of the election, I think the mandate and commitment of the government is clear: that is, to maintain and make more efficient essential social services; to try and get better value for the major services that we now provide — not to dismantle our health care, human resources, justice or education systems, but to endeavour to make them function more efficiently. I believe very conscientiously that we can do this. The answers to all the problems in the social service field are not the answers that the gentlemen opposite always give us, which is to shovel more money out of a truck. Reorganization and a number of efficiencies can be brought to the delivery of social services.

[4:45]

I have the honour now to head a new ministry – the Ministry of the Attorney-General — which had a budget of approximately $350 million last year. It also has approximately 5,000 employees, most of whom work in the fields of corrections, police or court services. It's a far-flung, complicated ministry, but it provides excellent basic services across this province. In carrying out the duties of minister in this department, I will endeavour to be fair. I will also go out and look first hand at problems in institutions. Having had a bit of experience in the justice field for about 17 years. I’m not hampered by quite as much learning as I had to do when I became Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; I knew little about that subject or about natural gas. The justice field still requires, I think, a great deal of identification with the people working in it, and requires a minister who gets out to see how it functions, not a minister who just stays in his office. Not liking very much remaining in offices and doing paperwork, I intend to be out a great deal.

I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to all our deliberations, and commend the throne speech to you.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll get to that. This is the first time they've started heckling me before I could congratulate the Speaker's elevation. I congratulate the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who has that quiet reserve and even-handedness in the chair. I know there are a number of concerned people in his constituency with serious issues; they bring them to your attention and you hesitate, as always, to bring them out in the House. That should be a good example for the Speaker of the House. It apparently hasn't been so far. Nevertheless, I congratulate you and the Speaker on his elevation.

I want to talk a little bit about democracy, because I have heard a number of speeches that left me a little concerned about the state of democracy. We've come a long way since — the Attorney-General should know this — Runnymede. In 1215, I think it was. That's a long time ago. Where is Magna Carta now that we really need her? The member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), Speaker of the House, has been making speeches outside of the House, attacking, with his rapier thrust wit, the GVRD and Derrick Humphreys, mayor of West Vancouver. B.C. Hydro has cut off his hydro because they feel he's a commie or a pinko. May Brown and Marguerite Ford are having nervous breakdowns. They were on the phone the other day, saying: "Gary, for goodness' sake, tell them we're not commies."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order' Perhaps we could return to the throne speech debate.

MR. LAUK: I want to compliment the Attorney-General on his usually thoughtful approach to debate in this House, and then depart from that myself. But I want to congratulate him. As a member of the bar, I'm pleased that he was appointed Attorney-General. I would have hopes that a New Democrat would have been in that seat: however, if one is not to be, then the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is worthy of that position. I know that he will apply himself with heart and commitment and with a sense of justice of that motto over the law school which he and I attended. I won't give you the Latin because I can't remember it all, but it says: "Let right be done though the heavens fall." I think when that....

[ Page 150 ]

MR. LEA: Turkey-Lurkey.

MR. LAUK: The Panco debate will take place a little later.

I think when that phrase was given to the law and to our parliamentary system, "though the heavens may fall" referred just as much to no matter who is affected by that but also that political considerations must be set aside in the administration of justice, and right must then be done.

I was confused at a number of things that happened since the last time we met, albeit with some different faces. There's been government by decree. For 700, 800, 900 years it's been the relentless evolution of the British parliamentary system that the House of Commons — the Legislature — will vote on supply. It was a way in which we could limit the absolute power of the monarch, who is now a constitutional monarchy represented by the executive council. That was the way in which we could preserve the very life-blood of the democratic system and preserve that basic tenet in the Magna Carta of "no taxation without representation." That representation is on both sides of the Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General said: "That was the Boston Tea Party." He obviously has not read the Magna Carta. He said earlier in his speech, to be honest, that he could only recall back to May 5. I can understand that 1215 is going back a little further than that, as I understand it.

I notice that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is not in the chamber. I wanted to comment on something he said in his debate on the throne speech, which I thought by and large was all right. But then he attacked the mayor of the city of Vancouver — as the Speaker of the House has attacked the GVRD — and as you know, one does not do that kind of thing. Even ordinary members of the House should not attack other levels of government. There are forums in our structure for doing that. If the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain wanted to attack the mayor of the city of Vancouver, he should have done two things: firstly, he should have not mis-stated facts upon which he based that attack — he should have done more research; and secondly, there are forums to which he has access in which to launch such an attack. He said the mayor was against the stadium. This is the limited kind of recollection we're suffering from in this chamber. I want to remind the hon. members that when Mike Harcourt was an alderman, he argued that the site of the stadium should be where it is today. He supported the promotion of the stadium and didn't have a critical word for it. I had differing views from time to time, but it should be pointed out that in this chamber honour demands that when you make that kind of critique, you be correct and you go to the trouble of doing the research. I know the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain was around. Was he not reading the newspapers then, or does his memory, very much like the Attorney-General's, only go back to May 5? I can imagine....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, and the mayor himself has been dragging interested people from British Columbia around the countryside to see if we can't get a major league baseball franchise, which would he a great addition to our great city of Vancouver. Everyone I know supports that. So I think it's a little sad that in the maiden speech of the hon. member he would launch such an attack on the city of Vancouver and the people of Vancouver. The mayor of the city of Vancouver was elected by a very large majority of the people — even in the constituency of the hon. member. It's a very unfortunate thing, but I am going to have to go to his constituency and tell some of the folks there that he's been conducting sneak attacks on the mayor of the city of Vancouver here in this chamber.

The reading for today, Mr. Speaker, occurred to me, and I had to dig this out of the library. I read it some years ago: In Defence of Politics, by Bernard Krick. It's in the library. I recommend it heartily to all of you who can read. Page 16 has a few comments about the kind of thing that we have been witnessing in this chamber in the last few days, particularly from the first minister. It's one thing to win an election — and we can all speculate about why or who and what the mandate means and so on, but the "X" is the final answer and we all have to live by that, except for the contestants in Maillardville-Coquitlam who are hoping that the "X" is not the final answer. That is one thing. But to display an arrogance and a contempt for the democratic process to the extent of showing that contempt for the legitimate inquiries of members of the opposition who were elected in their constituencies — some, I might say, by very handsome majorities, apart from the predictions of the Premier himself.... That contempt, that arrogance, is a puzzle to me. You do not see it often in politics. You see some arrogance, yes, but not that kind of arrogance. That is an extreme form of personal arrogance which detracts from the very electoral system itself and this chamber. So I'd like to remind the Premier — I know he's listening to my speech in his office as he always does — that: "It is, of course....

HON. MR. CURTIS: He doesn't hang on your every word, Gary.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to repeat this too often to you. Hugh.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You can only read it once.

MR. LAUK: Hugh, listen carefully.

"It is, of course, often possible to rule alone, but it is always highly difficult and highly dangerous. To make a desert and to call it peace is not impossible, nor is it uncommon, but fortunately most politicians realize the incalculability of violence and do not always need to wreck the state in learning this lesson."

I commend that reading to the first minister so that he can think carefully about the process of government in the next three or four years.

As I've often heard from the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) "Quis custodiet custodes?" Who will guard the guardians? As I listened to the throne speech I wondered: who is going to guard the guardians? Is it true, as the former Liberal leader, Gordon Gibson Jr., used to say in this chamber, that you are elected for four or five years of absolute dictatorship? Is that what the British parliamentary system is all, about? And how long will that interpretation of this democratic system prevail? Until the state is wrecked? Is that kind of absolute dictatorship the kind of thing that we have to look forward to? Is this not a democracy of consultation?

[ Page 151 ]

[5:00]

Politics in itself has been defined by some as conciliation, compromise, understanding, giving and taking. The kind of thing that was brought into this chamber in 1972 when we came in and gave the chamber — not just the opposition — a question period, a written Hansard, longer sessions with which to debate supply, committee systems, staff.... Do you know that the opposition party prior to 1972 had one table at which all the MLAs sat, and a secretary for three and four members, no extra sessional help, no access to copying of vouchers or other important documentation so the opposition could do its sworn duty? When we came into this House we brought in those things and both hon. members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer and Hon. Mr. Gardom) stood up and were practically in tears when they said: "Thank God, a breath of fresh air, a new shot in the arm for democracy in this province." Instead this Premier — this government — has given us a retrenchment from that new democracy: centralization, restrictions on public accounts, cutbacks in services for all MLAs, mailings, the rest of the important machinery through which we — you and I, both sides together — can make this democracy work. Who will guard the guardians? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the state itself — not the NDP, but the state itself, the system itself — is endangered by that kind of arrogance, that kind of centralization.

Always in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, members become philosophical and discuss the differences between opposing political views, and so on. I won't depart from that; I'll carry on the tradition. I want to compliment the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on a very thoughtful speech. I appreciated his remarks. He was making an effort, as one or two members on that side of the House have done, to contribute to a thoughtful debate in the chamber.

Now what are the basic facts surrounding the election in the next few months and years? I think we have to use the economy itself as a launching point in discussing our differences in this House. There is a different understanding. When I saw the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I actually said to myself and I said to the member for Prince Rupert: "I think he believes what he is saying." It's nothing personal, but I felt that his remarks were superficial and clichéd — conventional right-wing wisdoms. It's like saying: "Good government. Good leadership." What does that mean? It could mean a variety of things. Anybody can say that. We'd like to think that when the campaign is over some of the sloganeering would drift away and we could talk about what our real differences are.

I have some points I want to make about Social Credit policy. It's not doom and gloom. It seems to me that if you people in the government wanted to govern well, you would listen to us. We have people in our own party come to us and say: "Don't tell them anything. Let them do it on their own. Let them fall flat on their faces." But we don't believe that; we believe in responsible opposition. We believe in putting suggestions to you in the hope that you might accept them.

Now Social Credit economic policies create unemployment; in fact, you can't deny that. In 1978 the Premier of this office went to a ministerial conference in Ottawa and was the only Premier to propose high interest rates. He argued very strongly for increasing interest rates. He argued that that would reduce inflation and that unemployment was a necessary, painful....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Look, the Attorney-General said he can't remember previous to May 5. I assume he's speaking for some of you, and I'm going to remind you of some of these things.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just saying you were wrong then, and you're still wrong.

MR. LAUK: No, it's on record. The Premier signed the statement that he made to the conference. He wanted high interest rates.

Essential service cutbacks and other service cutbacks also increase unemployment. The Conference Board in Canada reckons that in B.C., apart from the national and international scene, the government's policies in the last two and a half to three years have contributed an extra two or three percentage points to our own provincial unemployment rate. It could be higher. They are being very conservative, but they are focusing in on the government's policies. Instead of doing something to help in the last two or three years, the government has done something to hurt the economy of the province of British Columbia.

The second point I want to make is that Social Credit policies add to the burden of the taxpayers. You've heard constantly, in speech after speech from members opposite in this debate, how their policies are designed to relieve the burden on the taxpayer. The opposite is true. They're reducing, by their own policies, purchasing power in key areas of the economy itself and in regions to the extent where taxes are reduced in other words, incomes are reduced and therefore taxes are reduced to the government. Revenue is reduced. When revenue is reduced burdens have to be placed elsewhere on people who can pay taxes: in other words, you are increasing the burden on the taxpayer through increased taxes and hidden user charges and so on. So when you talk about Social Credit policies relieving the burden on the taxpayer — taxes have never been higher — you would expect that in a recession taxes would be lowered. They're not. It was pointed out that 85 percent of us are in the workforce and approximately 15 percent are unemployed. The greater the number of unemployed there are and the fewer incomes that are made, the more we who are working have to pay. One way or the other we are going to have to pay.

The third point I want to make is that Social Credit policies discourage expansion in the private sector. They don't encourage expansion. Apart from the sloganeering, have a look at it. High taxes reduce expenditures in the public sector and in the private sector. We know that; you've argued that yourself. But your higher taxes and user fees and costs are now burdening the private sector. In addition to that the government has gone into capital-intensive projects — I want to pay particular attention to northeast coal. Capital-intensive projects, especially in an isolated region, should be undertaken only on an economic basis, and also when the reserves of the government are such that such a project can be proceeded with without cutting back necessary essential services to the people. No government should undertake massive capital-intensive projects like that. It takes money out of the tax system, further reduces revenue, and places a further burden on the private taxpayer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 152 ]

It is inefficient because it's so capital-intensive. You talk about jobs — just before the campaign I went up to Tumbler Ridge, and I could see nothing but Alberta licence plates. For a time there I thought that the northeast coal project was the best thing that had happened to Edmonton in 25 years. But apart from that observation, capital-intensive projects — in isolated regions, mark you — corral or capture the capital in an area on a long-term basis and reduce the revenue to and the resources of government, and now you're cutting back the very thing that governments in any political party should be providing: essential services to people. There are less tax dollars for incentives to private industry. An efficient use of tax incentives and subsidies is on a smaller regional basis and to smaller, medium-sized businesses in the province. If there's anything private enterprise could do, it's major resource development.

That's another problem that we had with the B.C. Place plan. There's massive commercial development. If there's anything that the private capitalists have proved they can do, it's build an office tower. Six million, eight million, four million square feet, or whatever it is — it's totally out of proportion to the foreseeable demands in the city of Vancouver. It's a way in which you're going to be directly competing with the private sector for construction jobs in office and commercial space. Even though the developers of private commercial space are not openly criticizing the government's plan in B.C. Place, they are certainly doing so to themselves. They're muttering, and they're not happy.

But apart from them — they can take care of themselves eventually — it's one hell of a waste of taxpayers' money. You've got the opportunity to build a great project there, to complement the stadium and the whole area in my constituency. It's a wonderful opportunity to have mixed types of families, different walks of background, schools and playgrounds — make it a centrepiece for an urban city. Why do we have to follow blindly and make the same mistakes of some of the major urban centres in the rest of North America? We've seen the problems that they've created for themselves. Why do we have to go the same way, building concrete jungles that block out the people and communities that make it a livable region? But apart from all of that, as I say, the taxpayers' money being invested in capital-intensive projects that are not directly to the public good is a waste of money and inefficient. That tax money, if it's to be used for incentive to create jobs in the private sector, should be used on a smaller and more direct basis, if it's required.

The fourth point I want to make is that Social Credit policies are not responding to the world marketplace. The provincial government is not powerless in the international marketplace. They've said so; certainly it was a necessary defence for them during the campaign, and obviously some people believe it, but it's not true. A provincial government has certain powers, and they should use them during a recession. There was no cooperation with the private sector, except when they went to ask for campaign funds. Was there any move by the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to help medium and larger businesses diversify and divert their resources during a recession? None. Were there any incentives or regulations to encourage them to do so? None. Were there any programs for new products, new markets, modernization of plants, re-education? There were no major projects. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Industry and Small Business....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go break another bank? Drivel and garbage across the floor!

MR. LAUK: I can understand why he's upset, because since 1976 he's done nothing for industry and small business in the province of British Columbia — absolutely nothing.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I can understand why the minister's upset. If I had his record in public office I'd be upset too. He's done nothing for the people who have consistently supported the Social Credit Party. You've turned your back on them. You've given them back-of-the-hand treatment. You've taken all of the money you should have been using to help them, and you poured it into your own constituency for your own political needs. That's what you've done, and that's a shame.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't get red in the face!

MR. LAUK: I am embarrassed for your political record.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're embarrassed for you; that's why they're drumming you out. You're on your way out.

MR. LAUK: You see how upset he is. He knows I'm right. Did he do anything during the recession to develop new products or new markets?

MR. REID: Yes, he did.

MR. LAUK: No, he didn't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That why you're over there and I'm over here. Think about that one.

MR. LAUK: You can fool some of the people some of the time. I'm not saying you can't.

Those are some of the points I wanted to make. The Pacific Rim markets are a classic example. I know of people who have pleaded with this government over the past several years to, develop programs for Pacific Rim markets — not only Japan, but China. What's been done? Nothing. The only thing is a private foundation that has been started up with some federal money to try to encourage new markets in the Pacific Rim. What's happened with the minister's department? Zero.

[5:15]

What are the fundamental differences between social democracy — the NDP — and the conservative views expressed by the Social Credit Party? I've heard some of them during the throne speech debate, but I want to canvass some of them with you now. Certainly this side of the house — indeed, the New Democratic Party across the country — is reflecting on its own goals, its own policies, but it still has its basic philosophy intact, because it's true. One of the fundamental differences is a belief. That would be fine if we could sit here and say, "I believe something and you believe something," but they don't say that. We say: "We believe this is true and this policy will work." The conservative spokesperson says: "It's not a belief. It's a universal law. Free enterprise is the way God intended us to operate in the economic system."

[ Page 153 ]

The conservative viewpoint is that economic goals are fixed, human nature is fixed; that greed — they call it the profit motive, but greed is what they are ultimately saying — is a fixed character of human nature. Individuality is interpreted in their terms as selfishness, not creativity or freedom. The social democrat says that economic goals are not fixed; there are questions of choice. Human nature is not unchangeable, but even if it were, it's part of human nature also to make choices about how to live and what economic factors and goals to employ. Conservatives say the economic system need only be regulated to make it fair for entrepreneurs and investors. I think that's essentially their philosophy. The only government you need is one to make it fair for the investor, the entrepreneur. We say that the economic system must have sufficient planning to meet the new demands of the 1980s — the demands of workers, professionals, the health care system, the education system. These kinds of demands have to be made on the economic system, and a certain amount of planning has to take place.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Sure, I'll be delighted to deal with the bank in a minute.

The conservatives say unemployment is necessary for our system to function. They don't make it part of their campaign literature, but essentially that's part of the conservative viewpoint. We say full employment should be a goal, and why not? It seems to us that it's immoral not to have that as a goal of our economic system. I'm sure most of you would agree yet you're supporting policies which, as an essential ingredient, must include a reservoir of unemployed. We say that full employment is compatible with a good economic system, but it has to be at least partly planned. Foreign markets are planned. Long-term contracts for coal — that's planned economy. That's what we're saying.

I was in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) prior to the election, and spoke to people who make their living by farming out there. They do very well, thank you very much. Most of them, I was sorry to report to my own headquarters, voted for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I said to them: "Look. What we're arguing about is a planned economic system. During a recession, what is the only area of the province that is stable and is not affected as badly as other regions of the province because of the recession?" It was in the Fraser Valley agriculture district. Why? In part, because of the marketing board system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Now you and I don't always agree on marketing boards. I don't genuflect in front of the concept myself. It has a lot of problems, as the member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) knows. But there was a form of planning that stabilized that economy and reduced some of the risks. I think some of those folks understood what our approach was. They may not have totally agreed with it, but they began to understand it.

The conservatives say that productivity — that is a word used in the throne speech — only applies to labour. Did you notice that? Productivity only applies to the wage-earner. Amenhotep, one of the pharaohs of Egypt, first discovered that when he enslaved the Hebrews — and we all know about that. Productivity is low wages. How do you compete on the world marketplace? Slavery. Very simple, that's the best way. But somehow I don't think you folks agree with that approach by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs; you have something a little bit more moderate in mind. When you're talking about productivity you're always focusing on labour costs. We say productivity, as a word or concept. Is meaningless unless it applies equally to all components in the economic system. Including the use of capital and profit, We've got to discover whether it's productive to have 18 1/2 percent interest rates. We've got to know whether Howe Street is a feudal system or a modern civilized way of running an economy. Productivity analysis has to be applied to them and, yes, to the banking system. We've got to know.

I saw in this morning's paper that Dome Petroleum has another extension of its multibillion-dollar loan — to the end of August. That's a patent outrage. Your constituents and mine are paying 18 percent, an in some cases those in locked-in mortgages are paying thousands of dollars to get out of them. You and I have constituents running small businesses that have had their demand notes called on a moments notice because we're the poor suckers who have got to pay for Dome Petroleum's mistakes, and for the mistakes of the central office of the Bank of Commerce and others in granting those stupid loans in the first place. You and I are paying that price, and I know that you in all honesty are not going to stand up and defend the banks for that kind of horrendous mistake — and the mistake of the extension of loans during high-rolling, roller-coaster periods of the economy to foreign governments without security. You and I have constituents who are paying the piper for that incompetence on the part of the banking system of Canada.

Productivity, yes. Don't just ask the wage-earner — who's lucky to have a job, says the government — to show productivity for the wage that he or she makes. Let's talk about the productivity of capital, the use of profit, banking and interest rates. What about plant? What about administration? We say yes, talk productivity, but if it doesn't apply equally to all components, it becomes meaningless and it becomes a bludgeon for right-wing politicians to beat labour into submission, You know the conservatives say economic goals are not a question of agreement — you hear that in their speeches running through as a theme all the time — but come from nature, based on universal laws of supply and demand, unrestricted free market, no regulation, whatever the market will bear, and if anybody tampers with it our whole system and way of life will pass away before our eyes. That's the conservative viewpoint. Really, that's what Milton Friedman is talking about. Economy is not that complicated. It's mostly smoke and mirrors. The last person you ask for a prediction is an economist. I remember the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) once said that if all of the economists in the world were laid end to end, that would be a good thing. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

In 1979 I said that there would be a recession in the 1980s and if we didn't take proper steps now, or be prepared for it, it could turn into a depression. I said that in 1979. Remember that? And you got up and laughed!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It wasn't you? You wanted to though,

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, it came about. But the reason I raise that is not to say that I'm a mad prophet of some

[ Page 154 ]

kind. All I'm saying is that the University of Victoria's chairman of the economics department said: "Oh, that's just political nonsense. Lauk is just spouting off. I'm the economist, and I say it's not true. We're going to have good times in the eighties." I understand he's no longer chairman of the economics department at the University of Victoria, but I think that was a rotating position anyway.

We say economic goals are not fixed; we can choose them. They're not chosen divinely by the hand of God. They're not dictated. If they were chosen divinely by the hand of God then I'd put it to you that the recent bishops' statement would have said so. But the Catholic bishops' statement did not say so. The Catholic bishops said that you can make choices as a group in society and choose the proper economic goals.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There was so much more I wanted to say, but the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) wants to speak. I'll just conclude.

The conservatives say: "You know the socialists; they have a blind spot." And if the conservative viewpoint is that all of their philosophy about economic systems is universal laws dictated by the hand of Providence, then, of course, everything the socialists say is impractical, not pragmatic, they've got a blind spot. You know, it won't work, because everybody knows it's got to be the free enterprise system, and so on, and our beliefs are the beliefs of dreamers.

They call rent controls a disincentive. And they use the Fraser Institute to carefully pick and choose the material and evidence to support that argument and ignore the evidence where rent controls, together with other ameliorating plans within the economy, will work — and do work — to create new housing. They ignore that because they are doctrinaire conservatives. It's the NDP in this country that's holding up the flag of conciliation, compromise and understanding. It's the conservative right-wing Socreds and Tories in this country who are doctrinaire, inflexible ideologues who believe in a total system without compromise. They believe that we're the impractical dreamers, that anything we suggest is not pragmatic and that we've got the blind spot. The conservatives say: "We're pragmatic because we say so. It's a universal law. God has said that what we say is correct." Well, I say that's no more valid than the Inquisition's Torquemada, who said the earth was flat because God had said so.

If the criteria by which we measure the success of economic programs are based on goals dictated by these so called universal laws, then nothing new or different can occur in the economy. We'd still be beating tom-toms if we applied the same criteria to all other aspects of human progress, such as progress in political and social systems. We would still be as primitive as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago. Therefore we know that that proposition is correct, that it's not based on universal law. Newness must take place.

I say that the Social Credit policies for this province are nothing more or less than feudal capitalism. If some of our policies can be described as old New Deal, they sure can't be described as older than that. The policies of this government are feudal. What have they produced? They have produced 36 brands of toothpaste, Murray Pezim and Peter Brown. There's a question for my next speech to this chamber. I'm opening up a new project for debate here: Murray Pezim,

Renaissance man or feudal thug? Let's deal with that the next time.

[5:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I will advise the House that under standing orders the question must be called at a quarter to the hour.

MR. REYNOLDS: First, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to your post, and the Deputy Speaker. I know you will serve this parliament in the traditional non-partisan way you have in the past — certainly in this House — but that you will also serve your constituents the way you should as their MLA.

Before I get into what I want to say, there are a couple of duties that I have, and one of them is to say a few words about the gentleman that I replaced in this House. He was first elected to this Legislature in 1966 as a Liberal; he was re-elected in 1969 and 1972, joined the Social Credit Party in September 1975, and was re-elected in December 1975 and appointed the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for Indian Affairs. He was once again elected in 1979 and was appointed Attorney-General on November 23, 1979, also retaining the responsibility for Indian Affairs. As you know, he retired in 1983, and I ran after seeking a nomination in his place. On behalf of the members in this Legislature and all the constituents that Allan Williams represented so well, I wanted to include him in my opening speech, because a man who serves his constituency for that long deserves credit. It's certainly a tough job on his family in serving that long. I know — he was in my office yesterday — that he's appreciating his retirement, but I know he also misses some of the friendly faces in this Legislature.

I would also like to thank the electors in West Vancouver–Howe Sound who elected me. I enjoyed the campaign. As you know, I've been out of politics for a number of years. In fact, a number of the faces that are sitting on both sides of this House appeared on my program on the radio, and I actually thought I was becoming a little bit non-partisan for a while.

MR. LAUK: We didn't.

MR. REYNOLDS:- You didn't. Well, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) used to enjoy coming on the program all the time, and I think I treated him fairly impartially and gave him a chance to voice his point of view. But I did enjoy getting back into the political fray because I felt it was time that I did, and I felt that British Columbia, which has been my home for the past 20 years, was the place to do it.

I want to thank those people in West Vancouver–Howe Sound — so many think that it's just West Vancouver — and in the areas of D'Arcy, Birken, Pemberton, Whistler — I want to talk about that because some of the members have mentioned it in their speeches — Squamish, Britannia Beach, Lions Bay and Bowen Island. I also want to thank the Mt. Currie Indian band and the Anderson Lake Indian band for the votes they gave me and assure them that I will represent them in the best way that I can and will certainly visit their areas as often as I can.

One of the things I've noticed since I arrived here and have been listening to this debate.... Being the last speaker in the debate is an opportunity that not too many get, but it gives you a chance to listen to everyone else speak. The

[ Page 155 ]

NDP, since they started this debate.... During the campaign and before it, they kept on talking about the Legislature sitting and about a budget and when we would get it. Really, all I've heard from them during question period since we got here is how much Tony Tozer is being paid. What's happened to all the important issues that they wanted to discuss in this Legislature?

You know, it's so easy for the NDP to sit here in their sanctimonious way, but the hypocrisy is something that the people of British Columbia should be able to see. I wish that this Legislature was televised, like some of the other Legislatures across Canada, so that the people.... [Applause.] Well, Mr. Speaker, the NDP cheer it on, but if I was one of the electors out there and had been watching this debate in this House since the throne speech.... This government was re-elected on a restraint program that the people of this province accepted because it's the best program for this province and this country. This Premier led this country in restraint, and these NDP members sitting here know that that's why we were re-elected. But they've sat here and complained about the same old things they've been complaining about for the last 12 years. I haven't heard one positive proposal from the NDP since they started this debate.

Now, the NDP sit back and talk about the civil service and Tony Tozer and the money that we're paying somebody else. I'd like to quote from that famous NDPer, Bob Williams, speaking to a group of students back in 1973. He said: "I used to believe that the British system, whereby the civil service stays on after a change of government, was superior to the American system, where many of them leave with the government. Now, after a few months in office, I think I believed that because I was taught it in school." The NDP went on, when they formed the government, to do a number of things. I've sat here before when I used to visit the House, and I've listened to the members who've been here for a while repeat some of these stories when we got back into power, but I think they bear repeating again because the NDP keep on bringing up Tony Tozer. I'd like to remind them of some of the appointments that they made when they were in office.

New deputy ministers and associate ministers flocked in from outside. Former Williams planning colleague Vic Parker was appointed in Transit, Jim Matkin in Labour, Jack Fleming in Education, David Vickers in the Attorney-General's department, Bill Neilson in Consumer Services, Gary Begg in Housing, Hart Horn in Mines, NDP MP and Burnaby mayor Bob Prittie in Municipal Affairs. The NDP doesn't appoint friends! What was Bob Prittie if he wasn't a friend of the NDP?

MR. LAUK: Why did you keep him on after the 1975 election then?

MR. REYNOLDS: We didn't get rid of people, like the NDP did.

Howard Sturrock in Highways, former Williams aide Norm Pearson in Lands, and Charles Dalfen in Transport and Communications. As well, new deputies were found for Agriculture, Water Resources and Tourism. Hardly a department escaped a major shuffle at the top, Mr. Speaker. And these are the gentlemen who sit here and try to convince the public of British Columbia that we want to appoint Tony Tozer, and that's terrible! I would suggest to these gentlemen that Tony Tozer is as good a citizen of British Columbia as any of the people that you appointed.

Other senior appointments from outside included Saskatchewan — and later Manitoba — Hydro chairman David Cass-Beggs to head up B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about your merit system there?

MR. REYNOLDS: Former Williams colleague Jim Wilson. For the number two spot at Hydro, former NDP MLA and Barrett colleague Jim Rhodes, who headed up the B.C. Energy Commission. Alistair Crerar to head up the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat; John Brewin as Rent Review Commission chairman; and former Liberal MLA Barrie Clark as rentalsman. I guess that proves that the NDP-Liberal coalition in Ottawa at times reaches as far as British Columbia. Former Toronto alderman Karl Jaffary as housing consultant; former Williams planning partner Mary Rawson as Land Commission member and economic policy analysis institute board member; David Davies as chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission; UBC law professor Andrew Thompson as B.C. energy commissioner; Bill Lane as Land Commission head; Surrey school trustee and Ernie Hall campaign manager Betty McClurg, who went to the Universities Council; David Korbin as president of the new B.C. Development Corporation, former Barrett employer Morris Belkin as B.C. Development board member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going. There's more.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, there are a few more. The member sitting for Skeena, the former defeated NDP MP Frank Howard, as Indian Affairs consultant. How can the NDP sit here every day and criticize this government for appointing somebody that's competent, when they are doing what they felt.... I'm not knocking the appointment of some of these people. The member for Skeena at the time was a supporter of that government and it was probably an excellent appointment for Indian Affairs. But he gets up in this House and criticizes the Premier of this province for appointing a man he thinks is excellent for this job. I say that's hypocrisy from this party, and that's why I wish the people of British Columbia saw more of what's happening in this Legislature.

I could go on and on. There's a list of appointments that goes on for miles.

MR. REID: Keep going.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Surrey would love me to keep on, but I really haven't got enough time. I only have five minutes left.

I want to quote a paragraph from a column by Allan Fotheringham about the time that Bob Williams resigned his seat in this Legislature so that the Leader of the Opposition could get back after the people in his own constituency didn't want him here. Now the NDP said there was nothing wrong with that. I'd like to quote Mr. Fotheringham, who says:

"I can predict very accurately what would be the NDP hysterical reaction if, for example, the salary for Bill Bennett aide Dave Brown is in fact revealed to be coming from a little operation set up by friends of Social Credit, right? The dispute over sources of

[ Page 156 ]

money in politics is correctly one of the more effective NDP weapons."

Mr. Speaker, I quote that just to prove again that the same party that can sit here and criticize the Social Credit Party does the same thing when they are in power, and so do most other governments. I don't know why they don't stop their nonsense in this Legislature and start giving us some serious speeches and tell us what they really think their party would be doing for policy that would help the people of this province.

MR. LAUK: Throne speech.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about the throne speech, and I said at the very start of this exercise — and he will remember — that the Premier of this province fought this election on restraint. I agree 100 percent with that and I agree 110 percent with everything that's in the throne speech, for the second member for Vancouver Centre. I'm commenting on a lot of issues that your party members have talked about, because I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on your side. I don't think you've presented one positive aspect to this Legislature since all your speeches started.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down with hypocrisy!

MR. LAUK: Is that a fair comment?

MR. REYNOLDS: I think that's an extremely fair comment, if you want to listen to the speeches. Mr. Speaker, the member asked if that was a fair comment. Let me comment on some of the statements that they've made in this House. They started off the first day of the Legislature by putting a motion regarding the investigation of banks. Now if his party were a totally honest party, would they not have included the credit unions? But no, they didn't want to hurt their friends in the credit union movement. They could have also mentioned that the NDP has been holding up the Bank Act in the federal Parliament in this country for a long time, but they don't want to mention that. They also could have named the second member for Vancouver Centre as the chairman of that committee and then we might have all voted for him, since he’s such an expert on banks.

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that the recession was Conservative-inspired. I'd like to remind the member for New Westminster that it's his party in Ottawa that kept Mr. Trudeau in power in 1972 and also his party that defeated the Conservative government and put Mr. Trudeau back in power in 1981. It's that NDP-Liberal coalition that's been governing this country since this recession started. I think, Mr. Speaker, that they should pay some attention to that.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) knocked the Thatcher and Reagan governments and said people are concerned that we are heading in that direction. Certainly I wonder where their concerns are. The people in England and the people in the United States like their government. They like the philosophy of their government. The people in this province like the philosophy of this government, and that's why we've been re-elected. In the throne speech it's mentioned that government has to tighten up; Crown corporations have to tighten up. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP members in this House get a copy of what's happened with the United States Post Office, if they want to see what can happen if you take a corporation out of the bureaucracy of government and give it a free rein. The United States Post Office last year made a surplus. They still deliver mail six days a week — much better than our post office and much better than other Crown corporations. I commend the government for the action that it's taking in looking closely at all its Crown corporations.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of motions. One of them is to look at ICBC; another is the Liquor Control Board and other areas, I think those are very important things for us, as government, to look at. As I say, this government has done a phenomenal job in restraint; we're leading this country out of the recession. We do have a straight philosophical difference with this party to my right. I want to give you a quote from one of the NDP members when it comes to the bureaucracy in the Crown corporations. This was from Les Benjamin, a long-standing NDP member of the federal legislature, who said: "We in the New Democratic My, and before that in the CCF.... If we're going to have Crown corporations we should just not take over and operate those that lose money but those that make money as well. The profits should either be injected into general government revenues or used to support other necessary Crown corporations that are losing money." That's the policy of the NDP. I could go on for an awfully long time, and I will in the budget debate in talking about other issues, like ICBC and statements the NDP made on the mining industry during the election campaign.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) wants a debate on, Murray Pezim, and I'll be very happy to have that debate any time he wants, because there's a man who didn't listen to the doom and gloom of the NDP. There's a man who went out and started a bunch of new companies, who discovered one of the largest gold mines in the history of this country, because he's not a negative thinker. He's a positive thinker, a man who last year raised over $1 million — through his own hard work — for the Heart Foundation, right in the area of the member for Vancouver Centre, and I just wonder how he can criticize a man who has that much energy and gets out and not only makes money for himself but makes it for other people and helps the poor people as best he can. Mr. Speaker, I'd be proud to have that debate with the second member for Vancouver Centre. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I look forward to speaking again in this Legislature.

[5:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in keeping with standing order 45(3), the question will now be put. The question is: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 157 ]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 20

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills, until disposed of.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to make a few comments on this motion. I wouldn't mind having a copy of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the motion is neither debatable nor amendable.

MR. HOWARD: What standing order is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a reference is Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, page 99: "It has been held that these motions are neither debatable nor amendable." Reference is given for the B.C. Journals, 1967, February 2 and 7, pages 32, 47-48, May's sixteenth edition, page 721; May's seventeenth edition, page 749.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I could submit to Your Honour that the standing orders do provide — and I can't pick it out immediately now, but I will, if I have a moment to find it — that motions relating to the business of the House, the times of its meetings, and the conduct of its activities, of which this particular motion moved now is a debatable motion.... I don't see how a reference to May can override what the standing orders say in that regard. Standing order 45(1):

"The following motions are debatable....

(k) And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting-days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment."

This is the management of its business, and the motion put forward by the Minister of Finance is that certain business will have precedence over all others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would call to the member's attention that under section (k), which the member has just quoted, is "made upon routine proceedings." Hon, member, this is not a routine proceeding, The ruling of the Chair is that the motion before us is neither debatable nor amendable, which is sustained, hon. member, by the references already quoted by the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: I must disagree with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: That simply supports the dictatorship of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is here to uphold the rules of parliament. If members are not happy or satisfied with the rules that are before us, then clearly it is up to them to change those rules. Until that time, hon. members, I am bound by the traditions and by the rules which affect this House. Those rules and traditions will be followed. In this case the ruling of the Chair is — hon. member, you may not particularly appreciate the ruling — there, and the ruling is that the motion is neither debatable nor amendable.

MR. HOWARD: But it is challengeable, Mr. Speaker, and I'll challenge dictatorship any day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. HOWARD: What are you asking me. Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking if the member is challenging the ruling of the Chair that the motion is neither debatable nor amendable?

MR. HOWARD: Yes.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. It has been brought to the Chair's attention that there was no vote on the first part of the bill during the....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to do now?

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been rightly asked: what are we going to do now? We're going to confer.

Interjections.

[ Page 158 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have disposed of the second motion; we must now dispose of the first motion. The first motion was that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills, until disposed of.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, we are now faced with a different motion altogether and we are being taken back beyond that motion. My suggestion is that the House is totally out of order. We can't deal with a motion that had already been dispensed with by being dropped. The minute the minister stood up and moved another motion and it was accepted, the first motion was dropped.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps to aid the House the Chair could quote from May and Beauchesne as to the appropriate procedure to go back over a motion that was dropped. It was the Speaker's ruling that was sustained to uphold the rules. I listened carefully to what the Speaker was saying. The Speaker said he must follow the rules of the House, and was upheld by the House. Now some members of the House are appealing that the rules indeed be followed, within 90 seconds of the previous ruling. I ask the Speaker to quote from May and Beauchesne what permits the Chair to go back to motions that have been dropped.

[6:00]

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock: it is now 6 o'clock; in fact, it is past 6 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. While we are in the process of resolving a problem before the House, that problem must be resolved before we go on to the next point of business, but nice try. [Laughter.]

MR. HOWARD: But it's still 6 o'clock when you get to that next point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to assist the House, if I may, I would move again that this House would at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills, until disposed of.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I don't see how the Minister of Finance can now move the same motion which he moved earlier and which was dropped. His attempt to do that after the hour of 6 o'clock has been reached, I submit, is permission for him to transgress the rules.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What's your objective?

MR. COCKE: To show how incompetent you are.

MR. HOWARD: Just straight incompetence. Just used to being dictators and having your own way, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I call your attention to standing order 60: "The Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means shall be appointed on motion, without previous notice, at the commencement of every session, as soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor." Therefore, hon. members, it is not optional, it is mandatory, even if there has been an inadvertent procedural lapse.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:06 p.m.