[ Page 983 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Kempf –– 983

Mr. Gabelmann –– 984

On the amendment

Mr. Gabelmann –– 987

Mr. Hanson –– 987

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 992

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a shame to shatter the tranquillity of such a beautiful morning, but the business of the people must go on.

As I was saying yesterday afternoon, prior to adjournment, I support this budget. It is a budget of the type that I and many others have advocated in and out of this House for the last number of years. It's a budget that with accompanying legislation effectively reduces the size of government. If there's anything the people of this province are looking for it's less government involvement in their everyday lives and less government involvement in the day-to-day business of the province of British Columbia. They're tired of the womb-to-tomb philosophy of the socialists opposite.

What of those socialists, Mr. Speaker? Well, they're missing the boat. They're missing the point completely, because they're all caught up in the situation of having to appease their friends in the labour movement in this province. They actually believe that the majority of British Columbians would see this budget fail. Not so, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and you know that; you've been home to the riding recently. Down deep, not only does the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) know it, but all those other members on the opposition benches as well. They know also that tough measures must be taken in British Columbia at this time if we are to survive financially; and those are taken in this budget. They must be taken unless we wish to leave a legacy of debt to our children, and to our children's children. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) talks about those children every time she gets to her feet in this House. What about the children who would assume the legacy of our debt were we not to take the hard measures that we're taking today in this budget? Has she thought of those children when she has gotten to her feet in this House? I think not. They play their little political games to appease their friends, but they fool themselves. It's just not flying, and I'd like to say that to the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. KEMPF: Precisely: the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he be over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or she.

MR. KEMPF: I didn't see any of the shes on that side of the floor come forward. I saw several of the hes. Maybe they're trying to tell us something here this morning. It's a case of overkill.

MR. LAUK: Why are you wearing a red tie?

MR. KEMPF: It's not red, Mr. Member. It's not even pink.

[10:15]

They filibuster this House day after day, hoping that some of their words will get out and convince 75 percent of the people of British Columbia that they're correct. It was 45 percent on May 5, but your fortunes have dropped. If you don't believe that, just listen to the man or woman on the street today. They're hoping to convince those people that this budget is bad, that it is evil. They're trying to convince the people of B.C., and in so doing, and in filibustering this House, they're wasting untold thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hundreds of thousands,

MR. KEMPF: Hundreds of thousands, some of it not yet earned by the taxpayers of this province; some of it having to be borrowed. They're spending $80,000 a day in a filibuster of this House, money which could be better spent to reduce that deficit of S1.6 billion. They play their political games each and every day and spend S80,000. In fact, it's more than that. And the members opposite joke about it. It's not a joke; it's deathly serious. To filibuster this House they spend money that has not yet been earned, that has not yet been paid by the taxpayers of this province. They have no shame.

HON. A. FRASER: Hang your heads in shame.

MR. KEMPF: They have no shame to leave a legacy of debt for our children to pay in this province. There is no shame. I heard the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday speaking about debt and the fact that funds borrowed meant funds which interest had to be paid on. That was a real awakening for the members of this House to find out that if you borrowed money, you had to pay interest on it. I guess some of us hadn't realized that before yesterday. She was correct: $1 –– 6 billion to provide the services that British Columbians have grown to expect.

Without this budget and without its tough measures.... When you consider that in the context of wasting $80,000 a day in a useless filibuster, it's a travesty. I did a little arithmetic with $80,000 a day, and it's really more than that. It will cost the taxpayers an additional $265 a day in interest. Mr. Speaker, $265 times 365 days, because that's the number of days they're going to have to pay that interest, is an additional $9,600 a day for every day we sit. It's not really costing the taxpayer simply $80,000, because if you have to borrow that money, as we have to do in these tough times in the province of British Columbia, it's actually $89,600 a day that a filibuster of this chamber is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We've heard a long and varied debate by the opposition on this budget and on legislation that was presented to this House. We've had frivolous hoist motions, most of which didn't make much sense. All of it, as I have pointed out, has wasted taxpayers' money, many of those dollars not yet earned by the people of British Columbia. That, as I said before, is a travesty.

I want to comment on a couple of things, probably irrelevant to the budget, but nevertheless raised in debate on the budget, and I'm sure you won't call me out of order for that. I wish to comment on some remarks made yesterday by the member for Cowichan-Malahat in regard to the lay judges who were eliminated by the socialists when they were in government. I really wonder why that member would raise

[ Page 984 ]

that subject in this House, particularly at this time when the opposition is castigating the government for firing without cause. I'm really surprised that they would talk about Bill 122 of all things — a bill brought in by the socialists on May 29 ' 1974, which fired 94 lay judges in the province of British Columbia. It is hypocrisy for a member of that party to talk about that particular situation at this time, after the speeches they have given in this House in the last two months. I not only want to talk about the hypocrisy of Bill 122; I would also like to say that the passing of that bill in this House was a real travesty. It did irreparable harm to the justice system of the province of British Columbia. I read from an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on August 16, 1983, in a column by Mr. Les Bewley. He's talking about May 29, 1974:

"On that day, Alex Macdonald, Attorney-General in Premier Dave Barrett's New Democratic Party government, introduced into the Legislature Bill 122, called the Provincial Court Amendment Act. With the support of all the NDP members of the Legislature" — and some of them still sit here today, Mr. Speaker — "it was enacted within a week, on June 5, 1974.

"That hastily passed act, introduced and passed without any consultation or notice to any of the 94 judges of the provincial court, violated the sanctity of the terms of every judge's appointment and wiped out the tenure of their office.

"The bill was never part" — and get this, Mr. Speaker — "of the NDP's election platform, and the party had no mandate whatever from the electorate to pass the act. It undoubtedly wouldn't have been elected if its intentions had been known during the election campaign."

Where have we heard that sort of thing in this House in the last two months?

MR. PARKS: Does that make them hypocrites?

MR. KEMPF: Hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. I am not throwing any insinuations at any individual member over there. I am just saying that it's hypocrisy from that party, that side of the House.

I continue to quote: "Every previous B.C. government had scrupulously respected the terms of appointment of its judges, but the NDP's legislation fired every judge, without cause at age 65, even though some had previously been appointed to sit to age 75, and all the rest to age 70."

Mr. Speaker, it was a travesty, a setback and an irreparable harm to the justice system of the province of British Columbia, because if there was anything that was just in this province it was the lay magistrates, who knew the people and knew the communities in which they sat on the bench, and could deliver a very just form of justice to those communities. It was an absolute travesty and absolute hypocrisy. That is the sort of thing that those members on that side of the House have been accusing us, as government, of for the last two months.

I have all kinds of other things to say in regard to this budget, in regard to the legislation before us in this House. It appears my red light is on. I don't like that colour; I think we should paint it, Mr. Speaker. I am going to have to reserve those other comments to other times. I say again that I support this budget.

MR. GABELMANN: I always enjoy following my cousin — by marriage I might add. It is interesting to listen to antediluvian politics in this Legislature. Some people say that we have a two-party system in this province and have had not just for the last few years; in fact, I suspect that the political spectrum as covered in this Legislature is far wider than it ever was even in the days of four parties being represented in this House. I listened to the entire speech of the member for Omineca as he attempted to recapture the lost right-wing ground that he had so exclusively held for the last four or five years or so. He has lost some of that ground now to his new friends from Surrey and places like that. I noticed during one particular vitriolic right-wing comment yesterday that almost every back-bencher applauded and not a single cabinet minister applauded. I suspect what we really have in this Legislature is more than two parties but in fact a whole number of parties; we just don't hear the debate that goes on in their caucus.

In speaking to the budget, I just want to make a few comments — comments that I was prepared to make away back in early July, with an exception of a few changes that I have had to make to the text to deal with the fact that we are now near the end of August. The comments that I prepared at that time seem to me to be still quite applicable.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, there is always room for legislative differences of opinion over the best economic and fiscal policies at any given time. No individual and no party can ever prove that his or her or its legislative proposals will best serve the public's economic interests. It is equally true that it is the responsibility of the government of the day to implement those economic policies which it believes will best serve the public interest. Even if the government's economic policies do not work well, it can legitimately defend its mandate from the public to introduce those policies. I wish it were possible for this debate to take place in that context. I wish the situation facing us was that the government was putting forward in this budget a plan for the economy which we could debate. I would like to be able to examine, analyze, and offer constructive criticism of such an economic plan. That, after all, is what we're supposed to be here for: the government to bring forward solutions to problems facing the province, the opposition to offer criticism of those proposed solutions and to suggest alternative proposals. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Unfortunately that is not what we face in the budget and the related pieces of legislation introduced on July 7. Instead of making a conscientious attempt to deal with the problems facing the people of British Columbia, the government, to the amazement of most sectors of the community, has embarked on a campaign of hatred, of punishment, of vengeance against every institution and sector of the community which they do not like. Never before have I seen a small group of men and women reveal so completely their collection of obsessive hatreds, while retaliating against any groups or institutions which have annoyed them.

A few months ago the Premier referred to a so-called "coalition of dissent." In the budget and related legislation, the supposed members of that coalition have been punished: teachers, workers in the public sector, unionists, advocates of women's rights, the disabled, the poor, the disadvantaged, racial minorities, unprotected workers employed in lowwage industries and by unscrupulous employers, tenants, all who require hospital services and are not wealthy enough to

[ Page 985 ]

meet onerous costs personally, municipal officials who have dared to disagree with developments proposed by friends of the government, members of university and college boards.... The list goes on. The "coalition of dissent" grows, Mr. Speaker.

Most of these measures have little or nothing to do with the economic situation facing the province. Most of them will do little to improve the government's deficit position. Many of them, as previous speakers have pointed out, will actually cost additional public funds in the long run. The best example of that is the abolition of preventive programs like family support. Penny wise and pound foolish.

No, this is not a budget which has economic recovery as its primary goal. The pieces of supplementary legislation are not primarily designed to improve economic conditions. To say they are is simply pretence. The economic difficulties which we face have been used as a smokescreen to hide the real intent of the budget and the legislation: to punish certain groups, to turn back the clock to the supposed good old days of the nineteenth century when the wealthy and the powerful were able to enforce the majority of people into submissive subservience, free from protective social legislation, free from rights gained through collective bargaining, free from the inconveniences of a pluralistic and democratic society. This budget is a sad document, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if the regime does not like what a government employee thinks or reads, he or she can be fired, despite the cosmetic changes introduced by the Provincial Secretary. Now, if the regime does not like what a hospital nurse or hospital worker does in his or her spare time, the order can go out: discharge. Now, if the regime disapproves of a school board position: cut them off financially, not to mention fine them personally. Now, if the regime doesn't like what college teachers say or do: fire them, or abolish their programs, or both.

The collective agreement provisions will be gone; no defence against the regime there. The Human Rights Code will be gone; no defence against the regime there. Independent boards of governors will be gone; no defence against the regime there. The only problem is that repression has not produced economic recovery anywhere that I know of. It hasn't done it in Poland. Repression has not produced economic recovery in the Latin American dictatorships. Repression has not produced economic recovery anywhere — not now, not in the past, never. I particularly hope that the business community give serious thought to that fact. I hope that the Employers' Council and the chambers of commerce ask themselves the question: how are things going in the countries which have managed to grind down trade unions, to eliminate human rights legislation, to squeeze the education system and control the universities, to cut back the social services? How's business there? The fact is that business is not doing very well under those circumstances, and business is not going to do very well in a British Columbia in which government repression produces social unrest. It is not going to do very well in British Columbia where more and more people are too uncertain and afraid to perform as typical North American consumers. It is not going to do very well in British Columbia where more and more wage earners are too resentful about a tax on their working conditions, living standards and rights to give attention to getting the job done. I hope the business community is seriously considering those questions and that it will express its concern to a government that won't listen to anyone else.

Let's look specifically at the impacts which can be logically expected from various aspects of the budget and the supplementary legislation. The government has stated repeatedly that it believes economic recovery depends primarily on the private sector. In most cases the private sector has been suffering from a lack of economic activity and lack of sales. What impact will a sales tax increase have on sales? Negative. The only people who have enjoyed adequate purchasing power in the last two years are not particularly affected. Everyone with inadequate purchasing power is adversely affected by this budget. Fewer consumer goods will be purchased, fewer restaurant meals consumed, fewer purchases made from the suppliers of products for small business. What impact will the layoff of thousands of workers in the public sector have on the private sector? Again, more unemployed with decreased purchasing power. Instead of thousands of people earning money, paying taxes and patronizing small businesses, UIC rolls and social assistance rolls will be increased while the newly unemployed spend as little as they can. All of those who fear that the axe may fall on them next spend as little as they can.

With massive cutbacks in social services and public sector payrolls, one might logically expect significant tax cuts for the vast majority of British Columbians, tax cuts which could provide economic stimulus, however crudely. The budget of course makes no such provision, with the result that its overall effect must inevitably be reduced consumer expenditure and an acceleration of the depression cycle. The lessons of the thirties are unlearned: Herbert Hoover and R.B. Bennett ride again through the land spreading destruction in their wake. We are told the answer is that we are cutting government spending.

We are eliminating the costly Alcohol and Drug Commission. Of course more alcohol and drug abuse means more people dealt with in costly publicly financed institutions, whether hospitals or jails. Somehow we're supposed to believe that that will cut costs for the public treasury. We are eliminating motor vehicle inspection; that is supposed to save public funds. Of course there will be more defective cars on the road, more accidents and more claim costs for ICBC, but somehow we don't have to count those costs. We'll just find somebody else to blame when they increase.

We're cutting the powers of all local school districts, college and university bureaucrats. We're going to centralize more and more of the administration in Victoria. As a result, the work will be carried on by the very provincial public servants who this government believes don't work very hard or efficiently. But somehow they are going to manage to save us money in this way.

We're going to have fewer and fewer people maintaining our roads, highways, schools, community centres and public buildings. We are told that is going to save public money. Of course when the accumulated damage and wear and tear requires that roads, buildings and other facilities have to be virtually rebuilt from scratch, the costs will be astronomical. Somehow that will still save us money. By saving $100,000 a year in maintenance on a $5 million building, we will have saved $1 million in ten years. Of course we won't have any building left, but we will have saved $1 million.

The private sector should take lessons from this kind of economic expertise. Think how much a hardware store could save in ten years by not sweeping, cleaning, painting or repairing the furnace or the leak in the roof or by updating stock. Well, at the end of ten years the owner might have

[ Page 986 ]

saved enough for the down payment on a new building to replace the derelict one so that he can start over from scratch.

We're going to save money by eliminating the Human Rights Code, the commission and the branch. Of course the police and the courts are going to be a lot busier; more police officers and court officials are going to be required. Somehow we'll have saved money. We won't just need more court officials but also more courtroom space, because we're also going to save money by eliminating the rentalsman's office. Instead of spending $4.4 million a year for rentalsman's officers to deal with complaints, we can have the courts and judges dealing with these matters. Courts and judges cost less, don't they?

Perhaps I'm being petty, Mr. Speaker. We have the B.C. Spirit and that's going to help our tourist industry solve our problems. We can expect to have tens of thousands of tourists flocking to British, Columbia from all over Canada, the United States and abroad to look at B.C. Place and the minitransit lines. And what else are they going to find, Mr. Speaker? They are going to travel over untended roads, enjoy unkempt parklands, experience reduced ferry services, deal with unhappy and resentful government employees, stop to watch the weekly demonstrations from one or other of the groups that have suffered at the hands of this government, enjoy the 7 percent sales tax, marvel at the lineups outside hospitals, pay the brand-new private enterprise charges for using a public facility like Cypress Bowl, and watch the TV commercials showing the glories of British Columbia that used to be. Oh yes, it's a natural, it's super. All we need is time for word of mouth to spread and we'll have quite a tourist industry, won't we? Edmund Burke — no radical he — said it well: "Mere parsimony is not economy.... Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy,"

No, this is not a budget we have before us; this is not a legislative program for economic recovery; this is not a blueprint for building British Columbia. This is, in fact, a combination of two things. First, it is a bizarre parody dreamed up by "Saturday Night Live" or Mad Magazine writers of all of the half-baked economic absurdities which have surfaced over the last 50 years. That aspect makes it a potential economic disaster for the people of this province. Even worse, however, it is a manifestation by grown men and women, of the childhood bully principle: "I'm bigger and more powerful than you, so I'm going to beat up on you — you who are old, poor, who are women, racial minorities, wage-eamers, teachers, health-care workers, children; in other words, all of you who are not members of our little gang and who haven't paid us enough respect." That is what this government is doing under the guise of economic necessity. John Milton warned of it 300 years ago when he said, "and with necessity, The tyrant's plea, excus'd his devilish deeds."

What we're required to do today, instead of that straightforward debate on alternative policies which should be before us, is to expose these devilish deeds being perpetrated under the hypocritical claim of necessity. I want to make clear that as long as this attempted bullying continues — these attacks on and punishment of dissenters, or any who do not belong to the select circle — I am going to stand here doing whatever I can to expose this incredible misuse of government power. Rather than doing that, I wish, as I said before, we could be debating the economic alternatives that each side of this House supposedly represents.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's hear some. Let's hear one! Nothing positive; all doom and gloom and negative.

MR. GABELMANN: Even though I fully expect members of the government not to agree with what I'm saying, it's clear that not only do they not agree, which is fine, but they don't understand what I'm trying to say. The whole intent of my comments this morning has been to make the point that they are denying our ability to have rational political and economic debate in this province, by their bullying attacks on the poor and the disadvantaged, the so-called coalition of dissent.

[10:45]

I am going to put forward, as my colleagues are going to put forward, constructive alternatives, not just now but over the course of the next few months; not under the illusion that anyone opposite will pay any attention, but because that is what the people of this province have entrusted us to do, and we on this side, at least, will, fulfil that trust. The underlying basis for developing a successful policy for economic recovery must be to persuade the vast majority of British Columbians that the proposed policies are equitable; that any burdens which they impose will be shared fairly; that no privileged few will be able to capitalize on the sacrifices of others. To achieve this it is essential not only that the policies be sound, but that they be developed on a cooperative basis with all sectors of the community. Labour, management, the public sector, the private sector, the disadvantaged and the academic community must all be involved in full consultation. Of course, this is slow and unwieldy, and requires great patience; most of all it requires respect for the roles which all of these groups play in our society. Again, it was Edmund Burke, that great conservative, who said: "All government — indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act — is founded on compromise and barter." That is the prudent and only workable approach to governing our province out of our current economic difficulties.

The government should first be determining the real economic costs of unemployment on our economy so that the real net cost of job-creation programs can be determined and weighed against the contribution to economic recovery of increased purchasing power in our people's hands. Studies have been done on this question, as studies have been done on the positive spin-off value of every job created and the negative spin-off of every job eliminated. Why is the government ignoring these studies and this advice?

Secondly, in the light of these determinations, the government should be planning over at least the next four-year term of office the planned level of deficits necessary for economic recovery. Once this has been determined, it is then necessary to determine equitably shared programs to keep the annual deficit within the desired boundaries. Rather than dumping the burden on those least able to pay, through an increase in sales tax, tax measures must be developed which will ensure that any increased tax burden is borne by those able to pay, without seriously affecting their living standards or their effective purchasing power. Where it is necessary to control areas of public expenditure, attention must be given to both the social impact and the long-term economic impact of the various options open. Limitations on expenditure in education and training clearly have long-term economic and social impacts, preventing municipalities from properly maintaining public buildings and facilities. These also, as I pointed

[ Page 987 ]

out, have serious negative long-term economic consequences.

Eliminating local planning in rural areas not only denies democracy but means extra costs in the long term. On the other hand, cutbacks in government advertising and exotic junkets by provincial and municipal officials have relatively limited negative impacts. Wage freezes on low-wage earners, whether organized or unorganized, have serious economic impact because these people spend 100 percent of their income. On the other hand, short-term excess profit, taxes and short-term luxury taxes on peripheral items have very limited economic and social effect.

Not only do these kinds of choices make economic and social sense, the obvious justness of such choices can provide the positive spirit that can galvanize the majority of British Columbians into an increased and cooperative effort to share in strengthening our economic position. You cannot ever expect this kind of positive performance out of people who are cynical. Most British Columbians today are increasingly cynical, and I suggest that the cynicism has been caused on the one hand by the manifest injustices of the policies and programs of the present government, and on the other hand by the deceptions that have been practised upon them: such as repeated pledges of no increases in hospital charges in an election campaign, followed in weeks by the announcement of very significant increase in such charges.

The actions of a mean-spirited government can only lead in time to a mean-spirited people. By singling out and scapegoating certain groups in our community, a government is only encouraging ordinary citizens to do the same thing. The result can only be the exact opposite of the kind of cooperative and positive spirit which we need to develop if we're going to bring British Columbia out of the current economic crisis and begin to build a stronger economic base for the future.

That is why this budget is so bad: not just because its economic policies are both asinine and unfair, but also — and even more importantly — because it promotes hostility, conflict and division among people and groups in British Columbia. History will record Thursday, July 7, and the developments over the next few months as one of the great crises in the history and development of this province. If this government continues and succeeds, however temporarily, in pursuing the politics of vengeance, hatred and retribution, British Columbians will be generations in recovering and all British Columbians will pay the price to come. On the other hand, if a unified voice of public opinion says, "No. Stop this madness. We cannot go on this way," and that voice is heeded by the government, then we may be able to turn this crisis into the beginning of a rebirth for British Columbia, and we may actually be able to make the B.C. spirit into something more than an ad agency slogan.

I intend now — as I indicated two days ago — to move an amendment to the motion under consideration. I will read that motion into the record for Hansard. It reads as follows:

"That the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: 'But this house regrets that in the opinion of the House, the Hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of the economy and thereby protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardship'"

Mr. Speaker, because the amendment that was proposed earlier during this budget debate was ruled not to be in order, we will have only the remainder of today's sitting to discuss and debate this amendment, which the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has seconded.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The great tragedy and the great failing of economic policy in 27 of the last 30 years and many years prior to 1952 in this province is that we have presumed and assumed that our resource base — the timber, the minerals and, to a certain extent, the marine resource — was unlimited and would continue for generations to come to provide economic return to the people of this province. Recessions in the late fifties and the early seventies and the depression that we are in at the moment and hopefully on our way out of — but no one is certain of that — have finally awakened the majority of the people in this province to the fact that we can no longer rely simply on the basic raw resources of this province without diversifying and making certain that we use those resources to create secondary and tertiary jobs. We can't continue this mad policy of exporting raw logs and unprocessed minerals, of destroying our rivers so that salmon production is down.

With the exception of the beginnings that we made to develop such a diversified economic structure and plan for this province — and they were only beginnings — no effort has been made by any Social Credit government or by any coalition, Liberal or Tory government before them, to begin that necessary process of planning the restructuring and diversification of the economy of this province. That program is long overdue. From what is contained in the budget and the legislative package, it is clear that the government has not yet learned that lesson, despite our going through the worst depression in this province since the thirties. They still have not learned that we need to create more jobs in this province by diversifying our economy in a variety of ways. Nowhere in the budget, nowhere in the legislation, nowhere in the speeches by cabinet ministers — not even in the speeches of members such as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — is there any plan or program, or even a hint of such a plan or program.

Therefore, although we have only one day to debate this very important topic of how to diversify this economy and create employment, I think this debate today should be and will be one of the most important in determining the economic direction and future of this province, and in determining whether or not we will have a built-in unemployment rate of 10 to 15 percent forever, with massive welfare rolls and huge unemployment insurance rolls.

With that, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who seconded the motion, will begin today's debate on our part.

MR. HANSON: The wording of that amendment is, I think, very significant. I can recall my first social studies course when I was a young student in elementary school and learning that British Columbia's economy was based on primary industry. All of us six- and seven-year-olds sat there and listened very attentively when Mr. Church — I think that was

[ Page 988 ]

his name — said that one of the reasons everyone is unemployed during a heat wave is that the forests are closed and so much of our economy is dependent upon cutting trees', the harvest of fish takes place only during certain narrow periods of time; mining can only occur under certain conditions; and so on. So we have a primary resource-extractive industry. I don't think he used those words, but he said we harvest the wood, we dig ore and minerals, we harvest fish, and so on; but we don't make chainsaws, we don't make mining or fishing equipment, although there is some boat building.

The point is that we've been harnessed. As far back as I can recall, my analysis of B.C.'s economy was that the people of the province have been hewers of wood and drawers of water. More than three decades later, I'm standing here debating a motion which very accurately claims that much of the pain and anguish being experienced by citizens of this province is as a direct result of the failure of governments, particularly of the Social Credit Party, which has been the chief steward of this province for 30 years. The last 30 years is a record of the failure to diversify. Later in my remarks I want to talk about a specific failure within the microcosm of my own community.

[11:00]

I think it's very important that this amendment be debated today. Clearly, brokerage houses in Vancouver and on Wall Street have come to the same conclusion: the impact of the downturns in the economy is greater here because we as a people have failed to elect governments committed to properly diversifying and cushioning our economy from these downturns. The other day I was very irritated, to say the least, to hear the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) stand in his place in this House and make a claim that in my own constituency of Victoria a local level of government was responsible for the failure to have a strong diversified economy. Much of that failure clearly resides with the provincial government, under Social Credit, for the last 30 years.

But before I start on that litany, I just want to make a comment about the way Social Credit has been elected over the years. I think probably this last election was the greatest example of a political party misrepresenting itself to the people of the province. If political parties were like athletic teams, this government would be disqualified. It would be the equivalent of having pine tar all the way up your bat, the equivalent of a long-jumper stepping right over, coming in, thrusting away after years and years of training and practice, hitting that launching board and having ten toes hanging over the end of the board...

MR. PARKS: All ten — not just one or two?

MR. HANSON: ...all ten hanging over the board, and not being disqualified.

In sport, Mr. Speaker, there's honour and rules, and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).... We're very proud on this side of the House to have had someone here with the athletic prowess and the record of that member. He knows very clearly that in sport.... I was listening to the international games that were held in Helsinki, and in those games we had a very fine 4-by-100 metre relay team. One of the runners, in his anxiety, apprehension and desire to do well, just stepped slightly over the line when he was passing the baton to his next teammate. They were disqualified, and you can imagine how they were hurt and how they suffered.

MR. BARNES: There's an even better example in the paper today. What about steroids? He lost the gold medal.

MR. HANSON: Exactly. In the Olympic meets it is illegal for athletes to abuse the rules in the use of steroids and so on for shot putting and weight events. They have a test, and if it's proven that they have taken those drugs, they are disqualified.

In politics it's totally different. There are no rules. You can misrepresent yourself to the public and lie to them, and if you win the contest, then.... The words are the same. It's a contest; people are running, almost like athletics. There's an assumption that there are rules and boundaries — the Marquis of Queensbury rules — but there aren't. This is the point, Mr. Speaker: under any standards of international athletics, sportsmanship and competition, the people occupying those seats across would be disqualified; they didn't play fair. It's like horses running that have been given injections; stepping over the line; prize-fighting, where you punch your opponent before the bell even rings. You did that in terms of advertising. I think it's a good analogy: using the taxpayers' money to advertise in expensive television formats, to produce very glossy productions to try and influence the contest, but before the gun goes off you start to run by a separate set of rules, and those rules are not in the book. But the people of this province are aware of it. They've been badly burned. I think the athletic analogy, in terms of competition, fairness, rules of honour, Marquis of Queensbury rules and fair play.... They are certainly not in evidence as a result of what we witnessed May 5. And now we have the announcement from the Premier of this province that he's going to do it all again. He's going to go to the public treasury to make the advertisements necessary to try to switch over a few people who, as a result of their analysis of the government's performance, have got this government's number.

I want to go back to the Provincial Secretary's totally erroneous claim that somehow this local community drove out business, resulting in the high unemployment and suffering that's occurring here in my own region. I want you to hark back, Mr. Speaker, to a few events. I'm going to talk about a couple in the private sector, of enterprises that were under provincial authority, under provincial regulations. And I want to talk about those in the provincial public sector — in the federal area — where this government in its ineptitude failed in any way to stabilize the local economy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Victoria economy comprises a number of important elements. One is public administration, which is the provincial, municipal and federal governments, Crown agencies, and so on. This is the capital. It's a very important part of government.

It's too bad that we can't have a cabinet minister sitting on that side of the House to pay attention to the remarks that are being made, because they're being made. If there was any heeding of these remarks, my own constituents wouldn't be in the dire straits that they are.

MR. HOWARD: You mean there are no cabinet ministers in the House right now?

MR. HANSON: No. It doesn't surprise me, my colleague. It doesn't surprise me because they don't pay attention to any of the good ideas that come across this floor. They feel that they know the answers, and of course they haven't got a clue what the answers are. I'll press on. I'm not

[ Page 989 ]

offended by the fact that there are no cabinet ministers in the House.

We have a public administration sector. We have a very small and receding light industrial sector, and that is a direct result of the absence of any kind of public policy surrounding the economy of this region, or any other region of the province. Tourism is a very important dollar-earner, but it's extremely seasonal in nature and needs stabilizing. It's a very important aspect of our economy. It must be encouraged, but it needs stabilizing.

I want to just talk about how, in one of the key light industrial sectors, this government had the opportunity to stabilize our fishing industry here, but failed to do anything at all. In Victoria — it may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker — we have a fish plant called Oaklands Fisheries Ltd., owned by the Marubeni and Hoko fishing companies of Japan. I can give you a bit of history on that particular plant, Mr. Speaker. In 1976 Canada extended the 200-mile limit. As a result the Japanese fishing industry wanted to secure a supply of fish, so a number of major corporations came in and acquired the processing capacity of virtually all of the fish plants — all except B.C. Packers — on our coast. They did the same thing in Alaska. A price war resulted from that competition, driving up the price of salmon and herring, the only two fish the industry wanted. Then, when the control was secured, the price was dropped out of the market and the fishenrien lost their shirts, the fish stocks were somewhat depleted, and then the fishing companies embarked upon a process of consolidation of the processing plants — meaning they wanted to close the ones that, from their point of view, were the least profitable. I don't say they were losing money, but they could make more money if they could get the fishermen to bring the fish to them, rather than having fish-processing plants anywhere in the near vicinity of the fishing grounds. So the major fish- processing plant on Vancouver Island — a seven-year-old plant — was closed so that the fishing fleet of Victoria then had to steam from the fishing grounds out in the 200-mile zone over to Vancouver to sell their fish.

The upshot of that is a loss of the light marine industrial base of Victoria. A lot of things go with fishing, Mr. Speaker: ship-chandlery, boat-building, boat repair, machinery repair, stores — all of the electronic equipment, all possibilities for Victoria to be a major generator of industry for the extraction of resources and exploration and harvesting in a rational way from our marine base. Everyone is coming to learn that the food-producing capacity of British Columbia on the land is relatively limited, and even more limited every day under this government, which is eroding the agricultural land reserve. But we are blessed with one of the greatest marine habitats for the raising of protein from the sea anywhere in the world — better than Norway, better than Japan — right here in the Strait of Georgia, which in many respects is treated as a garbage dump, as a dump for sewage, as a place for dumping tailings and sorting logs. The bark dropping on the bottom of the area destroys the habitat for years and years into the future. Fir bark and cedar bark are devastating to a marine environment. That is a bit of history.

Here we have, as a result of this government's ineptitude — and I don't think I have made the linkage of how this government was responsible, because the Marubeni Corp. and the Hoko Co. operated under a permit for all of their plants in British Columbia that was issued by this province.... Do you think that this cabinet said to those people: "It is vital that regional economies be stabilized. Therefore, to operate your plant in Richmond, British Columbia, or on the central coast or anywhere else, we are going to discuss a fleet allocation. We are going to have certain numbers of trollers, trawlers, draggers and so on feeding into the Victoria economy so we don't lose the light industrial base, the electronic equipment, all of the computer programming and so on that could be so much a part of our marine potential"? Do you think the cabinet met with them and tried to devise a system so that certain tonnages would go to Victoria, certain tonnages would go to Richmond, certain tonnages would go to Namu and certain tonnages would go to Tofino? No, they didn't do that. They said: "Go ahead and do your thing." We lost 300 direct canning jobs and all of the spinoff jobs. We probably lost 2,000 jobs and a lot of potential for future development of our marine capacity. Here we are on the edge of the 200-mile limit, and we are losing the fishing fleet and all that entails. What else?

[11:15]

We had a brewery on Vancouver Island. Fifty years ago there were 50 breweries, and we ended up with one, the Labatt's brewery here in Victoria. It had approximately 250 employed when they ran two shifts. They moved down to one shift. Why did they do that? Because it is easier for a brewery to run a high-speed can line from one place. In fact, the three major breweries could operate one high-speed can line in Regina for all of western Canada. From their point of view that would be most desirable. But from the point of view of New Westminster, that has a brewery, or Cranbrook, that has a brewery, or Victoria, that had a brewery.... There is a job linkage around a brewery — bottles, hops, with the workers.... In other words, there was about a $3.5 million payroll at the end — $7 million at full swing — that we lost because the government who licenses and controls distribution of liquor in this province did not have the jam to say to Labatt: "It is not in the interests of the Victoria and Vancouver Island economy to lose the only brewery with 200 employees at this time. We want you to keep that brewery open because we see that you are making money."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That particular brewery had 47 percent of the market share of all of the beer sold on Vancouver Island. They had 200 people working. Even farmers on the Saanich Peninsula were coming down and buying up the mash and the remains of the process, and that was being recycled into the dairy industry, which is a very good and important part of the local economy. Mr. Speaker, the importance of losing that brewery and that Oaklands fish plant.... Those ripples are still going through the Island economy. We are losing jobs constantly as a result of the fact that we don't have the infrastructure to maintain some of those key survival enterprises any longer. If we lose the raw material in the form of fish, then we lose the fleet and everything that goes with it. This government has been directly responsible. To have that Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) try and shift the blame off his own desk onto the local government was really disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.

There are numerous other examples but I just want to go through a few. Only two provinces in Canada do not have the RCMP headquartered in the capital; one is Quebec, where the RCMP are headquartered in Montreal, and up until a year or so ago we had RCMP headquarters in Victoria, liaising

[ Page 990 ]

directly with the Attorney-General of the provincial government. That made a lot of sense. There were 150 clerical and administrative jobs right here. With the information revolution it is possible to contact any corner of this province or to get to any comer of this province — from a supervisor's point of view — as easily from Victoria as it is from Vancouver, for the kinds of duties that were performed. I sent telegrams to the Solicitor-General telling him that because of the downturn in the economy we could not afford to lose those 150 jobs and all of the support services. That particular operation was buying supplies and services in this community. The ripple went far beyond 150 jobs; there was a multiplier effect. I can't quote you an absolute number, Mr. Speaker, but it would be significant. I sent telegrams to Solicitor-General Kaplan and had correspondence with Mr. Williams, who was the Attorney-General at the time, and with the person heading E division. They indicated that.... Well, it was indicated very clearly that if the Attorney-General had made a strong stand with the Solicitor-General we would still have E division in Victoria. But he didn't want to; he wanted the transfer to take place over to Vancouver.

As I pointed out earlier, there is no economic plan. So just as we lost the fishing processing capacity and the fishing fleet because of a lack of a plan, we lost the brewery because of a lack of plan and we lost the RCMP headquarters. We lost the CN Express, a relatively small operation of 40 to 45 jobs. It made money on the link between Vancouver and Victoria, but do you think the provincial government made any kind of representation to the federal agencies to maintain that service? They just handed it off to the CPR. We lost the CN Express, which was a major service to be provided to the capital city. There we are. So the RCMP headquarters, the CN Express....

The next one is a real insult. For a long time DREE, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, was headquartered in Victoria. But, Mr. Speaker, because of the guidelines of DREE Vancouver Island didn't really qualify for DREE money. They decided to amalgamate DREE with the federal Ministry of Economic Development, changed the guidelines so that Vancouver Island would qualify, then took the headquarters out of Victoria over to the mainland so that people who were most aware of what the needs of this particular region.... I know we don't comprise any more than, say, 23 percent of the population of British Columbia, but 500,000 British Columbians deserve to have an economic plan. Because of the neglect of this government, they moved DREE from Vancouver Island and we lost the headquarters. We lost that sensitivity between the people who knew what was happening here and any agencies of the provincial government that could have offered constructive ideas of what we need here to stabilize our economy. So there we have it: RCMP headquarters, CN Express and DREE.

B.C. Forest Products have just closed their coastal plywood operation. Very little was heard from the government. They had a secured timber supply and should have worked out some kind of allocation system to stabilize regional economies. But whatever the big forest companies say goes, Mr. Speaker. We don't get much of a peep out of that little minister over there. Just before the election we heard on television: "Use it or lose it." Looking directly into the camera he said: "Use it or lose it," but right after the election they fell like dominoes. Bang, bang, bang — mills shutting down all over this province, and not a peep. They loosened up on log exports to allow the companies.... They cut back on silviculture programs.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, he'll get tough around the next election.

Any forest management loose'? Let them go. In other words, get the government managerial overview out of the way of the big companies. Give them their head, let them go.

What is government in this province, Mr. Speaker? Government is to ensure that the resources of this province are managed properly for the public benefit. That's what it's supposed to be. So what do we see? We see a situation where we have the greatest potential of fish production in the world, and this government plays a zero role. Whatever Marubeni in Japan wants is okay with them.

We're the greatest softwood producer in the world, Mr. Speaker. We've produced phenomenal wealth from our forests, and the profits from that wood have been invested in other countries — in the United States — to compete against us. The fact that they never put money back in makes us now unable to compete, because we're using antiquated equipment, This government's doing nothing to bring them up to do the proper job.

There are other areas in which this government has been delinquent, even prior to the budget. The ferry rates on commercial traffic between the Island and the mainland have really hurt our local economy to such an extent that they've sped up an exodus of light industry and enterprise from Vancouver Island. You may not be aware that it costs over $2 per foot on the ferries — I think it's $2.20 per foot — for every bit of goods and service that we buy. When we go into a store to buy food or clothing, or equipment, fuel, nails, bread, or whatever it is, there's a charge there from the supplier of over $2 per foot to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Don't we pay taxes, Mr. Speaker? We pay transportation taxes. We pay money into the Highways and Transportation budget of this province. Yet we're being double-taxed on the Island, because we're not getting our fair share. I've said before in this House that people on Vancouver Island, and particularly in the capital region, are completely happy to pay taxes towards the maintenance of a good, safe highway system in this province — snow removal, highway construction, and so on. All we ask for is a decent highway system on the water between the mainland and Vancouver Island. Do you know what happened? Under that government they set up a subsidy. It sounded fine at first, but we didn't know what was coming next. A subsidy was paid based on a formula to make sure that people on Vancouver Island were to get their fair share. They changed the subsidy and took the major portion of that subsidy back. So now people have to pay at the toll booth. They pay in their taxes, and they're paying increases, which are coming. We know in November we're going to have another increase of 6 percent on those ferries. Every time those taxes — I'm going to call them taxes rather than commercial rates — on commercial traffic on the ferries goes up, you push more small business on this island over the edge, because they cannot compete.

This government is destabilizing the economy of Vancouver Island. Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has charged that local government is at fault; it is the transit and commercial rates of this government; it is the lack of economic plan and the lack of jam to stand up to companies and

[ Page 991 ]

make them sit down at the table and be a responsible part of the regional economies of this province. And they don't do it. They haven't got the guts to do it.

Then to add insult to injury, after delivering a double whammy in the loss in our private sector, the fishing fleet.... I could name many others — paint factories, bakeries, engineering firms. The list is endless. For them to then turn around and try to assign the blame for the local economy on the region was just about the supreme act of cowardice. Then to add insult to injury, they come in here after misrepresenting themselves to the public prior to the provincial election on May 5, lying as a government to the people about hospital user fees, about all kinds of actions in labour relations, and so on. They were told by their Hollywood fixers: "Skate and lie; skate whenever you can." As a result we ended up with a budget and a program of legislation which came as a complete surprise, even to people who voted for that government. Now what are we faced with provincially?

Let's just take a look at a few of the bills. During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, did you hear any cabinet minister on the platform say that he was going to strip away the right to collective bargaining for people working directly for the provincial government? Did you hear that anywhere in the campaign? It wasn't there. Did you hear of Bill 3 on any kind of platform? Was it in the booklets, I wonder, of the campaign briefing book for cabinet and MLAs and candidates? Was it anywhere in the booklets that you were going to take away all rights and that you were going to fire people without cause anywhere in the public sector?

Did you tell the 250,000 families in this province that you were going to take away their livelihood? No. Cowards. You didn't tell the 250,000 families in this province, who have mortgages and financial commitments. Who are counting on doing a good day's work and getting a fair day's pay. Now senior managers working for Hydro, B.C. Systems Corporation, the provincial government and municipal government are getting letters from banks that say: "You no longer have the same credit rating." In other words, the banks are saying — I know people in my own community....

[11:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't prove that.

MR. HANSON: Yes, I can back it up.

MR. PARKS: Will you resign?

MR. HANSON: Will you resign your seat if I produce it?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Bring that man to order, Mr. Speaker.

The credit ratings of public sector workers are being downgraded in this province. Can you imagine anything more devastating to a family? Everyone during a recession is financially insecure. But we had a provincial election campaign, and not once did any cabinet member have the courage to stand up and look into the television camera and say: "We commit to the 250,000 public sector families in this province that if we're elected we'll fire you without cause. We'll take away your livelihood without cause." Not once.

There is one thing that they were honest about, and I give credit where credit is due. They said that they were going to take away the low-income tax credit and the renter's tax credit. The Social Credit candidates in this riding were so ashamed that they ran against that program. They said that if they were elected they would fight against it; they would be mavericks. I think we should take a look and see if at any time during the campaign any of those candidates for public office ever at any time expressed disagreement with that plank in the platform. I wonder. We'll check on that.

Then there's Bill 5. Did anybody ever hear a Social Credit candidate say that if they were elected they would bring in legislation so that tenants could be evicted without cause, a person sitting in his little apartment could be terminated without cause? Let's just say that the person was to walk down the hall when he got his notice of an $80 or $100 increase on the rent, and he went down to the resident manager, perhaps a manager-owner, and said: "Gee, this is awfully expensive, because I'm on old-age pension and I've got GAIN and I'm paying $325 now, and if you up it by $80 that leaves me very little money to eat, clothe myself and look after myself." That person could then with I believe it's 80 days' notice get a notice saying: "Effective December 1 your apartment must be vacated." Now there isn't a rentalsman's office that the person is going to be able to go to. It's shocking, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? There's no recourse. Go to court? Can a person on old-age pension and GAIN go to court? Could he get legal aid? There isn't any legal aid; it's been cut back to the point where he couldn't get legal aid, so he has no protection at all.

Bill 6. Did they say they were going to take away all authority from local school boards? Did Mr. Begin, who is a school trustee, know that all authority would be taken away from school trustees and locally elected boards to administer education in the province — that the sensitivity at the local community level would be stripped? Since the election he's tried to keep a lot of distance from that particular threat. If the Minister of Education says jump this way, and they don't jump that way, there's a $2,000 fine. We didn't hear about that during the campaign at all.

Bill 9. They've taken away regional planning, any way that one municipality articulates with another one. Each one is a feudal system now; each one is a fiefdom. Each one is going to have its own self-interest — I was going to say its own knights. It's an entity unto itself; there's no way of articulating with anything else. That's why it's so disturbing when we hear about this Bill 9. We hear it as "the Spetifore amendment." When the proposal to put 10,000 people in South Delta, without any concept of what the pressure on the Deas Island tunnel will be.... I don't know of anybody driving through the Deas Island tunnel who doesn't know that during the morning and evening you can't be in a hurry. It's best if you take a lunch, maybe have a thermos. Anybody who's going through the Deas Island Tunnel at rush hour should have thermos and a battery.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: So what we have now is Genstar. That member who's piping up now has an interest in all this. He has a vested interest in this particular deal. He's getting twitchy and he's heckling me. I resent it, because I don't think that an MLA in this House should heckle when he has a vested interest in something.

We have Genstar with a big chunk of ALR land, which they tried to get out of the agricultural land reserve. We have Mr. Spetifore and Genstar, and then we're going to have

[ Page 992 ]

Harbour Board's land. The Harbour Board's land, adjacent to the coal terminal, is 4,000 acres. What kind of land is it? It's in the agricultural land reserve. Is it all rock? Is it outcrops? Is it sand or gravel? Is it poisoned? It is class I and 2 land, the very best in this province.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. In summary, the government has failed provincially and in my own regional economy, and I'm pleased to second the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I got a bit of a kick out of the first member for Victoria saying: "Did any of you Social Credit candidates look into the camera and say this or that or something else about your policies?" Well, I'm sure the need for restraint was apparent to most people in British Columbia long before the election was ever called. This party went into that election with the main thrust of our platform being the need for restraint in government and the need to get government off the people's backs. The amusing thing to me is that the Leader of the Opposition looked into the TV camera and said: "We will abandon restraint in British Columbia." That's when the people of British Columbia decided to reelect the Social Credit Party as. the government of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The amendment that we're speaking to now is the amendment to the motion that "...the Minister of Finance has failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of the economy and thereby protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardship." Absolutely everything that we are talking about in the budget, in the legislative package before the people of British Columbia in this Legislature now, has got nothing to do with anything except diversifying our economy and providing opportunities for the people of British Columbia to work and prosper.

One of the things that bodes most against a diversification of our economy in this province, that makes it almost impossible for us to get further into secondary and tertiary manufacturing, and that could gradually force us out of a competitive position in those basic resource industries which we have relied on in the past.... The things that could cause that to happen are the very things that we are trying to change with the budget and the legislative program which we are now and for some weeks have been debating in this House.

There are three things that I think are most critical in making sure that we can diversify our economy in British Columbia and perhaps become less reliant upon our basic resources industries — mining, forestry, tourism and fishing. I don't think we should ever hope to see the total value of those industries reduced; however, as our economy expands in the future we should and must try to diversify not only the products we send to the world marketplaces, but also the markets to which we send those products.

The first of the things we must be critically aware of that are negative in our attempts to diversify is the regulatory climate: the fact that over the years we have built up a regulatory climate which makes it very difficult for an entrepreneur — someone who wants to get out and invest and create opportunities and jobs both for himself and his potential employees — who is dealing with the massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy which has built up and which during more buoyant times, I guess, was not that much of a deterrent and still allowed people somehow to struggle through. With the demand for investment dollars in the world increasing, and the competition for the products and markets we have to deal with increasing, people who have the desire and means to invest are looking at other places in the world where perhaps they can make that investment with a little less political, government and red-tape hassle. So one of the things we're trying to do over this current year — one of the main and most controversial pieces of legislation before the House now, required by the budget we are debating — is to downsize government. We have to take government, downsize it, make it efficient and lean, just as those people in the private sector have had to downsize their administrative procedures, get rid of the fat that had built up during more buoyant times in British Columbia, and develop a lean, more efficient administrative process for all the businesses in the province. We, as a government, are obliged to do that as well. When we do that, when we cut back the size, complexity and overlapping bureaucracies within government, people who wish to invest will have a much easier time of doing just that to create the diversified economy that we need in British Columbia and to create a climate where investors can, perhaps, look at some return, and not spend years and years being two-bitted to death by petty bureaucrats, most of whom are trying to compete with each other in a bureaucratic empire-building process.

So, Mr. Speaker, in order to assure that we can diversify in British Columbia, one of the things we have to do is reduce the size of government. That is the very thing that the opposition is so determined to stop us from doing in the tactics they've taken up so far in this legislative session.

Another thing that we must do in order to encourage the diversification of our economy, and thereby protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardships, is to improve the tax climate in British Columbia so that investors can indeed see a chance and an opportunity to get a return on that investment, as they invest their time and their effort to attempt to diversify the economy and protect the citizens of British Columbia from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardship. If we reduce the size of government, we will therefore reduce the cost of government, and we can therefore reduce the taxation on individuals and businesses in British Columbia so that we can diversify our economy. We can provide opportunities for British Columbians, and we can diversify our economy even more than it is right now.

[11:45]

The third, and I think equally as important, point we have to address very firmly in this province, in order to make sure that we can diversify our economy and protect the citizens from these extreme economic fluctuations and the resultant hardships on individuals, is the improvement of the labour climate in this province. The members of the opposition seem very proud of the Labour Code, which they introduced a few years ago, and the labour climate, which they say resulted from that Labour Code. Mr. Speaker, anyone who travels around this world dealing with those areas in which we must, as world traders, sell our products.... The first thing they say to us is: "What about the labour climate in British Columbia? You are not looked upon as reliable suppliers of goods that you send to us in the markets" — you may be talking about them, but also every other commodity that we deliver to market. They say: "You have a reputation for having a volatile labour climate in British Columbia, so how can we rely upon you to be good suppliers?"

[ Page 993 ]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of rumour about changes to the Labour Code. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has said yes, some needed changes to the Labour Code will be coming forward. Members of the opposition and those people who have a vested interest in maintaining this climate of confrontation in the labour movement, the labour bosses, are all screaming: "You are coming down on trade unions. You are going to set labour relations back in this province and remove the rights of the labour movement in British Columbia." In fact, what we have to do is bring some semblance of democracy to the labour movement in this province so that the individual, the rank-and-file person who belongs to labour and trade unions, can have his wishes brought forward at the bargaining table, and through the ongoing relationship between employer and employee. For too long it has been the vested interests of the labour bosses that have been looked after, rather than the interests both of the rank-and-file person working either in the labour movement or in a non-unionized organization, and of the employers, who also are part of the equation of labour management. They must also have the right, the least of which is to be able to talk to their employees, to discuss the situation at the local plant without being called before the Labour Relations Board for unfair labour practices.

This amendment to the budget speech that is before us now is really quite ridiculous. It asks the government to do the very things that our whole budget and legislative package is about: to make provisions for the diversification of the economy, thereby protecting the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardships. That is the entire thrust of the package of legislation and the budget before us now.

On February 18, 1982 Premier Bennett addressed the citizens of British Columbia on a television program and said: "Look, citizens of this province, things have gone too far. We as a society are pricing ourselves out of business. As a society we have allowed government to grow to such a point that it has become an extreme burden upon the citizens of this province. We must enter into a very serious era of restraint in British Columbia." Our Premier brought that message to the people of British Columbia. It was adopted by most governments in Canada, including the federal government, when they realized that that is really what the people of Canada want. They want to see government restrained; they want to see opportunities for individuals. They didn't want the government dictating every aspect of life of every individual and every company in the province of British Columbia.

A member who recently spoke said there was no apparent economic plan in the government's actions. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what our goal has to be, as a society and as a government. If we as individuals, as a nation and as producers are to survive at all, we must be cost-competitive and dependable suppliers of the highest-quality products to our domestic and foreign markets.

I have more to say on this amendment, but the time is approaching our lunch hour, so I think this would be an appropriate time for me to break.

I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both questions have been put, but the Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to entertain an adjournment motion when a significant number of cabinet ministers are not here? The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has not been present for the debate on the amendment of the budget itself. I find it difficult to accept the motion when the Minister of Finance himself is not even present for the most important debate of the session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Both motions have been put, and the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.