[ Page 3273 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Stupich –– 3273

Mr. Campbell –– 3277

Mr. Rose –– 3278

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3282

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: I hope the opening speech is on a word processor, because when I read the opening speech of this year and last year I find it very easy to get confused as to which one I am reading. So much of the wording is the same, word by word. Next year we can expect it to be the same again, can we?

In reading from the opening paragraph this year....

It's a paragraph that I should know by heart; I repeated it over and over during the debates from July 8, I suppose, until some time in October. "May I express the sincere wish that your goals and objectives and the interests of the people you represent will be met fully in the course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature of our magnificent province." As I pointed out many times last fall, unfortunately the government did not take that particular bit of advice to heart. Skipping through to the final page of this year's throne speech, once again we find the wording very similar to that presented in the House on June 23, 1983: "Hon. members, you now begin a most important and demanding session." We certainly did on June 23. "Our people are beginning to sense a new confidence" — this is a bit different, but from here on it's the same right to the end. "I pray that in carrying out your duties, you will reflect fully on the effect of your decisions on the people of our province and country." I raise the question again: I hope that this year the government, before presenting its program, will reflect fully on the effect of its decisions on the people of the province and the people of our country. "Through the continued leadership of my ministers and through the efforts of the Assembly, you must strive to build a stronger British Columbia. May Divine Providence attend your deliberations." Mr. Speaker, I think that did not happen; there can be little question about that. "In our Sovereign's name I thank you."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

To get back to the content of the speech itself, I certainly want to take issue with some of the points made. Here is a quotation from the second page of the throne speech about the restraint program and its results: "I am advised that over the past two years the rate of inflation in British Columbia has been reduced from 14.3 percent to 5.5 percent." Although it's not said explicitly, certainly the suggestion is there that the government is taking some credit for this.

There are three items that have the greatest effect individually on the changes in the cost of living. The first is interest rates. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the efforts of the present Premier and the then Premier to persuade the federal government that interest rates should be kept high, so certainly the government can take no credit for the fact that interest rates have dropped. The cost of energy is the second factor. This government has been more active than any other government in the country in increasing costs of energy — for example, increasing the gasoline tax, increasing the cost of hydro and natural gas, In all of these fields of energy, price increases in B.C. have been higher generally than in any other province in the country. So certainly the government can take no credit for having done anything in that area. The third item is food, and I think not even the government would suggest that it has any real influence on the cost of food.

When we look at the major factors included in the cost-of-living index, we find that this particular government has done nothing, except to exacerbate the situation with respect to limiting increases in the cost of living. Any change, any downward trend in the cost of living, is something that has happened in spite of the actions of this government, or as a result of factors that have not been under the control of this government.

The next sentence reads: "Nearly 14,000 new businesses were established in British Columbia." Other speakers have made some mention of this, but I am looking at a memorandum prepared about bankruptcy statistics, December 1982 and December 1983. From January 1982 to December 1982 in British Columbia, 1,042 businesses went bankrupt; in the whole of Canada, 9,723. So 11 percent of the total number of bankruptcies occurred here in the province of British Columbia. That's not out of line as compared with the number of companies we have in total. But that was 1982. The government is saying: "Isn't it great that in 1983 we formed 14,000 new companies." But the statistics show that the number that have gone bankrupt in this past year has gone up almost 23 percent, to 1,279, while the number of businesses that have gone bankrupt in Canada as a whole has decreased by 7.6 percent to 8,981. Now rather than 11 percent, in the most recent year 14 percent of the total number of bankruptcies in the country have occurred in the province of British Columbia.

It's great news to talk about the number of new companies that have been formed. but we hear nothing about the individual tragedies of the 1,279 businesses that have gone bankrupt. There were 14,000 companies formed, but 1,279 operating businesses — because to go bankrupt they must be operating — went bankrupt in this period, an increase over last year and a reverse in the national trend. The national trend is down, but in the province of B.C., under this particular administration, there has been an almost 23 percent increase in the number of businesses that have gone bankrupt — not a record of which the government should be proud. It would have been better from their point of view had they not bothered to mention how many new ones have been formed.

Reading on in the throne speech: "Though much has been accomplished, much remains to be achieved. Too many of our people are still without employment." There's no question about that. Once again the government can take credit for this backward move. Unemployment has increased. The government boldly and confidently boasted about the rate at which it was going to increase unemployment, when on July 7, with the package of legislation and the budget of 1983.... That's not the business before us now; it's past history. On that date the package of legislation they introduced and the government pronouncements indicated that, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said, of 300,000 people some 25 percent were going to be without a job –– 67,500 people were going to be without work. That did increase unemployment. The Speech from the Throne

[ Page 3274 ]

says much remains to be done. Mr. Speaker, one would hope not much more of that, because that has certainly created a very dampening effect upon the economy of British Columbia. People are still wondering who is going to get the axe next. Almost daily we read of another small group of government employees being laid off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wonder if we could oblige the member for Nanaimo and offer some courtesy — refrain from carrying on conversations in the Legislative Assembly.

[10:15]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but if you're having trouble, I'll just speak a little louder and let them go ahead and have their meetings.

Getting back to my point, I would hope that in saying much remains to be accomplished with respect to unemployment, the government is not threatening to carry on its program of firing people and threatening to fire people. Certainly there would be no better way of holding back improvement in our economy than to threaten more and more people with unemployment.

"Interest rates and mortgage rates are still too high." I think most of us would agree with that. There may be a few of us who are collecting interest rather than paying it, but I believe most of us would agree that interest rates are too high. Even those receiving it must recognize the effect this has on the economy. I made the point of saying earlier that it's one of the major factors entering into the cost-of-living index. Once again, Mr. Speaker, when the government says interest rates are too high at the same time as their Premier has never, to my knowledge, backed away from his advice to the federal government to keep interest rates high, I wonder whether or not the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier talk to each other.

"Kept high by massive government deficits." I think they're pointing a finger at someone here; I suppose they're pointing a finger at Ottawa. The Minister of Finance had some comments to make about the budget read in the House of Commons yesterday. Perhaps they're pointing a finger at the United States and other countries — I don't know,

What about our own deficit position? Last year, for the first time in 31 years, a deficit was budgeted for, and for the first to be as large as $1.6 billion is really setting some kind of a record. So when the government talks about deficits being too high, and the effect this has on the economy, perhaps they should be putting their own house in order. Do you remember the deficit for the year before that, Mr. Speaker? The government budgeted for a break-even and found out at the end of the year.... Although we don't have the final figures, the figures as presented in the budget speech on July 7 last year for the year ended March 31, 1983, showed that we had experienced a deficit of $978 million. Almost a billion dollars, and they had budgeted for a break-even position. It's one thing for the federal minister to budget for a deficit of $31.6 billion. At least he knows what he's doing, what is happening and what the figures are. But for our Minister of Finance to be 20 percent out and not to know about it until the figures are in at the end of that year raises some questions as to the credibility of his budget in the first place; or the accuracy of the information that is coming to him.

In one year they were $978 million out. We're talking about deficits and that one was unplanned — at least, we were told that it was going to be a break-even position. The year before that we were told we could expect a surplus of $325 million; instead of that, we had a deficit of some $278 million — $600 million out. The year before that we were told it would be a break-even position and we experienced a deficit of $313 million. For four years in a row we've had deficits from this administration, and we've never had them in the province since Social Credit were first elected in June 1952. There was one in 1976, which some of them would still try to blame on us, even though it didn't occur until some three and a half months after we left office. But leaving that one aside — not laying that at their door right now — for the last four years there has been one deficit after another, and they're getting larger each year. So in the throne speech they point the finger, without directing it at anyone in particular, and say that the problem in our economy is led by increasing government deficits — while they go merrily on their way increasing government deficits.

"All Canadians are paying the hidden tax of excessive interest rates." Certainly British Columbians have for years been paying the hidden tax of interest costs on all of our Crown corporations. We've been absorbing that. But only in the last two years have we started to pay interest on direct government debt, and that's going on. It's certainly the most rapidly expanding item in the budget. We haven't seen this year's budget, but I think there can be no question but that interest on the public debt is going to be the major factor and that the treasury bills being marketed regularly now are actually not doing the job. They're providing enough to pay off the principal on the rollover, but the interest itself has to be financed from other sources. So it was great when these were being sold and when they weren't maturing; but now that they're maturing regularly, the government is gaining nothing, and marking time by the sale of treasury bills — marking time and having to come up with the money for the interest.

"Wage Restraint in the Public Sector." "Our ability to maintain essential services in health and education has been enhanced." Mr. Speaker, I don't know what it's like in your constituency, but I know what it's like in my constituency. I've travelled around this province fairly extensively in the last six months on political business, and I haven't yet hit the riding where education and health services have been maintained. The government says that its ability to maintain essential services in health and education has been enhanced. It may very well be that they have the ability, but they're certainly not showing it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, I haven't been to Omineca yet — that's coming; it's on the list.

If their ability to deliver essential services in health and education has been enhanced by this program of firing people, then, for goodness' sake, let's see some evidence of the enhancement. Regularly I get pleas from constituents and organizations in my own constituency to try to do something about some particular, relatively small item that doesn't affect many people — each one of them. But it happens every week. In a period of time a large number of my constituents have been affected by the cutbacks in health services and in educational services. Yet I'm sure these people will be comforted to know that the government has the ability to do all these things, but chooses not to do them. At least, if it had the

[ Page 3275 ]

ability, there's the hope that someday it may actually exercise this ability and do something to deliver essential services in health and education, Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot more discussion of that in the budget debate and, of course, when we get to estimates. I would expect this year's estimates will take a little longer to deal with than last year's.

"I am advised that significant progress has been achieved in reducing the size of government, including the number of persons employed in the public service." Well, we'll have to wait until we see the budget to see just what the effect of that is. In the budget last year we saw that the level of estimates for the year ending March 31, 1984, exceeded by more than 16 percent the original estimates for the year ending March 31, 1983. This was supposed to have taken into account a 15 percent reduction in the number of employees on the government payroll. That's possible. It suggests to me that other items have been increasing in this period. One of the other items is that work, instead of being done by direct government employees, is being done by organizations that are hired to do the work normally done before by government employees. Of course, the person providing these services has to make a profit, has to risk something, and has to allow for that. Inevitably the cost of that service is going to increase rather than decrease. It would seem to me that since the level of service in Education and Health, the two major ministries when it comes to spending money.... Since we all know that the level of service in those two areas decreased last year, yet we know that the total budget expenditure increased more than 16 percent, it must be that the alternatives to having direct government employees do these jobs has been a much more expensive route of getting less accomplished for the people of the province than was previously the case. That's my feeling at the moment. We'll find out next week when the budget comes down.

"Organizations have been streamlined and certain functions transferred to the private sector." I have to say: at what cost have they been transferred to the private sector, in terms of taxpayers' dollars spent and cuts in the level of service available to the people of our province?

"Export-led Recovery." "The vitality of British Columbia's economy is directly and inextricably linked to its ability to export goods and services. Over the past 20 years Canada's exports have...." This is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker; I'm glad you're listening. Our vitality is linked to our ability to export goods and services. That's point number one. The very next sentence says: "Over the past 20 years Canada's exports have increased from a fifth of its output to almost a third." Canada's exports as a whole are going up. B.C. depends upon its exports. British Columbia's share has consistently been double that of the national average. Nationally we're doing well in exports; B.C. is doing better than well. Our economy depends upon our exports, yet our economy has never been worse off since the depths of the Depression.

How come, if everything is right, when we get to the end we find out that the answer is wrong? What has this government done when, in spite of the fact that when we compare our record with that of the national average, we find we're doing better — and when we say we depend upon doing better in that way.... We are doing it; we're accomplishing everything we should be accomplishing. Yet when we come to the end, we find out that B.C. is worse off than most other Canadian provinces. It's worse off in terms of increased unemployment. It's worse off in terms of — I gave figures earlier — the number of businesses and individuals — I didn't use those figures.... It is worse off in terms of the number of people and businesses that have gone bankrupt. It's worse off in terms of the cutbacks in services to people. It's worse off in every way. Our deficit for the year ending March 31, 1984, has increased at a rate of infinity — there was none projected the year before. Even if we say, well, the minister was out a billion dollars and he should really have projected that, at $1.6 billion it's still 60 percent higher in one year. Goodness only knows what it will be next year. By every measure we're doing worse, yet the government says things are great because Canada's exports are increasing and B.C.'s are increasing in proportion to the national average, so everything should be great in B.C.

I recall a series of television ads, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you can too. The taxpayers paid for them for some four months early last year to tell everybody: "Isn't it great we're living in B.C. Everything is going wonderfully in B.C. Just vote right and everything will keep going wonderfully in B.C." Well, we've had the measure of that since, haven't we, Mr. Speaker, particularly as I read from the opening speech. Because everything is going right we have the ability to deliver health and education services. We're not doing it, but we do have the ability. Isn't it great we can do it. If we want to we can do it. We're not doing it. That's not so great. Also, by every measure we're doing worse, even though, when we look at our exports — which we are supposed to be depending on, which are supposed to be the barometer of what's happening in B.C. — we find out that things have gone worse.

"Historically the United States has been our largest trading partner. But in recent years we have diversified our economy as Japan and other markets have become increasingly important." Mr. Speaker, we can all agree with that. I think it has been the aim of all governments in the past 20 or 30 years in British Columbia — and Canada, for that matter — to try to diversify, to try to arrange our economy so that we would not be so dependent upon that single very large market to the south, upon which we were so dependent; to try to move into the Asian markets — the Japanese particularly, because it was the greatest opportunity at the time, and now, of course, other markets are opening up. We can only compliment the government for trying. But we would like to have some answers. This is not the opportunity, but later on — I'm just serving notice now — we want to know what is being accomplished, What was accomplished, for example, when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), during the height of the labour-management-government dispute last fall, when things were at their worst, when we were really standing on the brink.... I used those words when speaking in the Legislature last fall. Maybe it was a deliberate move by the government to try to calm things down a bit; I don't know. But the Minister of Labour went, of all places, to China. Was that to study labour-management relations, or government-employees relations? Mr. Speaker, I hope we'll have an opportunity to get from that minister some idea as to just what he learned that would help him in his work as Minister of Labour in the province of British Columbia.

[10:30]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You said the Minister of Labour went to China. You're wrong.

[ Page 3276 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm told that I'm wrong. I'm not making any points; I'm asking questions. Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll find out later on.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), again, at the height of the crisis in education — it's hard to say what's the height there, because there are problems every day — went to Germany. Now I'm not opposed to his going to Germany. I think the timing was somewhat peculiar, unless it was felt that getting that particular Minister of Education out of the way at that point in time was good. That could very well be. Certainly getting the Minister of Labour out of the country when there were labour-management problems, or labour government problems, was a good idea too. If he went somewhere else, that's good. Wherever he went was good. The fact that he wasn't here was the plus. I agree with the Minister of Forests.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I don't want to hurt your feelings, Mr. Minister of Labour, but I won't miss you. I can get along without him.

The Minister of Education went to Germany, and I'm sure he must have gone there for some purpose. I'm sure he would bring back some message to tell to the people of British Columbia. I don't recall having heard anything about that yet. Later on, at some opportunity, even in the throne speech debate, the Minister of Education might like to stand up and tell us about the purpose of that trip and what was accomplished. If nothing was accomplished, so be it. But let's find out what was the purpose and whether there was something in there about.... He'd hardly be the one to sell coal, I think. But we're talking now about the vitality of British Columbia's economy. Other ministers went to other places. All I'm saying is that later on there will be an opportunity for those ministers to tell us how their travel plans around the world did contribute to the development of B.C.'s economy. I hope that they will be able to tell us something positive about their efforts to diversify our economy, because we need it. There's no question about that. We took certain steps when we were government. Some of them paid off, some of them didn't. Some of them were long-range proposals.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I missed what the Minister of Forests said. He's great at speaking from his seat. Very seldom does he manage to get up on his feet. It's usually from his seat that he makes his best speeches. Can you hear him mumbling right now, Mr. Speaker? I can't hear what he's saying. I sure wouldn't want to miss it. We don't have many opportunities to hear that minister.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Somebody says: "Thank God." Well, that's one of your members, Mr. Minister.

I'm looking through the speech right now an&trying to pick out a few things. I notice a heading here: "Housing. An increased number of housing starts is anticipated for 1984 and 1985." Well, two things about that. Increased over 1983? I think if they doubled over 1983 we still wouldn't be building many houses. Any increase is good, but I'd like to know what is the base year and what are we talking about. We did embark on a program a year ago, and I'm wondering what the effect of that was. I think we have to be careful where we put those houses, too. I'm not sure about your constituency, Mr. Speaker, but I had an opportunity to travel to the North Peace recently — the member isn't here right now — and I'm told that today the vacancy rate in all residential accommodation in that prosperous, thriving community, which voted 75 percent Social Credit, is 30 percent. They might do even better today, because all the people who could afford to move out of town have left. The rest are probably still voting loyally and blindly for the government that got them into this mess. Mr. Speaker, if we're going to be building houses, let's build them in Fort St. John, because there's lots of room for the workers to be accommodated while they're working on the other houses. Unless more planning than that goes into it, we'd better not build any more houses.

Dawson Creek is not so bad. Once again we're blessed. The member for that area, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), is out of the country. We can't help but be ahead when he's away. Again, the vacancy rate in total residential accommodation is 20 percent — I'm going on the figures given to me while I was there. There aren't that many communities in B.C. right now where there is a desperate need for a large increase in the number of housing starts. There are some areas, but they're limited. Certainly in my own constituency there are far more houses for sale than there are buyers. We don't need many more right now.

The forestry picture: there was some discussion of that yesterday. The minister did get into a debate in question period, which didn't add very much to the picture; but it can't help but be described as a disastrous situation for the province of British Columbia. In spite of his boast about the increase in the number of seedlings, we all know that we aren't doing enough in reforestation, and we haven't done enough for the last 50 years. We've never done enough. Doubling it would be a small beginning. There's a tremendous backlog. There'll be a greater opportunity later on to talk about that.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) was here. I can't let this paragraph go by without reading it into the record again: "Traffic Safety. My government will continue to work towards reducing driving hazards through enforcement of regulations and legislative initiatives. Special attention will continue to be given to the problem of drunk drivers." We can all agree with that second sentence, but what about traffic safety? What about motor vehicle inspection? Would that the government could change its mind on that one matter and bring back motor vehicle inspection — not just bring back the stations that were closed, but make provision for motor vehicle testing in every community in the province. I'm not suggesting that the government should establish its testing stations in small communities, but arrangements could be made for someone to do the job. There must be, compulsory motor vehicle testing. It's fine to get after drunk drivers; that's one avenue. But certainly we've had enough incidents — we've had the report from ICBC — to know that we need motor vehicle testing, and the most efficient way of getting it is through the motor vehicle testing stations that we have. There were concerns that it didn't cover the whole province. We all agree with those concerns, and I suggest that the way to get around that is by entering into contracts in other communities with people who are already in the business. Let's take another look at that

[ Page 3277 ]

one and see whether the government couldn't change its mind and relent in the interests of traffic safety, and in the interests of saving lives and cutting costs. I believe ICBC actually had a figure in its statement as to what it was going to cost ICBC and the people of the province in increased premiums because there would not be these motor vehicle inspections.

Industrial relations:

"Positive industrial relations are a key element of British Columbia's economic future. My government has been conducting in the past year an exhaustive review of labour legislation. A committee of independent experts will provide ongoing advice to my Minister of Labour. My government wishes to ensure that the parties involved in industrial relations and British Columbia's economic development are served by new approaches to industrial relations to be pursued this session."

In the absence of anything more than that, all we can do is express fear that once again the government is going to rush into action without sufficient consideration. I don't know how much preliminary work has been done –– I drove the Minister of Labour out of the House, so he's not here to comment — even if he would — from his seat. If the government is actually working on these changes, I hope they are consulting everyone affected — organized labour and management. When they get to the point of coming up with some idea as to what they should be doing, this ideally would be one of the instances where a White Paper might well be circulated ahead of time so that everyone in the community would know what the government had in mind, what direction they were planning on going. A select standing committee of the Legislature could review the legislation, listen to witnesses and hear arguments.

We're treading on very dangerous waters in looking at labour legislation that has been serving the needs of the people of this province. Employees and employers have been getting along reasonably well with the present legislation — much better than under the previous legislation. Let's not change it without taking a very serious look at what we're doing, without letting everyone involved have a voice, an opportunity to get into the discussion to make sure we are doing the right thing before we make a move. Mr. Speaker, this one worries me.

Human rights: I can't help but be concerned about that. Once again, we'll have to wait and see what kind of legislation the government brings in.

Getting back to the last page: "Hon. members, you now begin a most important and demanding session." That's what he said on June 23. It is important and it is a demanding job. It's important for the people of the province. We saw the heights to which quite a large number of the people in the province could be aroused when we saw the demonstrations that took place in the fall of 1983. There was no need for that to have happened.

The government had been re-elected with a substantial majority in terms of the number of seats. Everyone accepted that. Certainly the NDP accepted it, and the people of the province accepted it. But the people of the province did not expect the kind of legislative package that came in on July 7: the revenge motive with the attempts to do away with many people services that had been widely accepted. These services were introduced mainly by the NDP administration but were generally accepted throughout the community, and it was even forgotten when they were brought in or by whom. The important services that were being done away with had been working and serving the needs of the province at minimum cost in terms of our total budget. There was no reason to expect that kind of treatment, yet the government acted in a hurry and, I would hope, has repented somewhat since then. There was no need to divide the community in the way in which the people in the province were divided with that budget, the attendant legislation and the outbreaks of antagonism that took place after that. The government could have achieved everything it wanted. If it was really looking for restraint, it could have done that. If it was really looking for downsizing, there were provisions for that. Whatever its goals were, they could have been achieved without upsetting the people of the province in the way in which it was done.

The throne speech would indicate that there are other goals that the government wants to meet but have not yet met. Surely by now the government will recognize that there is a right way and a wrong way of meeting these goals. Hopefully when the government is planning its legislation and getting it through caucus they will have in mind these penultimate words in the throne speech: "I pray that in carrying out your duties you will reflect fully on the effect of your decisions on the people of our province and country." Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

[10:45]

MR. CAMPBELL: I support this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it lays out a clear path of where the government is going. The previous speaker talked about upsetting the people last summer and fall, and I believe that one of the reasons the people were upset is because they perceived that there was confusion here in the House. Sometimes there was confusion across there, and they did stir up the people. I would hope that during this session of the Legislature the opposition will act responsibly to assist the government in putting through legislation that is going to help the people and the economy of this province. Certainly some of the legislation that was passed last year, in spite of all the hollering that was done by the opposition, did improve the situation within our province.

The number of persons employed in British Columbia has increased by 2.5 percent within the last year, and that is a start. It is fine to say that there is still a lot of unemployment. Yes, there will be unemployment, because if more people come to work in British Columbia, so will more people come here attempting to find work. So the more the employment is created, the more the people will come here. There is no question about that.

Inflation has dropped from 14.5 percent to 5.5 percent, and that is because of the government restraint program. Our Premier, who foresaw these problems, was the first to propose a restraint program, and later on the other provinces fortunately also saw this. The Prime Minister of Canada saw it, and yet yesterday, in an attempt to grab votes, the federal government announced in the budget that they are going to disband the restraint program. The opposition wanted to do the same in this province before the last election; they feel that is the way to get votes. The people of this province know that's not the way to make the province grow. That's why new businesses are starting in British Columbia, and that's why there have been new businesses starting here.

Our wage settlements have decreased so that the people of this province can be competitive within the marketplace, and

[ Page 3278 ]

that's one of the things that we have to realize here. One of the things that the opposition has to realize is that we do have to be competitive within our province if we are going to export. If our ministers are going to be travelling to foreign countries to sell our products, they have to do so on a competitive basis. We have to be a responsible deliverer of the goods and services, and that's what this government is attempting to do: deliver these products at competitive prices so that the buyers feel that they have a responsible supplier of these products.

MR. BLENCOE: What products?

MR. CAMPBELL: What products? Many products: coal, agricultural products. After they've been sitting here for a year hearing about northeast coal and how it's going to be shipped through B.C., the opposition sits there and says: "What products?" I don't know where they've been this last year. Have they not been attending the session and listening to what the government's been telling them day after day about how northeast coal will be creating 3,000 full-time jobs?

MR. BLENCOE: It's all smoke.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's all smoke? No, Mr. Speaker, when it's converted into energy and steel it will be smoke, but when it's going out of here it's products being sold in the marketplace and bringing dollars into Canada to create jobs. That's what it's all about. It may be smoke on the other side, but to the citizens of our province it's jobs.

I'm pleased that this government supported the Crow rate cut in freight rates that's also going to create tremendous employment within our province. For the information of the opposition, Dillingham opened their first office in Revelstoke in January to attempt to start on the bidding of this program that's going to create the jobs there. This government supported that program. But the NDP government in Ottawa, what did they do? They opposed the program, as usual. They talk about supporting, but did you ever hear them support anything across here? Whatever this good govern ment proposes they are opposed to. The B.C. government employees have settled, they're happy and they're satisfied.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, they're happy. Most of the people in this province who are employed today feel that they are being treated right and they have a good job. The people out there are not deceived by this rhetoric from across the way. The people realize that there have been tough times.

If it wasn't for the opposition trying to promote fear among the working people out there we wouldn't have had these problems last fall. They're out trying to promote fear to stir up the people rather than have the people working and producing and living the good life in B.C.

There will be changes in the labour legislation. It has been laid out in the throne speech. Many, many people are demanding this — both employees and employers. Secondary picketing started last year among the woodworkers, and Mr. Munro finally came out and pleaded with them to stop the secondary picketing. He realized that that's what destroys the economy of the province. The union leaders realized this.

Where's the opposition? They don't understand this. Their idea is to shut everything down and borrow money — borrow ourselves into prosperity. Yes, there will be changes in the Labour Code.

I noticed last night that when the federal government brought in their budget, they again followed the lead of British Columbia in saying that private enterprise must provide the jobs for the people of our province. They realize that governments can't provide long-term, meaningful jobs. Governments don't produce money; they only spend money.

I'm pleased with this throne speech. I'm pleased that it has laid out the government's plans for what's going to happen in the future. I trust that the opposition will read this carefully and that they will realize that that is the way this province must be led.

In closing, I want to say I support this throne speech, and I would ask the opposition to do likewise.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, may I give the ritualistic and routine but heartfelt congratulations for your elevation to the peerage once again. I'm really pleased to see you sitting there, looking benign and objective but not objectionable.

I would also like to congratulate my friend from Okanagan North on his fine speech. I think he actually created some records: it was the shortest speech and the loudest speech and the one that had the most clichés in it that I've heard in this whole throne speech debate. Nevertheless he is convinced of this. Perhaps he's a follower and is not going to jump over any traces or embarrass the government in any way, at least not if he can avoid it.

I thought today I would maybe take a little departure from he usual kind of throne speech debate and talk about the throne speech. That's not usually done during the throne speech debate, and I think the reason for it is that very few people understand what throne speech debates are because they don't understand the words in the throne speech. Those words sound a lot like English, and if you read them they read like English. But really they're a kind of dialect, a bureaucratic bafflegab that most people don't understand. I had a constituent ask me to explain what some of the words meant, so I've taken a number of excerpts from the throne speech and translated them for him. I'd like to base my remarks on these actual excerpts from the speech itself.

Here's the first one. It says in the throne speech: "The public sector has now available the necessary tools to restrain spending and minimize to the extent possible the burden on taxpayers." That's hard to understand because it's a bit complicated. What they really mean, under translation, is that we fired a whole bunch of public servants. But does that mean we're going to lower the budgets at all? I don't think so.

MR. REID: Yes, that's what it means.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't believe that. I think what we're going to do now is contract those same jobs out. Look, here's clipping from the Vancouver Sun on August 24. It says:

"Court Reporting Going Private." It will cost more to go to court when the provincial government contracts out the job of court reporting to private individuals instead of staff members. "Attorney-General Brian Smith today said in Victoria the government will offer almost 150 court reporters the opportunity to work on a contract basis." If you're going to do that, what's the point in contracting them out? "Jail Nurses Feeling the Heat." Here's the regional director, a top civil servant, Ted Harrison, quoted in the Province on January 13:

[ Page 3279 ]

"Harrison said the corrections branch is looking at the possibility of privatizing all services that don't require staff to be peace officers." But he says that there's no likelihood, really, that there will be any saving here from the privatization.

Harrison says: "This contracting out isn't likely to save money." So what's the government doing it for? Why is the government behaving like Eaton's and Woodward's, contracting out part-timers? Part-time employment is going up in Canada. It's gradually going up and up as we lose full-time jobs.

If it isn't for the saving of money — and I can give you the stats on that, but I don't think stats are necessarily that impressive to most people — what I want to suggest to you is that the contracting out is to break the public service unions.

It's to remove people from the opportunity for pensions, health benefits and fringes, to make certain that people who are contracted out do not get the same benefits as other workers in terms of job security. That's what it's all about, nothing more than that. So never let this business of the bafflegab.... "The public sector has now available the necessary tools to restrain spending." The budget coming up is not going to reflect much of that. If it is, it's because you have overestimated and underspent.

Here's another one.

MR. REID: Good management.

MR. ROSE: Have you had a look at your debt lately?

Economic recovery. Here's what the throne speech says: "I am advised that the world economic situation remains uncertain." What does that mean? If you translate it, as I did to my friend in my constituency, the translation says: "If we Socreds can't reduce bankruptcies and create jobs, it's not our fault. Blame the world. If we cause all this social chaos and still nothing happens, it's not our fault; we did our best. All we can do now is blame the world." That's what they'll do.

Probably one could argue with some validity, as some people do — reputable economists; I'm not talking about our friend Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute — that the Socreds in B.C. with their last budget and their accompanying 26 bills probably killed the recovery. They killed the confidence in a consumer-led recovery. That's our criticism of the government. Firing schoolteachers, nurses, sheriffs and all the rest of it probably killed the recovery, because schoolteachers, nurses and sheriffs are not going to go out and buy homes or anything else if they don't feel that they're going to have any chance to hold onto their jobs. That's what we object to.

[11:00]

MR. REID: You'd hire more.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: That is precisely what you said. You want to fire more. You want more people unemployed. That will bring the wage rate down, and then we can become the Alabama of Canada and make Michael Walker really happy. That's what you're after.

MR. REID: You guys have got no concern for taxpayers. That's your problem.

MR. ROSE: I can tell you a little bit about taxpayers. I now that the tax-paying public above $50,000 a year pay virtually no taxes. It's the people who are down in the $10,000 and $12,000 and $15,000 a year range who you're putting out of work who are the taxpayers in this country.

How in the hell are they going to pay taxes if they are fired? Civil servants pay taxes just the same as everybody else. What happened in Qualicum? You fired 23 teachers because of your policies, and you lost, in addition, 36 more jobs in that community. What did you gain there? You put a bunch of our friends, those people along the main street, out of business. There are going to be even more bankruptcies.

More people have gone bankrupt in the last year in this province than in the previous years. We lead all of Canada in bankruptcies. That's what it has done.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Promoting investments. "My government...will consider innovative vehicles for stimulating...job-creating activities in large and small business." What does this really mean if you translate it, Mr. Speaker? I think this is what it means: we are prepared, as a government, to provide bigger and better give-aways and tax loopholes and subsidies and welfare to corporations. That's what I think you're doing. The feds have done that. In the last budget, here is what happened. In 1984, a year of terrifically high unemployment, he unemployment rate federally was 11 percent, and the aftertax profit of corporations are up 25 percent. I think that is terrific if they invest the money in Canada.

MR. REID: They do.

MR. ROSE: They do not. I'll give you another little statistic. I know you don't like listening to statistics. What do you think the corporations did with their profits? I'll tell you what they did with their profits. They haven't invested their profits in Canada. In 1960-69, $132 million a year went out of the country. In 1970-79, $942 million per year went out of the country in foreign investment. What do you think the cable companies are doing with all their money? They are putting it down in the States. Between 1980 and 1982, 2,950 million went to foreign investments. That's where those profits went. They didn't go into job-creating at all. That is what happens when the corporations get their give-aways and their loopholes. What do they do with it?

Another way they spend their money is on mergers. Does that create a job? Except maybe for tax accountants, it doesn't create any jobs at all. There were 414 mergers in 1980; in 1981, 490; in 1982, 596; and the preliminary figures for 1983 show 608 mergers.

If you spend it in investment abroad, and you spend your money and your profits on buying up the big fish eating the little fish, how does that create employment? The point is that it hasn't created employment. The policies of the federal government have not created employment. We are at the highest unemployment rate in history, and in B.C. it is even higher. How can you argue? I love the happiness boys. All the gloom and doomers, the critical people, are over here. That's our job. The happiness boys are all over there. Who is cutting everything to the bone? It's the happiness boys. If we cut everybody down, somehow we are going to have prosperity. Utter nonsense!

[ Page 3280 ]

International trade. Here is a quote from the throne speech: "My government will sponsor missions that include private-sector representatives...to India, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Canada. So now, on top of footing massive travel bills for all these high-flying ministers, we are going to take along some friends and corporate executives. The public is going to foot that bill too. That's really terrific. Now I wouldn't say that those were the same people who might have given lavishly to campaign contributions to the government. I would never say that. But I sure wish that I were a corporate executive and that I could fly around the world with the minister. I'd like to go to Japan with Mr. Phillips, maybe to Holland with the Minister of Agriculture or to Germany with the Minister of Education while he figures out how we are going to change our education system to make it perhaps a little bit more germanic or germane or something.

Here's another one. "To encourage the entrepreneurial spirit among our younger citizens, my government will support enterprising students who create their own summer jobs." Isn't that lovely? That reminds me of Opportunities for Youth. That was a federal program that gave away hush money to middle-class kids by the billions. Over ten years it was the most discredited program that we had, and who got the money? Kids who could fill out the application forms, kids who could dream up nifty little make-work projects. Who is going to get the money this time? Kids who really deserve it, who have to fight higher tuition fees and much more difficult loan application forms for student assistance? Are they going to be the kids from poorer families who really need it? No, they are not. Who is going to distribute that money? Is it going to go into Socred areas like the Liberal money and the job creation programs go into Liberal areas? Who is going to make the decisions? Where are the criteria? We want to look at that one. I'd be willing to bet you that certain Socred ridings will benefit, and the people who will get the first shot at the money will be friends of the government. I'm cynical about things like that.

Energy advantage. "My government has examined various methods of increasing B.C. Hydro sales so as to reduce surpluses, increase revenue and minimize rate increases to British Columbia customers. My government has now approved long-term electricity exports by B.C. Hydro." Now what does this really mean? After you scrape away all the bafflegab it means that B.C. Hydro and "my government" so overestimated our energy needs that we built far more dams than we needed and there's not a damn thing we can do with that stuff but to export it. That's all we can do with it. You're going to sell it abroad because you've dammed every river because your projections are so rotten.

You guys who are so great in business, your projections are so rotten that you're as bad as the Americans who have built so many nuke plants because the nuke lobby got to them, but now the rate hikes facing the customers down in the States — New York and other places — are mammoth. Here are the same kinds of energy estimates. In 1965 it was estimated that we would double our energy requirements every seven years. They've never changed. But now energy is not nearly meeting those projections. What can we do but sell it? Of course we're going to sell it. We probably didn't need to build all those dams. You can't just let it run over the spillway, as my hon. friend would suggest. It's a good thing we're not into nuclear power. What else can we do with it? The only other thing we can do with it is to raise the rates of every customer in British Columbia. That's the only alternative we have. You're trapped. Don't make a virtue out of a necessity. Don't clothe your rotten motives in noble words. You're stuck. You're cornered. That's why you are doing this, because your estimates were wrong. You blew it.

Mr. Speaker, this has to do with tourism. Where's the Minister of Toursm (Hon. Mr. Richmond)? Oh, he got sick and went out. He didn't want to hear this: "...efforts will be concentrated on encouraging more Canadians, particularly the province's residents, to vacation in British Columbia." Terrific! I don't know what that's going to do to the Premier's tan. Does that mean that the Premier can't go away anywhere into the sun belt next January? What about all the cabinet ministers? Where are they going to go?

AN HON. MEMBER: East Sooke.

MR. ROSE: East Sooke? That's first prize: a vacation in East Sooke. If you win the prize you go for one week to East Sooke. If you come in second you get two weeks in East Sooke.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'll have to have Hansard remove that.

Anyway, I'd be very interested to know whether the minister, the Premier and other high-flying ministers will be having fun in the sun next year. The throne speech, if we're to believe it, says "efforts will be concentrated on encouraging more Canadians, particularly the province's residents, to vacation in British Columbia." That's terrific. No more plane trips, even if we do deregulate.

Housing. Here's something for the member from Surrey. "My government will introduce new legislation to achieve a better balance between the interests of tenants and landlords...." What does this really mean? What this means is that landlords will welcome greater freedom to hike the rents and evict tenants without any government intrusion. We don't want any government intrusion into this, because that might provide a little fairness in the housing market.

Traffic safety. "My government will continue to work towards reducing driving hazards through enforcement of regulations and legislative initiatives." What does this really mean when you scrape away all the nonsense and all the rhetoric — all the wording that's around it? In translation it says: "Now that we've abolished all government testing of cars and buses, in spite of tragedies, we intend to compel motorists to patronize selected private garages all over the province at four times the cost." That's what that line means. That's what they regard as fair, when three inspectors take a whole week to go over a bus, and there are 800 buses on this Island that are going to be tested each year by one inspector. More nonsense! When you ask the minister in charge of transit what they are going to do about testing the transit buses, she doesn't know. A week later you ask her again and she still doesn't know. I think if you asked her a week from now she still wouldn't know. We don't care about safety. We don't care about maintenance. This is how....

MR. REID: That's garbage, and you know it.

MR. ROSE: Oh, there he is! We got him upset. That's the way....

[ Page 3281 ]

MR. REID: We've got the safest transit system in North America in metro Vancouver and Victoria. Tell the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, can the Chair please remind you that....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members! Can the Chair please remind you that debate in this House flows back and forth through the Chair and not between members on the floor. Thank you.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you admonished that second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). If we've got such a safe transit system, why are you abolishing the testing? Is it going to get better? Oh, no, it's got nothing to do with testing. Okay.

"Consistent with my government's confidence in the ability of the private sector to carry out a greater share of activities that have been undertaken by the public sector in the past, the Ministry of Forests will be pursuing new initiatives to permit redistribution of forestry functions to the industry." My constituent says: "What does that really mean?" In translation it means that for years we have failed to restore our logged land, and you can't argue with that, in spite of putting a million trees in last year. You can't catch up all at once. We haven't got the trees and the manpower; we haven't got anything. But we've recently terminated half our foresters, and we intend to let our most important industry police itself. How terrific! Are you going to let the restaurant owners inspect and police the kitchens of restaurants? Is that going to be next? Are you going to let the packing companies, rather than health inspectors and veterinarians, police the abattoirs? Are you going to let the foxes protect the chickens? This is the kind of drivel....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, I don't want to hear from old Wolfgang over there. Why do I need to hear from him? He's howling all the time. He has a chance to make his own speech even if he isn't Mozart. It's not musical anyway.

If you treated the doctors in terms of their recommendations on the health industry the way you treat teachers, you would be laughed out of the country. Why should somebody who's never even been to school know more about education than those who have spent their lives at it? What nonsense! What mythology! "Everybody knows how to run a school. How do I know? I know all about schools because I went to one. I went to grade 7. Obviously I know how to run schools; everybody knows how to run schools."

Health care. "Recent legislative initiatives of the federal government threaten the quality of health care provided to British Columbians." Here are the feds again. I'm glad the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).... What does it really mean? In translation it means that federal Health minister Monique Begin has warned that she will cut off all federal funds if we dare to jack up user fees and medical deterrent fees again. That's what that question means. But it's the feds' fault if we don't have a decent health-care system, not ours. Blame somebody else. If our economy is no good, blame the world. If a lot of people are out of work, blame the unions. Blame somebody else; that's the way to go.

[11:15]

Municipal relations. "My government will continue to examine the Municipal Act with the intention of further streamlining and reducing the regulatory features of land use registration." What does that mean in translation? It says that we are pledged to make life far more pleasant for land-grabbers and speculators, because we want to get a lot of junk out of the way. We want to pull the teeth of the regional districts and perhaps the Land Commission. So we're going to simplify; we're going to streamline. I think it's a little election payoff. Look, I don't disagree, and I know the Speaker is a former mayor; many times it is difficult for developers to get approvals for building and certain other kinds of enterprises, and not all developers are evil people. There is a need through the Municipal Act to streamline the number of agencies a person has to go to in order to get approval for anything. Nobody argues about that. But what worries us is the streamlining and reducing the regulatory features of land use registration — not regulations and some of the other things to help a person get on with a septic field or a number of other approvals that you have to have through building departments. That is bad. Sometimes it takes months, and I understand that. But what I am worried about is what a lot of people are worried about. We have the Land Commission because municipal councils were unable to withstand the pressures of developers to use land that was agriculturally valid. We're afraid that if you weaken that in any way, municipal councils are in no stronger a position today than they were 10 or 15 years ago when this came in.

Legislative reform. "My government will place high priority on achieving legislative reform." I bet they will. In translation, I think that a top Socred priority will be to pull the teeth of the opposition by means of rule changes so we can ram our stuff through faster; in other words, we're going to get these things out of the way so you won't be able to filibuster — you guys over there — so that we can come along and change the rules to the point we can ram everything right through. Tell that to your Tory friends. I heard them ring the bells for three weeks in Ottawa. It was important that they do that, because they split an energy bill, which was a disaster anyway — split or whole. At least they had that power to force the government to come to its senses. I know that we are an inconvenience to you over there. I'm sorry about that. But from time to time the opposition has the obligation to say: "Hey, hold it! Not so fast. It's important that we have another look at this." If you bang things through, you have the tyranny of the majority: closure. That's what worried my constituents when I had to translate for them.

Now education. Education is an interesting topic. I don't know if it's a high priority at the moment but I'd like to read a little part of the throne speech. I'm really pleased that the minister came back.

Here's the excerpt: "My government continues to believe that quality education must be the number one priority.... We must promote excellence and prepare our young people to meet the challenges of tomorrow." What does that really mean? I think it means education will be slanted even more in favour of the university-bound, and the educational casualties of that kind of an elitist approach will be the dropouts. They're going to look forward even more, I think, to a lifetime of low-paying jobs — maybe the kind of jobs that are growing in North America as a result of automation. So if you don't have an education and you drop out of school, your future can be bleak.

[ Page 3282 ]

As I said in my education estimates, I'm not sure everybody is convinced that everybody needs an education. Maybe we should be looking at earlier apprenticeships, as they do in Europe. There are a number of things that we could look at. However, that isn't what we're aiming for. The direction in which we're going is to make education even more difficult for some than it is now. If you cut the funding to the point where there isn't a range of options, then you force kids who would normally have taken something for their own benefit into an academic program for which they are ill-suited. So what choice will they have? With grade 11 and 12 exams they'll be forced to drop out, or they'll flunk out. That's what they did before. The retention rate has been amazingly improved over the last few years. That's what I'm worried about.

It says here: "Excessive salary increases and inflated payroll costs detract from quality by competing for scarce dollars." When was the salary raised this year? I didn't hear the teachers even ask for a salary raise. They got a zero increase in here. This is going to make them even more unhappy than they are now, and displays again that teachers are supposed to be whipping boys and girls, that there is a contempt for education.

"My government believes education is for children, and that investments in education should be directed towards acquiring skills and knowledge that will serve them well in the future." That's terrific. Wonderful. Here is the Vancouver Sun, February 14: "'Students will suffer as a result of provincial government policy forcing them to take certain kinds of career training at private schools instead of publicly funded colleges and institutes,' said the president of the largest community college." He goes on to say how the offerings of the community colleges are going to be severely restricted because the ministry has set up a provincial priority program. That's an interesting thing, and it lists a whole flock of things here. Then there is a local priority program. What is the significance of this? I think it's relatively simple yet important: the significance is that the minister has taken over the colleges. The minister has said: "You've got to offer these because they're on the provincial priority program. They've got to be offered at the same level as last year. We don't let the colleges or the community demand or anything else influence us here. We're going straight ahead. We've got that thrust." Then: "If you've got any money left over, fellows, you may offer these." There are some interesting things about which ones are offered. This is the year of tourism. You know what we may offer? Hotel administration, waitress and bartending — that's cut. What are we going to offer — maybe — if we have any money left? College preparation. One of the reasons, among others, that the community college was justifiable is that the community college would provide inexpensive, two-year pre-university training. This is on the "may offer" list, not on the "must offer" list. That concerns us. Employment assessment is gone. University transfer is gone.

So there are some important questions here, especially since on January 10 the minister wrote Mr. Abe Unruh, president of the B.C. Association of Colleges, and I quote from his letter: "The purpose of this letter is to state that no commitments have been made on levels of funding for colleges and institutes for future years." How can they plan? They're not going to plan. He'll be planning. That's where the planning will take place. They talked and talked and talked about developing a five-year plan for colleges, based on the assumption that there would be a constant level of funding. Now we can't guarantee that constant level of funding. Why have the access programs been cut? Why are they on the "may" list rather than the "must" list?

I could go on and quote some of the ten top myths about the schools. I thought it was a very fair and good article, but I'm not going to do that. The education section of the throne speech says that the government does not believe in throwing money at problems. I'd like to translate that for my constituents: "Unless, of course, the problem is getting re-elected. If the problem is to get re-elected, then we're going to throw lots of money at that problem because we've always done that." So if we take all this money that we've saved and stolen from the people who need it, we'll use it for McKim Advertising and for the other fast-buck boys that are very close to this government. That's the sort of thing that I think we can look forward to.

We're often called old-fashioned over here — irrelevant; that we haven't had a new idea since 1930. I've got a couple of quotations here that I thought would be very important. They're from 1932: "We cannot squander ourselves into prosperity." You realize this is at the height of the Depression. I hear that today. That's a modern idea: we can't buy ourselves out of the recession. This man says we cannot squander ourselves into prosperity. Here's another one: "Prosperity cannot be restored by raids on the public treasury." That's a good one. That's a good right-wing statement.

HON. MR. McGEER: Who made that?

MR. ROSE: Herbert Hoover, 1932. But somebody came in by the name of Roosevelt, and he got the government involved in intruding into the economy. He gave those people hope, provided jobs, provided incentives and provided some kind of social milieu that brought them out of the Depression. The kind of thinking that goes on over there is the kind of old-fashioned thinking that was popular with Herbert Hoover in 1932. What happened to him? He was the biggest flop in American history.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, good morning. And good morning to the few MLAs who are present in this assembly. The member who has just taken his place has already given me his apologies because he's unable to remain in the chamber any longer. I quite understand that. These days I think a member should be commended if he even bothers to show up in the assembly to make a speech.

My proposal this morning is that the throne speech in future be cancelled. It should be allowed to die a natural death for reasons of lack of interest, not really on the part of the public but lack of interest on the part of the members. If we're going to continue to meet in this assembly, go through the expense and trouble of bringing together the elected members only for the purposes of three or four.... Let me see, I've perhaps exaggerated; there are four NDP members, but in addition we've got seven government members. It's unfortunate that our Legislature in British Columbia should have sunk to such depths in a throne debate. It's unfortunate that the public should be supporting a Legislative Assembly which caters in its sitting hours to a handful of MLAs.

Mr. Speaker, we would be better, under the circumstances, to eliminate the throne debate unless and until the members themselves take some interest in the proceedings. Failing that, perhaps we can move on to business which is

[ Page 3283 ]

ultimately more relevant, rather than the traditional grievance before supply, and do the estimates and the legislation. Of course the budget and the legislation are consequential to people outside the chamber, because it bears on the administrative affairs of the province. The opportunity to provide new ideas, to provide the competition of policies and purpose, which is the stuff of elected membership as opposed to administration, goes now in our province by default. In my view, that's to the detriment of democracy and the purposes of our Legislature in British Columbia. But given the circumstances of our Legislature in British Columbia, we might as well accept reality. In addition to cancelling the throne debate, it might serve better purposes to take a vote on it today. Then, when we get into estimates, instead of repeating the process we've witnessed in the last few years, in which a mere handful of members take the time of the whole Legislative Assembly, we might be better to refer the details of the estimates to committee, where perhaps two or three handfuls could be taking part at the same time, one in one room and one in another, before individual committees. That would have the advantage of efficient examination of the estimates in somewhat greater detail and, in the final analysis, a saving to the public of the expenditure on this meeting itself.

[11:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: We've been recommending that for four years.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think that the purpose of the recommendation becomes a little more evident with each passing day. I don't expect that this particular suggestion will see the light of day, because one of the consequences of lack of interest in the assembly and the debate is an understandable lack of interest on the part of the media in recording what goes on here with the general public. The day when members themselves worked very hard on a speech and on the ideas they thought were worth presenting because their constituents had been consulted by them, and therefore the citizen had a way of speaking to other citizens through the members in this Legislative Assembly, has passed. Hopefully it will one day revive, but evidently not with this particular Legislative Assembly.

Nonetheless, Mr; Chairman, defying the traditions of the moment, I would like to address a few remarks to what I believe to be the general issues of the day, even though the members themselves and the media are not at all interested in the proceedings.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're interesting.

HON. MR. McGEER: Thank you. I want to give particular mention to the....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is, I think, imputing improper motives to members of all sides of this assembly. He is implying that people are not interested in the proceedings of this House. He knows full well that most of them are probably listening to their speakers in their offices and also attending to their duties. He is being most improper and unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the minister did not impute any improper motives to any member. Attendance is the responsibility of each individual member.

HON. MR. McGEER: If I have imputed anything improper to all those MLAs who are listening carefully down in their offices, I challenge them to come back into this assembly and confront me. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There isn't one of them listening to anything in his office. You know it, I know it and the member opposite knows it. But I want to give him credit, because he's in listening to these speeches and he's not even the next one on the list. The next one on the list isn't here, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: My list says the next one on the list here is the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). But that member is, of course....

AN HON. MEMBER: We may surprise you.

HON. MR. McGEER: It doesn't surprise me, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: But it may surprise you.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, I see, there's going to be another member. I thought that they were here not because they were next on the list but because they were interested. I want to say to that corporal's guard over there that I have a special respect for you members, because you're in a class apart from the others: you attend the debates.

Mr. Speaker, to the issues of the moment. I dwelt at some length on this issue, trivial as it may appear to be, because it really bears in a far more serious way on the long-term role of a legislature in the democratic process. But I want to come to the heart of any debate, which is the essence of what divides one side of the House from the other — those basic philosophical principles and directions that in the final analysis cause the voting public to make their judgments one way or another. I'm going to review what some of those judgments have been a little later on, because I wouldn't want to disappoint the members and have them feel that my memory was failing me.

I think that the key phrases which clearly separate this side of the House from the other are contained in the early pages of the throne speech, in which the government makes clear that "the restraint program has set in motion and put in place the fundamentals that through hard effort" will be continued and eventually produce the best of results. "My government is providing leadership in restraint to governments across Canada," says the Lieutenant- Governor of British Columbia. Of course, the Lieutenant-Governor is correct in that, and therefore needs to be supported when the vote on the throne debate is finally taken.

The Lieutenant-Governor says: "I am advised that significant progress has been achieved in reducing the size of government, including the number of persons employed in the public service." This, of course, is for some not terribly good news. But given the circumstances of Canada, it is the important message, because lying behind those sentences is the fundamental economic principle that governments may create jobs, but governments cannot and do not produce wealth.

[ Page 3284 ]

We hear today the complaint and concern of many in the labour movement, and almost everyone in the NDP, that there is this fear of disappearance of jobs, and that governments must take the responsibility of creating jobs. We even heard it in the federal budget brought down in the House of Commons in Ottawa just yesterday. What we must do, if our country is to succeed, is destroy the myths about the economy, which, if believed, will lead to poverty instead of wealth. If one believes that the kind of economic activity that governments generate by hiring civil servants to provide service jobs to the public at large.... If that production of jobs creates wealth, and if that myth rests in anyone's mind, especially those in elective office, then the country's long-term problems will become deeper than they are today. There is no problem of governments creating jobs. If nobody else can do it, we can. The problem is in creating wealth, in finding those jobs that are attached to primary production. That's what we lack in this country. And that's what governments cannot do. What governments must realize is that the jobs they provide have got to be sufficiently below the true wealth-producing jobs in society so that they don't compromise the ability of the true wealth-producers to produce that wealth.

The best economic lesson I ever had in my life was last fall alongside the Ohio River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I went by a huge plant which the taxi driver told me was at one time the largest steel mill in the world. That steel mill is now closed. Unemployment in the area near Pittsburgh is among the highest in North America. There is a demand for steel. There are skilled steelworkers unemployed. There is a plant standing idle that could be put back to work tomorrow. Then you say: if the plant's there, if the demand is there, if the skilled workers are there, how come it's closed? The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knows why it's closed, and anybody with common sense knows why it's closed. Because the demands of the people who work in that mill, through their trade unions, have made that whole operation non-viable.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a tragedy. But I ask the member: has something like that ever happened in British Columbia? Did we ever close down a mill where the demand was there, where the skilled workers were there? Where we closed a mill that could function and people went unemployed? Have we done that in British Columbia? Yes, you bet we have. Is that economic idiocy, Mr. Speaker? You bet it is, and when that happens a lot of jobs that lie behind true wealth production fall down as well. Then what do people do? They come and say that government has to create jobs. What are we supposed to do? Hire more people to provide services in schools and hospitals, or something like that, and borrow the money to do that? If you do that, the next time that mill tries to open it has to carry all the debt burden of the past.

In Canada we're worrying about the per capita debt of the Reagan administration in the United States, and we realize that right here in British Columbia we are building up a debt on our provincial account this year which is equivalent to that of the United States of America. Then we heard the federal Minister of Finance give us the bad news from Ottawa. So our citizens are adding on double that again as the federal debt. The citizens of western Canada, and all of Canada, are building a debt triple that of the United States, and people haven't wakened up to it. No, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is still demanding more government jobs and more spending. Spend your way out of that situation and you'll ruin us.

That's why we've got to establish a beachhead somewhere in Canada that says we're going to come back and build a true economy in this country. That's what leadership here is all about. This is why the Premier of British Columbia should be the Prime Minister of Canada. He is the one who understands what must be done to bring this country back to its competitive place in the world, which which will be our true source of wealth. Instead of boosting the Premier of British Columbia for the prime ministership of Canada, instead of going with us on this crusade right across our land and saying, "Follow the steps here in British Columbia, because we will lead the country to prosperity," what have we got? We have an opposition who are telling us what a wonderful man Roosevelt was and what a terrible man Hoover was. I don't know what Hoover or Roosevelt would have done, faced with the economic situation in Canada today, but I know what Reagan or Thatcher would have done, and I'll tell you this: we're not seeing that in Ottawa today. We need the kind of realistic leadership in Canada that we've seen in some of the other countries in the world that are coming back again after the recession. The only place we can find that kind of leadership in Canada today is right here in British Columbia. What do we have? This corporal's guard of people asking for us to go more deeply into debt and compound the problem.

MR. NICOLSON: Reagan has tripled the national debt since 1980.

[11:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: Now they're criticizing Reagan. I think that's fine, Mr. Speaker, but if Reagan has got the United States into trouble, will you please tell me what the situation is in Canada when we're three times as bad and still going into debt at a record rate? Think about that. We shouldn't be worried about Reagan in the United States. We've got to be worried about ourselves.

MR. NICOLSON: What about Australia? Industrialists are flowing into Australia under Bob Hawke's government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are they flowing from Canada?

MR. NICOLSON: Sure, out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McGEER: Right out of British Columbia? If British Columbia is closing down mills when the mills are ready, when the workers are there, when the demand is present, if they're leaving British Columbia, it's the owners who are leaving, isn't it? Why are they doing that? Because we've set taxes so high and we have so many counter-productive work practices that they can't function. That would be why they'd go to Australia. They wouldn't go there because the taxes were higher, the wage rates higher or the resources better. They might go there because there were sounder national policies. I can't say that. They wouldn't have to be very sound to be sounder than the ones practised in Canada today.

But I'll tell you this: when it comes to British Columbia, that's where you have sound policies. It's been built up over a

[ Page 3285 ]

long period of time. There have been pivotal years: 1933 was a pivotal year. That was the year Hoover was going down. I tell you, they didn't turn to the left in British Columbia. No sit, they rejected the NDP right there. That was 1933, a pivotal year. Another pivotal year was 1937. Roosevelt was going strong in the United States. They didn't turn to the NDP here then. No, they stayed to the right. Another pivotal year was 1941 — pivoted to the right again. Pivoted to the right in 1945. In 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1069 we have pivoted to the right. I think there really wasn't a pivot to the left in 1972. We'll go through 1972 again, because we need to remind ourselves: '72 was the year when there was so much political competition on the right that the left won. That was when the right let down.... There was no pivot to the left. The NDP never got more votes than they'd got previously; it was just that along came Scott Wallace, the maverick Social Crediter, who supported the Conservative Party. There were still Liberals alive then in western Canada, so there we were. The public thought they were going straight ahead, and what happened? They sunk into the quagmire of New Democratic Party policies. That was when productive employment began to go down. As one of the elected Liberal members said: "British Columbia under the NDP had done the impossible: they had created despair in the mining industry at a time of record mineral prices." It is some feat — alchemy in reverse — to turn minerals into rock. That is still the NDP policy. They can still turn minerals into rock, and they can turn timber into an unharvestable forest. You can do that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You've done it. That's the problem with believing that wealth doesn't come from resources but from government handouts. It's yielding to the temptation of taking from the wealth-producers and offering it to the public as your own, suggesting to them that there is an infinite source, and that the goodies and the handouts will be theirs if only they put in the people who are the political alchemists capable of turning minerals into rock.

MR. HOWARD: That's a good line, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's not a good line; it's a fact. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) knows that it's a fact. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knows that it's a fact. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) knows that it's a fact.

All through the throne speech there is a recurrent message, one of concentrating on wealth production in the country and reducing expenditures that cannot be afforded. It's this imbalance in Canada that can and should cause every single citizen in our country deep concern. Many citizens wonder: "Why should we be worrying about it just because the government of British Columbia worries about it? After all, it's not a national concern." It's apparent that the government of Canada isn't worrying about that. You don't see any demand for restraint on the part of the national government. You don't see any move to reduce the enormous civil service in Ottawa. Yesterday I was in the province of Alberta speaking to their Canadian Club in Edmonton. There's a vacancy rate and a dip in economic activity in Alberta. Their oil and gas industry, their coal industry, the productive industries of Canada upon which our wealth depends, are in recession in Alberta because of the national energy policy. There is, however, one city in our nation where there has been no recession: Ottawa. Why? Because their apparent prosperity is built on government expenditures that continue to leap ahead. That prosperity in Ottawa is loaded on the backs of the wealth producers of western Canada, including those in Alberta. Our concern should be twofold. Our concern should be the recession-proof condition of Ottawa, which is a national deficit. and a true recession caused by those policies in Alberta, which is the source of our future wealth. That's the situation that has to be reversed.

It would be my proposal that the national government, if they cannot have the Premier of British Columbia as our Prime Minister, at least follow his policies. Let's begin making inroads on that $30 billion debt by reducing the number of people who are attempting to live off wealth that isn't there. I would start by eliminating the CRTC. There are several hundred jobs right there. They're not doing any good for Canada; they're merely introducing inefficiencies into the private sector. I'd continue on by eliminating other unnecesssary expenditures from the national capital. I think we could totally eliminate the Ministry of Fitness and Amateur Sport. We don't need that. We could save all those jobs.

How about other spending departments that contribute nothing to the wealth?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Eliminate fisheries? Fine. Let the provinces do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: Any other suggestions? I'm open to suggestions from over there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, we want Mr. Trudeau's peace initiative. It's one of the useful things he's done. He wasn't doing any good running the economy of Canada. He might as well be doing something in international affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's not get rid of tenured professors, though.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, we never said that.

Any other suggestions? Surely the New Democratic Party can think of some way we can save money in Ottawa. Suggest whole departments that we could eliminate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: The Senate? All right, there's a good suggestion from the NDP: eliminate the Senate. Certainly we've had the worst kind of patronage appointments of all time in the last few days, so I accept the New Democratic Party's suggestion there. Any other ideas of what we can eliminate in Ottawa?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm for abolishing the Senate because we can save the money. And when they're departing,

[ Page 3286 ]

perhaps the Senate could make some useful suggestions as to who might go with them. If we can eliminate, let's say, a third of the people in Ottawa and get the vacancy rate in Ottawa to about the level it is in Calgary, and move some of those people out to work in the oil and gas industry, we'll be back to some wealth production in Canada; then maybe it will be possible to restore some of the programs that the New Democratic Party has championed for all these years, not keeping in mind that it took a little bit of wealth production to satisfy them.

Mr. Speaker, we've pursued, I think, a useful course of debate here. I'm going to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House, which will be early this afternoon, with the suggestion that over the lunch hour the New Democratic Party members might be thinking about some other functions from Ottawa that we could usefully remove and thereby divert the taxes to more productive endeavours here in British Columbia. With the hope of positive suggestions from my friends opposite, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.