1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Pelton –– 942

Mr. Passarell –– 943

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 948

Mr. Rose –– 950

Mr. Strachan –– 955

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have from my riding this morning my brother

Jack Lockstead, his wife Gloria and their son Chris –– I ask the House

to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our galleries today is the chairman of the Surrey school board, Laurea McNally. I would ask you to welcome her, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From South Okanagan, I'd like the assembly

to welcome my constituency secretary Jan Duncan, here with her husband,

her mother and her daughter. Please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria, on a point of privilege.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege

this morning; it's the first opportunity I have had to rise on this

particular issue.

Yesterday the Provincial Secretary made some serious allegations in

this House regarding the position of city council in 1972 in terms of

its attitude towards Bapco Paint. The point I wish to make is that

those allegations are totally inaccurate. The record as of December 12,

1972 indicates that Bapco left this city for economic reasons, and

nothing at all to do with the city council.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, at this time, hon. member, the Chair

would find it very difficult in any way whatsoever to find that the

matter referred to by the member would in any way obstruct his ability

or his performance relating to his duties as a member of this House. A

matter of privilege is a very serious matter and must bear with it a

very serious responsibility on the member who would so raise the point.

Hon. member, unless you can in some way demonstrate that this would in

any way obstruct your performance as a member of this House, the Chair

cannot continue to hear argument.

MR. BLENCOE: The seriousness of the situation is that the minister misled this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I would like that

member to withdraw those offensive remarks, first of all, and also

would say to you, Mr. Speaker, I haven't detected one iota of point of

privilege that he's raised. It's not a point of privilege; there's been

no semblance whatsoever of a point of privilege by that member, and I

wish you would bring him to order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this House is clearly engaged at this time

in a matter of debate, an opportunity for which will be afforded at a later

date in the proceedings before this House, whether in the form of estimates

or whatever. Clearly, hon. members, this is not the time to engage in debate,

and the Chair rules that the matter raised by the member is not a matter of

privilege. At this time, hon. members, we should continue the business of the

day.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I ask to have that member withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: An hon. member of this House has asked another

hon. member of this House to withdraw a remark which the first member

finds offending. Would the member so do in the interests of

parliamentary decorum.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, are you ordering me to withdraw that remark or is that just a suggestion?

MR. SPEAKER: I am asking the hon. member, in the interest of

parliamentary procedure, to withdraw the remark, as any honourable

member would do, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates that cooperation, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply, and I see that that great member from Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) adjourned the debate on the motion.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member

for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), the Chair undertook yesterday to review a

motion which was before the House at that time in this particular

debate. At this time, hon. members, the Chair rules that the motion put

forward yesterday is out of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I gather that

you have had some discussion with respect to your ruling. Could you

tell us why you so ruled?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair is that

the motion contains language which the Chair finds to be of an

unparliamentary nature and, as such, would qualify the motion not to

succeed.

MR. COCKE: My point of order is that while the Chair finds

words in here unparliamentary, I would suggest those words, if directed

at a person or a member of this Legislature, would be interpreted as

unparliamentary; directed as they are, in general, Mr. Speaker, at a

document, it strikes me therefore that the words under those

circumstances would not be so found.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has ruled on the matter

before the House. The ruling is not open to debate; it is not open to

criticism; it is open to challenge. But on that there is no further

debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the exact

words that you're making the ruling on before a decision is made

whether or not to challenge it.

MR. SPEAKER: Insofar as the request by the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, the word referred to is "falsification."

[ Page

942 ]

MR. BARRETT: Not to argue with the ruling, Mr. Speaker, but

as a point of information, the accusation has been levelled in order

during the four days of the budget debate. It has not been called to

the attention of the Chair or the members using the same accusation

during that debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has ruled that the word in question does not comply, and that ruling stands.

MR. COCKE : On behalf of the House Leader of the opposition, who was

called away a moment or two ago, just as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

hasn't been here for most of the debate of his budget.... But in any event,

I would ask Mr. Speaker whether the government would give us an opportunity

to remove the two words "and falsification" with leave. This would

mean that the remainder would be in order, I gather.

MR. SPEAKER: The problem, hon. members, with the point of

order raised by the member for New Westminster is that at this

particular time in the proceedings there is no opportunity to put the

motion forward — even to ask leave — as this falls in an area in our

debate which cannot at this time be entertained for the purpose of

putting the motion.

The Leader of the Opposition rises.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've acknowledged the Leader of the Opposition. For what purpose does he seek the floor?

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before taking

the major step of challenging the Chair on an amendment to the major

part of debate, could we have the Chair's undertaking to take this

under advisement and give us a further report with specific references

to Beauchesne and May concerning this specific wording, prior to us

taking the drastic step of having to challenge the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has asked the Chair to provide certain references, and the Chair will so do.

The member for Dewdney continues on the main motion.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PELTON: In the short time that I took yesterday to

address the budget, I made some general comments, and then I mentioned

some specific ones and spoke about them — not at any great length.

Starting this morning I would like for a few moments to address this

budget in a different way, if I may.

We've heard a lot of discussion about the philosophy and direction

of this budget, and I would like to make some observations of my own on

that score. This is not a business-as-usual budget. Everyone recognizes

that. We have learned much as a province and as a society in the past

few years, and this budget, quite rightly, is a sincere effort to apply

some of these lessons to the difficult and, indeed, unprecedented

problems which confront us. It is my hope that the opposition will

respond to the phenomenal changes of the past decade and offer us, if

not support, then at least an alternate understanding of those changes

and how we must deal with them.

As I understand the history of socialism — in the most general

terms, that is — it began as a sincere response to the hardships

created by that great upheaval we know as the industrial revolution,

and was spurred on by the horrors of the First World War and the Great

Depression. It proposed a greatly expanded role for the state in human

affairs and anticipated almost Utopian results to flow from that

expansion, which was to be guided by a host of well-meaning academics,

philosophers, technicians and planners. No one can deny that there has

been a vast expansion in the state's role in the past century under

many different parties and labels, and clearly there is a consensus in

our society that much of the impact of that expansion in providing

social services and protective legislation has been beneficial and

humane and has enhanced the quality of our lives and society. Those are

lessons learned from hard experience, to put it mildly, of millions of

ordinary people over more than two centuries of industrial society, and

we forget or ignore them at our peril.

There is, however, an inescapable complexity to human beings and to

human communities which absolutely and perpetually confounds the best

conceived and intended of Utopian plans. This is a point which

socialists seem not to have learned or digested after decades of

testing their theories around the world. Their vision is based on a

paradox, or contradiction, which is so basic to their philosophy that

they seem blind to it. Their plans for the average man and women always

seem to depend inevitably on the predetermination of society's goals by

an elite — that same group of well-meaning academics, philosophers,

technicians and planners to whom I referred a moment ago.

Socialism in practice is more elitist and less democratic than any

reform-minded, free enterprise system. Socialists may not wish to

impose their elitist values on the public, but somehow — no matter how

it is sugar-coated — the bottom line with socialism is "Father knows

best. You children just don't understand that it's for your own good.

Do what Daddy says, or else." These are shades of Pierre Trudeau, the

perfect academic socialist. Socialist hostility to free enterprise is

often based on the total misconception that a free-market economy is an

unplanned economy. If this were true at all, Mr. Speaker, the

unprecedented, remarkable and obvious widespread economic progress of

the ordinary man and woman under free economies over 250 years would be

totally inexplicable in any rational way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, works as well as it does because it is

far more planned than state-managed economy. In a centralized

socialist-planned economy there would be one plan; in a decentralized

system there might be as many as a hundred. In a free enterprise

economy there are as many plans as there are individuals; today, in

British Columbia that means well over two million plans. Members

opposite speak with great fervour in promoting decentralization, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know how you can get more decentralized than that. I

recognize that the free market is an ideal which can only be

approximated in reality. I understand that there are inequities between

individuals which must be taken into account. Even so, we should not

underestimate the value of the simple process of voluntary interaction

and relatively

[ Page

943 ]

personalized planning. The budget recognized the need for more decentralized

economic planning precisely in its very strong direction towards the free market.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in balance, and I am no more a believer in Utopian free

enterprise than I am in Utopian socialism. In recent years many thoughtful people,

often those who began their careers as socialists, have come to recognize the

paradox of elite-inspired and enforced universal benevolence which lies at the

heart of socialism. They have seen the performance of the superstate fall woefully

short of expectations time and time again, almost invariably at enormously inflated

costs. They have been compelled by this evidence to rethink any love affair

they may have had with socialism as a cure-all for the ills of mankind. The

spontaneity, the creativity, the independence of mind as well as economic terms

of the individuals who comprise our society: these are of enormous value beyond

that which can be easily accounted in dollars and cents. If over-reliance on

government has cost us dearly in our taxes and burden of indebtedness, it has

cost us no less dearly in the sacrifice of these less tangible but no less valuable

items.

This budget seeks anew balance between state and citizen based on

very real learning and experience, not only here but around the world.

The spending priority on social areas and the increases in those areas

make it crystal clear that we have not forgotten the lessons of the

1930s. Far from it. The new emphasis and the striving for a balance

more directed toward the individual planning of free markets is an

indication that we did not cease our learning in the 1930s, but have

continued to change and adjust to a world which is changing at an

ever-accelerating rate. To put it another way, government has learned a

measure of humility in dealing with human affairs. I was very impressed

with the observation of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) that, even given the entire provincial budget, she could not

supply the human needs that can only be supplied in their very nature

by the institution of the family. The recognition that society is far

too complex, far too alive, for any one institution to monopolize is a

lesson of the 1980s, which is every bit as relevant and necessary to

our future as the lessons of the Dirty Thirties.

[10:30]

I have said that there is a need for balance, and I hope the

opposition will seriously consider this question: when, and in what

areas, is enough government enough? Their refusal even to hint at an

answer was, I believe, the underlying cause of their electoral defeat,

and I believe it goes a long way toward explaining their party's

federal decline. We are trying in this budget to strike a new balance

between state and citizen. It will not be perfect, and further learning

and further adjustments will undoubtedly be required. But the point is

that we are trying very seriously to come to grips with the evident

need for a new balance. Those who ignore the process risk being

consigned to a status of permanent irrelevancy by a public which will

not accept business as usual from its political leaders.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would state my belief that this budget is

a reaffirmation of the basic tenets of this government's policy, which

see government in a role supporting private initiative out of which

springs permanent and rewarding jobs; a role which builds a secure and

prosperous economic future; a role which does not recognize any benefit

from an ever-expanding and overbearing bureaucracy; and a role which

sees individual initiative as a means to extricate us from the

recession in which we have found ourselves.

In one of the best media reports that I have heard recently — radio

station CHQM, as a matter of fact — it was suggested that the budget is

"an historic document." I believe this, and I believe it will be

emulated within other jurisdictions as we strive to find the economic

highway — a throughway, we hope — which will lead us to a complete

recovery, and at least a partial return to those halcyon days of robust

economy that will provide us with the necessary elbow room to improve

the quality of life for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this budget is an historic document in the truest sense and I commend it to the support of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continuing on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: That's the first time the government hasn't given me a standing ovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leader! Leader!

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I'd like to say something nice

about the budget. I really believe something nice has to be said about

this budget. One of the ways this government has to get its message out

is to hit the airwaves again. This is a suggestion made to me by my

friend up north, old Bob, when I was up there last week doing some

fishing with him.

MR. PARKS: How is old Bob?

MR. PASSARELL: Old Bob is doing well. He said, "Now when you

get down there I want you to give them some advice on how to get their

message across." A previous speaker said this is an historic document;

it's more like a hysterical document. He said: "There are some decent

things in it, and you need some actors to go on television with a

cabinet minister to get some of those decent things across to the

public." As a suggestion, he said you could run a 30-second spot

between cartoons in the morning, or just before the television goes off

at night, and have these different actors and actresses be with the

cabinet minister and make some statements. The first one, old Bob

advised me, would have the Provincial Secretary and Mr. T. I don't know

if most of you know who Mr. T. is. He's the chap with the mohawk

haircut. You would have Mr. T. and the Provincial Secretary. Nothing

would be said. The two of them would be in bearskin rugs and glare into

the camera. A little message would go across on the bottom while these

two gentlemen are glaring into the camera, both of them about 300

pounds of solid muscle, and saying: "Do we look like people who fire

people?"

That would be one. Another would be the Premier and ex-U.S.

president Richard Nixon. The two of them would be saying, "Do we look

like the type of people who would not tell you the truth? Believe us."

The third would have the Finance Minister with Tom Mix. They'd be

sitting on horses, but backwards.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was Tom Mix?

MR. PASSARELL: A famous cowboy.

[ Page 944 ]

They'd be dressed up in cowboy boots and western gear that they

bought at Miss Frith's, sitting on horses backwards, saying: "This

government needs a new direction."

The fourth one to get the idea across would have the Minister of

Human Resources and Miss Piggy standing in the bush somewhere with

chainsaws, and in cork boots, saying: "There have to be cuts in the

Ministry of Human Resources." They could even sell this thing to Stihl

or Black and Decker to make some extra. But the one I like best has the

Minister of Human Resources with Rhett Butler, the famous character

from Gone With The Wind . This

budget should be going with the wind too. Could you picture that:

turning to the Minister of Human Resources and saying, "Frankly,

Scarlett, I don't give a damn." That's some advice.

Before and after the election you people found it very successful to

run commercials. Those are some suggestions old Bob gave me concerning

how you could use some actors and actresses.

Now I've got to say something decent about the budget. I've already

led into it that using actors was to get their message across — which

they probably do, if you believe what you see on television. Last night

I saw a program on the news in which a reporter said the government of

the day is going to have its MLAs pass out leaflets on streetcorners to

get their message across.

What are they going to say? There are some decent things in it.

MR. BARNES: Withdraw it.

MR. PASSARELL: That would be one.

One of the things in this $8.3 billion budget that I'd like to give credit to is the $1.6 billion deficit. That deserves credit.

Pharmacare has been increased, which will be good for the north. One

thing about which I'm personally satisfied and which I'm glad to see is

the increase in air ambulance service, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker,

coming from the north, is an important and necessary element in our

society in the north. GAIN has been increased, and small business and

regional industrial development has been increased.

But as with any budget, or most of the legislation that this

government brings down, it does have its negative aspects. This

government has cut back on services to seniors and, to a certain

extent, on highway construction, for which I am the critic. There are

many other social services, too numerous to mention at this time, which

they have cut back. I will discuss these cutbacks later during specific

estimates, when it is more proper to do so.

What really reminds me of this budget is that movie.... You probably

remember it, Mr. Speaker, when you were a young guy; I think it first

came out in 1929. It was about a couple who went to New York City on a

holiday. On the first night they were in New York they got robbed; then

they lost all their money and luggage and couldn't pay their hotel

bill, so they were thrown out; they had their car stolen and they were

out on the street. To a certain extent, aspects of this budget do the

same thing. In relation to this budget, the interesting thing is

that....

Mr. Member, prior to and during the election, did you find they were campaigning

on job creation? When you turned on the television it was: 'A vote for us

is going to be job creation." But we've been sitting here now for two

months, and I haven't seen any legislation for job creation come up. All

it is doing is taking away jobs. Job elimination in the public sector, putting

the final nail in the coffin of Ocean Falls. I'd like to know when they're

going to fulfil their promises concerning job creation in the new mandate of

the government.

What really bothers me is the direction this budget is taking. To a

certain extent, it's a direction made by extremists who are attempting

to undo certain of the democratic traditions that we've been brought up

with and have lived with in this great country. The old adage says that

history always repeats itself, and there are conditions and issues

facing us that are very similar to the events that faced certain

countries in Europe in the 1930s. Before the government of the day

embarks on its present course of dismissing workers without cause and

dismissing human rights commissions, it should go back to that old

adage and remember what happened in 1930 in Germany.

People all over this province are writing me and my colleagues —

and, I'm sure, those on the government side of the House — asking why

this government is bringing in a budget that's hurting so many people.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, Bob wanted me to say that it was a stupid budget. But I don't know, can you say "stupid" in here? Is that unparliamentary?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not unless you're referring to yourself.

MR. PASSARELL: Not to me, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

If there's been any stupidity that I've seen in this House in the last

few days, I would have to attribute it to you — what you did on

television with the Leader of the Opposition. That was probably one of

the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the reference is to the hon. member, it must be withdrawn.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. Yes, I understand. Thank you for your advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw any reference to another hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, that's right.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's what I'd like to do.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, he talks from his seat about what he'd like to do.

This budget shows that Social Credit really doesn't have the

understanding to do anything worthwhile with economic development or

job training. It hasn't come out through this budget, and certainly it

hasn't come out in the two months that we've been sitting here. It's

brutal, miserable, soaks the poor and the sick, and adds living costs

to consumers because it harms business and takes revenge, to a certain

extent, on public servants. Their excuse is, they say that there are

hard times in this province. In fact, they did a great deal to cause

hard times by their own bad management and lack of planning over the

last few years.

[ Page 945 ]

To a certain extent it's no wonder that they didn't have the courage

to stand up before the election, with all their television commercials

and PR jobs, and tell the people exactly what this budget was going to

contain. Historically budgets have usually come in March. We didn't

have a budget this year; it came in much later, after an election. To a

certain extent it shows the depth of their incompetence. If they had

presented this budget at a proper time, when it should have been, in

March when the financial year ran out, they know themselves they would

never have been elected running for a mandate on this budget. By

keeping their financial incompetence a secret until after the election,

and by hiring a regiment of highly paid public relations flacks, they

used a campaign of hollow slogans to a certain extent to trick people

into voting for them. But then, nearly half the public in this province

voted against them, and they really don't have a mandate to call for

the program of financial butchery that they want to say is a budget.

We've been off the budget for a month now. Going back over my old

notes from a month ago, before we went on to public bills and orders, I

could hardly believe it when I heard the hon. second member for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) stand up in this House and say that

he had not heard any complaints about the budget. I was wondering where

he was living to make a statement like that. He must be living in a

world of his own, because wherever I go throughout this province I hear

people talking about how they really don't appreciate this budget.

They're voicing their anger and disgust. I've heard plenty of

complaints about this budget from the north, from the people of Atlin.

It's surprising that most of the angry complaints are coming from small

businesses in the north.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: For my hon. friend to my left, I will tell him

why — because I doubt if you really understand why the small businesses

in the north are complaining. As I go along, I think you'll understand,

because you're a lawyer and have some business sense.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: He's an honourable man, as are all members of this House.

But for your education today, I'd like to explain why small

businessmen in the far north are concerned about this budget. Most

northern businessmen make heavy use of telephones. Most of us in the

north are not on the B.C. Tel system; we're on another telephone system

in the far north, CN; it's a corporation called NorthwesTel. Through

their heavy use of long-distance telephone conversations they have to

order their mechanical parts from cities in the south of this province.

Also, to make an airline reservation you have to use long-distance.

Small businessmen who are in the tourist area have to check on airline

flights for tourists' incoming flights. Under this budget all these new

long-distance phone calls will be subject to a 7 percent sales tax.

That is one of the reasons they're angry about it.

The cost of living and doing business in the far north is already

much higher than it is elsewhere. That is logical because of the

geographical distances. In this budget the government has added an

extra burden to these small businesses. During a recession there need

to be incentives for consumer spending. Look at Ontario, for example,

where they've taken sales tax off major appliances to encourage

consumer spending in that province. Since they did this in their budget

a few months back, all reports are that it's been very successful, with

more spending on the consumer side of the ledger.

We are finding that some of the tax increases have a paralysing

aspect on small business in this province. Most of the Atlin

constituency small-business merchants and other small-business-related

activities suffer loss because — this is particularly in the far north

— they do their shopping in the Yukon, which has no sales tax. So

businesses, particularly in the communities of Atlin, Lower Post and

Cassiar, are finding that consumers are driving the extra 100 miles, or

150 miles if it's from Cassiar and going into the Yukon and buying

their products because there's no sales tax. This budget will increase

our sales tax in this province to 7 percent.

Mr. Speaker, you know yourself, as a northerner, that the north is

the future of the province. This is a region that is going to generate

a great many of British Columbia's future jobs; not looking at the

short term of 1983-84, but at the 1990s and the turn of the century,

it's going to be the north where the jobs are. We have the resources.

But it would be logical to have an exemption from sales tax for all

people living in the north. So far the government has only, once again,

loaded northern residents with extra hardships.

Another aspect of this budget is that a great many of the residents

of my riding are the first citizens of this country, the native people,

who have also suffered the loss of their lands and resources without

any treaty or compensation. One aspect of this budget that directly

relates to the first citizens of this country and our province is the

First Citizens' Fund, and we have seen the First Citizens' Fund being

decreased through this budget. One thing to remember is the First

Citizens' Fund is in no sense a payment to native people for the losses

and hardships they have suffered. It could be useful in helping them

create their own programs and enterprises, but what we've seen is that

this government has slashed into the First Citizens' Fund again; cut

into it by nearly a million dollars from the fund in this disaster of a

budget that the government has announced.

I talked earlier about some of the cutbacks: roads — that's a major

issue in the far north, and I'm pleased that I was able to secure the

position of Highways critic in the Legislature, because northern roads

were seriously neglected prior to this budget. My concern is that now

the highway program has been cut by $55 million from the previous year,

you may be sure that the cuts in northern road budgets are going to be

proportionately larger than in the south. You can also be sure that our

rotten roads are going to get worse. There was a rumour going around

last week when I was up fishing that some of the potholes are getting

so bad that cars are disappearing into them on Highway 37 and on the

Atlin road.

Tourism is another aspect of this budget. Tourism is probably, in

this recession, the largest source of income for northern people today.

Poor roads and increased sales tax will only cause damage to our number

one industry in the north, the tourist industry. What we need, instead

of cutting back in these areas.... If I'm not mistaken, the tourist

budget is the second lowest in the entire budget; only the Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations is less than Tourism. But what is happening

is that poor roads and increased sales tax can only seriously damage

the tourist industry in the far north. What we need are incentives for

tourist development, instead of

[ Page 946 ]

which the government

gives us crippling taxes to deal with. The tax on restaurant meals is

one of the most distinct disadvantages to the tourist business right

through this province and into the north. I noticed this week in the

newspaper that a group of restaurateurs in the Kootenays have put

together a petition. Approximately 1,200 people — the majority of

restaurant owners in the Kootenay area — signed the petition saying

that they're opposed to this. A suggestion to the government has been

brought forward by the restaurant association is that you would drop

the 7 percent tax on meals over $7 and bring in some type of logical

tax structure. You could put it at 2 percent for any meal, but 7

percent over $7 makes no sense. A recommendation from that restaurant

association group is to drop the 7 percent over $7. It is too much.

Come in with a tax incentive of 2 percent on all meals.

Another tax increase in this budget is the increase in rural

property taxes once again. This is a hardship to tourist operators, the

owners of these small facilities and to all residents in the north.

Most of us who live in the north have found that our rural property

taxes in the last few years have increased considerably — much higher

than the cost of living in some areas. As I pointed out in the last

budget speech prior to the election, areas like Dease Lake have found

that some of their properties have increased by 400 percent. As a

suggestion to this government, they should delay any increases in rural

property taxes as long as the present depression or recession lasts.

To go to one of the positive aspects, as the critic for Highways and

Transportation, I praise the government for increasing the air

ambulance service by 32 percent. By the same token I would be remiss in

not pointing out that that is one small aspect of this budget that is

positive. The majority of this budget is negative, particularly to the

people who we are being punished for living in the north.

A while back in Cassiar the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was addressing a crowd of about 200

people in Cassiar. Questions that are raised to me daily concerning

increases in property taxes and highway construction were raised to the

minister. Do you know what the Minister said? He said: "If you don't

like living in the north, move south." Then we heard the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) use a similar statement the other day when

the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) questioned him about

some of his statements in this House regarding Victoria's business, and

he said: "Well, if you can't get a job here, move someplace else."

Where are you supposed to move to in this province? One area is just as

bad as the other. You can't go around telling people to move out. We

have to address the problems in every community in this province.

I wonder if this government could be persuaded to give something

back to the northern people in exchange for all the things we have had

taken away from us in the far north — our resources, our water and our

land. One positive suggestion to this government is the Nishga. The

Nishga people are very sturdy and have been pushing for a very long

time for a better deal that will allow them to have a greater degree of

economic self-sufficiency. What the Nishga people want is a timber

licence that will allow them to cut, process and sell wood in their

traditional territory. Yet the government turns a deaf ear to this

economic expansion by the Nishga people. The Nisgha are being punished

regarding their treaty. This party has shown itself over the years to

be a party of big business. It leaves the trees in the Nishga territory

in the hands of a huge timber corporation. This timber corporation is

doing very little with regard to tree licence No. 1. Why doesn't this

government give the Nishga the licence to take some of that over? Tree

licence No. 1 is the largest in the province, and it is not being used

by this huge timber corporation. They can at least saw it into lumber

to build their own homes or tourist resorts. With some encouragement

from this government they might be able to develop some new products

and new markets from the far north. This corporate monster is none

other than the famous BCRIC.

[11:00]

Since Premier Bennett gave away to big business a number of publicly

owned enterprises a few years back which were owned by the taxpayers —

you and I, Mr. Speaker, and our children — big business has been

playing the games of merger and takeover. These paper games have been

profitable to the insiders and to the company executives who have made

money on these deals. They've done very little for production; they've

done very little for jobs. The corporations we're talking about are

huge, sluggish private bureaucracies.

This government always preaches empty sermons about free enterprise.

When is it going to give the first citizens of this country even a

fraction of that freedom that it grants to its favourite friends in the

big business corporate area — corporation friends, their friends?

They're not really paying their own way and they're not making proper

use of the timber placed at their disposal. I challenge this

government, Mr. Speaker, to quit its preaching and self-congratulation

and do something useful for a change. I challenge them to give the

timber licence to the Nishga people.

There's a very interesting

article in this morning's Victoria Times-Colonist ,

section B, entitled: "Savings From Firings Still a Mystery." It talks

about "a $2.4 billion deficit, a 12.3 increase in spending, more than

7,000 firings.... The editorial says: "The estimates are marvellous for what they

conceal rather than what they tell you." Mr. Speaker, we're all

honourable members in this House. Why do we have to present something

to the people in this province, people who gave their faith and their

support to this government...? Why do we have to have articles

written that say: "These estimates are marvellous for what they conceal

rather than what they tell you"? Why doesn't this government come out

and be truthful about exactly what's going on?

The Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is quoted as saying:

"It he doesn't know how much money will be saved by

eliminating 6,841 positions and numerous government services and programs.

It does, however, say the way to determine the savings from firings is to multiply

the number of jobs lost by the average salary of $23,000, for a total of $93

million — but the ministry will not confirm this figure."

It's very empty. Mr. Speaker, throwing around figures of cutting

back.... We're going to cut back 6,841 civil servants in this province,

and then say it's going to save $93 million. Why can't they put that

down in black and white?"Much of the increase in spending can be attributed to

an 88 percent jump in the Finance ministry's expenditures, from $177.4 million

to $333.5 million." I wonder whatever happened to that glorious program that the government takes

credit for — the 6-and-5 program — in conjunction with their leader, the Prime

Minister. That 88 percent increase certainly doesn't fit into the category

of 6-and-5. Even if you multiply

[ Page 947 ]

six times five it's still 30 percent; it's still triple what the Finance Minister is doing in his own expenditures.

Further on the

article says: "Spending of the Employment Development

Account will increase 783 percent to $245 million, according to the

budget, but at least $39 million of that money has been shifted to EDA

from another ministry."

I talked earlier about the greatest percentage decrease in spending

through this budget being a decrease of 20.4 percent in the Tourism

ministry, which is already the smallest-spending ministry after

Intergovernmental Relations. As I said earlier, the number one industry

in the far north is tourism. Our mines are closed; our forestry has not

been open for over a year and a half. What we are doing to our number

one industry is causing the greatest decrease of any of the ministries

through this budget — 20.4 percent. We're seeing a predicted growth of

tourism in this province of 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent of the gross

provincial product this year. Still, Mr. Speaker, we go out of our way

to decrease an important ministry, Tourism. I am surprised that the

Tourist minister (Hon. Mr. Richmond) hasn't stood in his place to

condemn this move of cutting back.

I find it very hard to understand, Mr. Speaker.... The discontent of

the public is being shown out there constantly through demonstrations,

petitions and letters to their elected representatives. To a certain

extent some of the arrogant manners of these ministers and people

responsible for these programs.... The bishop here in Victoria has an

article in this morning's paper. In regard to the budget we're

debating, Bishop de Roo accuses the Socreds of making the poor carry

the rich.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a crock!

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MR. PASSARELL: I certainly wouldn't want to say that to the

bishop myself, but you have the right to say it. I would probably be

more like the first member for Surrey. No, I wouldn't say that other

thing to the bishop. You know what happened in that cartoon in today's

paper. Did you see that cartoon, Mr. Speaker?

MR. PARKS: You wish to table the cartoon before this House?

MR. PASSARELL Sure. It's probably the most educational thing you've

read in a long time, Mr. Member. It's only got five words on it: a little

speech by the Premier regarding all the hoopla about his restraint program.

A bolt of lightning is coming from the sky, but nobody's listening.

But on to what the bishop has said. There are some important things

that he said in this

article by Stephen Hume. I'll quote this one: "The

issue is this: is it, in the light of the Gospel and in the light of

Christian social teaching, right or wrong that the poor and the weak

should pay for a restraint program?" No, I don't think it should be. I

think what the bishop goes through in this excellent statement of his

commitments is something that all hon. members in this House should

take to heart.

MR. REID: What did Bob say?

MR. PASSARELL : We've already talked about Bob. You were out.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You can't call Bob. You know that Bob doesn't have a telephone.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL : Broadway Bob? He'll give you the message in neon lights.

Where is he today? He's gone. Broadway Bob has gone to another show.

What we should take from the bishop's statement this morning is the

aspect of cooperation, not confrontation. That's what is really needed.

As a political party they have to bring forth their budget. If they

believe that it has to be drastic in the areas that they believe

warrant the attention, they should be able to present this to the

public and not try any kind of deception, saying one thing to get

elected and then bringing in a budget with this deception afterwards.

Why not just take this "once" debate — because this is one of the few

debates we have in this House that is limited to any length of time; we

have approximately four more days to deal with this budget....

The green light. That means I can go for another 40 minutes? With unanimous consent?

MR. REID: Back to Atlin!

MR. PASSARELL : I'd love to go back, but the plane left about ten

minutes ago, and I felt that it was so important to go through with this speech

here today. As always when I talk....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: A free vote? Now that's something you've never done. But it's always a slice to talk to this esteemed....

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to the number one industry in the north. Try to tell me again.

MR. PASSARELL : You'd never get it, Mr. Member. You'd never understand.

I would like to take you up north sometime just to see what's going on.

You'll get out of the city in winter — sixty below.... I'd like

to take you up there, and we'll do some ice fishing. Any time you want to

go up there, you give me.... You'd be a lot more helpful than some of

the other people that came up from that government prior to May 5.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL : The mandate that I got? And you guys talk about your mandate?

A 380,000 percent increase in popular vote from one election to the other.

I'm a living legend.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: But, Mr. Speaker, it's been a slice. I've finally got them starting to speak. It was too early in the

[ Page 948 ]

morning. They were sitting there with their foreheads on their desks, and now we've finally started to wind them up here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's just say you're a legend.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: One at a time here.

MR. MOWAT: If I come up there and you lose in the next election, don't blame me.

MR. PASSARELL: Never. No, I promise that if you come up, I

will not get a 380,000 percent increase in popular vote. I will get a

500,000 percent increase.

MR. PARKS: Would that be six more votes?

MR. PASSARELL: No, that would be 11.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's been a slice. Have a good weekend.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it was just over 20 years ago

that I was first honoured to be a member of this assembly. During that

initial year I was in the corner where the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) now sits. It was a great seat for

debate in this House. It's just 20 years now, Mr. Speaker, and many

budgets have come and gone in that time. I think it is perhaps

reasonable that as a long-term member I might be permitted to indulge a

little bit in some comparisons between then and now. The only people in

the assembly at that time who are still here today are the first and

second members for Vancouver East (Messrs. Barrett and Macdonald),

neither one of which, I'm sorry to say, is in the assembly at the

present time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are some changes that have taken place — some for the better,

some for the worse. Among the changes for the worse is that never ever

in that time would the first and second members for Vancouver East be

absent from the assembly during debate, nor would any members of the

House. Furthermore, never ever would we have the press gallery, as we

see today.... I see there's the overflow up there in the top seats, but

never ever in the main press gallery would the members of the great

fourth estate be absent to miss what the members of the Legislative

Assembly had to say in debate. And never ever ever would a member of

this assembly dare stand up and give a speech which would waste the

time of the House. He would be too embarrassed to appear in the

corridors or in the legislative dining room, and the press would never

permit that member to forget that he had got up and wasted breath on

the assembly and on the people of British Columbia. How times have

changed now that we have shifted into dreams of consciousness on the

floor of the House and simply dreams in the press gallery. The hard

realities that used to characterize debate and the sharp attention to

the issues of the day have unfortunately become a matter of history in

this House.

[11:15]

My great wish upon reflection over time is that we could recapture

some of the attention to the issues and that we could bring back some

of the former considerably great debate that members of the opposition

once presented to this House, even the first and second members for

Vancouver East.

That first budget, which I did not support, Mr. Speaker, was for

$373 million. The budget we now debate, which I shall support, is for

$8.4 billion. In terms of the capacity of the people of British

Columbia to support, the budget is too high, because that budget

overspends despite the best efforts of the government to pare. Despite

the considerable hostility being attended to that budget right across

the nation, Mr. Speaker, that $1.6 billion deficit alone is over four

times the size of the budget which I first debated in this Legislature

only 20 years ago. What were the components of that budget? Here the

comparisons begin to show in the way the priorities have shifted in

this province, and the way, in this member's view, the new directions

must be sought.

At that time the Health budget in British Columbia was not $2.45

billion; it was $93 million. The Education budget was not $1.79

billion; it was $93 million. The welfare budget was not $1.3 billion;

it was $31 million. The Highways budget in that day was $74.8 million,

20 percent of the entire budget of British Columbia. Today, and I'm

going to come back to this, the budget for Highways is $468 million,

only 5.7 percent of the budget. The government of that day had pursued,

for over a decade, an aggressive program of opening up land in British

Columbia, knitting together the communities of the province with a

highways system which we enjoy today, but which in that time we have

scarcely improved upon.

Many, including myself, felt we were lacking conspicuously in

British Columbia in our services in health and education. At that time

there was one post-secondary institution in British Columbia. Today we

have three public universities and one private university. We have 21

colleges and institutes. We have a budget for post-secondary education

that has gone from $15.6 million to $708 million. Never again in the

history of British Columbia will we ever have a period of such

flowering and development of our educational services in this province.

In addition to the tremendous variety of post-secondary services that

we have supplied, we now have an educational television network, the

Knowledge Network, of which I'm extremely proud. We have an open

learning institute which will permit people, no matter what their

financial or geographical circumstances, or what their previous

educational performance, to enter our system and obtain a university

degree in their living room. That's precisely how far we've come in 20

years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the health field, the expenditures in those days were $31

million. We have now provided a comprehensive medicare system. We have

introduced chronic care. We've doubled the size of our medical school,

and we have provided a variety and enrichment of health services that

never again will be duplicated in British Columbia's history. That's

what has taken place in the last 20 years.

In addition, there has been an enrichment beyond anyone's dreams of

20 years ago in the variety and depth of Human Resources services to

help the poor and the disadvantaged. I was a harsh critic of the

government in those days because there was so much that needed to be

done in the way of development of these services. But then, as now,

such things could not and would not be possible unless along the way,

in parallel and in fact leading these developments, we

[ Page 949 ]

had the industrial base which would provide not

just career employment but the additional resources, surplus to that

employment, that would provide for the investment and education of our

future generation, and at the same time provide fair and appropriate

services to the poor, and to those disadvantaged in health and other

areas.

While we were driving to develop a new country and pushing the

development and commercialization of our considerable resources —

members who were in the House during those years will have been bored

by the speeches that I gave — we were making no effort to broaden our

industrial base by seeking other opportunities for growth than those

related directly to resources.

During the past 20 years, in which British Columbia and most of

Canada slept through opportunities, the great growth in wealth and

employment has stemmed from those parts of the world that then embraced

the opportunities presented by high technology industry, so while Bud

Drury in the House of Commons was saying that Canada had all the

science it needed from the journals of the day, the leaders in Japan —

parliamentary, corporate and civil service — were setting a new

direction for that country which has today made Japan the envy of the

industrial world. It has provided a growth and momentum unmatched

anywhere in the west. We are starting to develop that in British

Columbia in 1983, if we stick to this course of action. By the turn of

the century we too in British Columbia will enjoy the richness of

industrial development that comes to Japan in 1983 as a result of

policies that it developed in the 1960s.

Let me reflect a little bit on what the consequences have been of

this change in momentum in British Columbia. From building highways,

from developing resources to provision of enrichment of social

services, our spending has outstripped the ability of our industrial

base to pay. It is absolutely mandatory that this disparity be

eliminated. Failure to undertake this necessary correction is only

going to penalize future generations of British Columbians, because of

the shortsightedness, the profligacy, and the inability of those

elected today to see clearly the priorities that lie ahead. That is the

problem. No one contributes more to that problem than the members

opposite. It is not just the content of their speeches; it is their

inability to see any more clearly today than they did 20 years ago the

appropriate directions for British Columbia.

Since that time the NDP has lost six elections. In 1963 they lost,

in 1966 they lost, in 1969 they lost, in 1975 they lost, in 1979 they

lost, and in 1983 — six elections, deservedly. In the time that they

were in office from 1972 to 1975 they contributed to one massive step

backwards for mankind, at least in British Columbia. It was their

promotion of inefficiency, their admiration of the labour movement,

their inability to serve all segments of society. They thrashed

capital, exported our brains and left us with wreckage on the hands of

the government that then took over in 1975 to try to set new directions

for our province.

We have overdone to a fault the ability of our educational system

fairly to serve the people of British Columbia, when you have a school

superintendent in one of the northern districts of British Columbia

paid $84,000 a year and another on the North Shore over $91,000 dollars

a year — higher salaries than are paid to the Premier of the province,

the number one figure in British Columbia. I mention these examples

only to say that the generosity of the public sector has not

necessarily been followed by discipline, by efficiency and by cost

benefit to the taxpayers of the province.

When the enrichment of the services has been provided, but it has

been accompanied by waste and inefficiency, and when the sum of that is

beyond the ability of the taxpayers of British Columbia to support by a

total of $1.6 billion, on the face of it, it says that appropriate

corrective action must be taken. The growth phase is completed.

MR. LEA: What have you done to help?

HON. MR. McGEER: What has to be done now? This is the whole

purpose of Bill 3: to begin — now that the Building job has been

completed — and to put into place appropriate efficiencies and

appropriate delivery of services so that the people who are paying the

taxes can get back into balance again.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in this time in which our social

services have been building, with speed and with inefficiency, to the

point where now they have overshot the industrial capacity of British

Columbia, at the same time we have almost totally forgotten that we

live in an area blessed with riches and opportunities which are forgone

as we stare at our feet and haggle with one another. How many members

of this House realize that within 300 miles of this legislative

building we have a great inland empire over twice the size of Belgium,

half again as large as Switzerland, nearly twice the size of The

Netherlands, 20 times the size of Luxembourg, almost as large as

Ireland, and much larger than Denmark which is so far unexplored — not

a road, not a community, not a permanent inhabitant. We have a great

inland empire, an untouched country in British Columbia.

It lies south of Highway 16, north of the western provincial highway

from Williams Lake to the coast, west of the Cariboo highway, and

behind the Coast Mountains; a country almost the size of — or larger

than — almost half the nations in Europe, untouched and unopened; flat

plain, not impenetrable mountains and icefields such as the Homathko

icefields of British Columbia, more spectacular in scenery than

anything in Europe or the Rocky Mountains, again unseen by British

Columbians.

So we have much to do yet. A quarter of British Columbia, north of

Highway 16, behind the Alaska panhandle, is largely unopened because

the resource policies have not had the strength they had 20 years ago,

because we're being pushed to supply social services that have been

developed because the field has been saturated to a fault — the

additions are additions of inefficiency and they encumber the ability

of those who developed British Columbia and would do so again now to

make their contributions.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we recover our balance in this province, it

can only be done by curbing expenditures in those areas that have been

draining the ability of this province to carry on with the pioneering

development that characterized the first 150 years of its settlement.

That must be recovered. The great inland empire, I submit, needs to be

opened up today even more than it did 20 years ago. I would like to see

the day arrive in British Columbia when we can open up the inland

empire, when we can once again see development of the great northwest

area of British Columbia, when we begin to pay enough attention to the

industrial base, when we begin to develop enough balance in what should

go to social services and what should be reinvested in the future

[ Page 950 ]

of this province that we can get on again with the

development of British Columbia and the realization of the potential it

holds for our province.

Yes, there was a time, before we lost our courage, when power was

the cutting edge of industrial development. Now, unfortunately, today

and for the next two or three years we'll be spilling power over our

dams, throwing it away, wasting an energy resource that we've already

developed, to say nothing of two-thirds of our potential renewable

energy — clean from hydro-electric power — that we yet to touch in

British Columbia.

One of the things I think should be done, Mr. Speaker, now that we

are spilling power and throwing it away in British Columbia, Alberta,

Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario — and will be spilling power over dams for

years to come — is that we should be electrilizing our railroads. We

should be giving power to railroads. We're throwing it away at the

present time. If we were to do that, we wouldn't be wasting our money

subsidizing and purchasing Arab fuel. One of the great advantages of

electrilized railroads — which they have in Sweden and some other

countries of the world where hydro-electric power is available — is

that the efficiency of railroads would go up, not just that you don't

waste diesel engines inefficiently converting diesel fuel to

electricity. When you run downhill — as we do — getting our resources

out of the interior of British Columbia to the coast instead of wasting

energy braking the trains, you're putting energy back into the system.

That would be one of the great capital developments that we could take

— husbanding those resources that are scarce in Canada and ending the

waste of those resources which we have in generous surplus.

It all bears on the ability of this Legislative Assembly and other

opinion-makers in this province to begin to see, perhaps for the first

time, very clearly what must be the priorities and their balance in

developing the province. We went through a considerable period when the

opening up of the country and the building of the resource industrial

base so far outstripped the requirements of building human and

educational services. It got so far out of step. It was unfortunate. Do

you know what the consequence of that was? We got an NDP government for

one term. What a penalty to have paid! A sin of equal dimension might

have that curse revisited on British Columbia. I hope the Lord and

common sense can spare us that and that the people of British Columbia

will do as they did in 1933, reject the NDP; do as they did in 1937,

reject the NDP; do as they did in 1941, reject the NDP; do as they did

in 1945, reject the NDP; and in '49, and in '52, and in '53, and in

'56, and in '60. I won't go over the last 20 years again because I've

already done that and the members opposite recognize that they need to

repent and recast their priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the few members of our

assembly who attended this little reminiscence. But I do say that this

is no time for this member or anyone else in the Legislative Assembly

to look to the past. It is no time, Mr. Speaker, for anyone in this

Legislative Assembly to look only to next year's budget. It is our task

in this assembly to look 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ahead, to set the

directions here which, although they may not seem at the time to

produce the maximum immediate benefit, will nonetheless establish in

the long term what is best for the people of our province. I don't

think the required directions have changed in the past 20 years, and I

don't believe, Mr. Speaker, the required directions will change in the

next 20 years.

We will continue to be a province blessed by enormous resources by

huge territories, by a relatively sparse population with unmatched

opportunities in the world to develop those territories for the benefit

of the fortunate people who live here. In order to do that we will need

to set aside the income in our province that will give us appropriate

investment in industry — both resource and knowledge-based. Give us

that surplus required to open new country for settlement and for

resource development at the same time to get that correct balance of

investing some of the surplus in resources for people — education,

health, and welfare for the disadvantaged. It's not an impossible task;

it's only a task which requires sufficient vision to look beyond today,

and perhaps a little bit of opportunity to inspect the past, learning

about the opportunities that we took advantage of, as well as the

mistakes and distortions.

This budget and the legislative session will pass probably with very

little note in history. What will endure, despite what the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has to say, will be those small portions of

this assembly, as in others, that have been directed towards the

long-term future of the British Columbians of tomorrow.

MR. ROSE: I always enjoy listening to the speech of the hon.

first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), because it's always

the same speech. I want you to know that his speech is becoming one of

my favourites. Perhaps he might give me an autographed copy of it

sometime, so I can have it framed. It's always interesting to listen to

him, because his speeches are kind of a "tour de farce" most of the

time. He winds up and let's go, but he seldom hits anything. One of the

things I did notice in this great free-enterprise speech.... I've known

the hon. minister since he was sitting at the fraternity table, quite

close to where I used to eat below the salt, at the University of

British Columbia. In spite of his support for free enterprise, I don't

think he's ever had his snout out of the public trough. I did take note

of this concern about the export of brains from British Columbia over

the past 20 years; I note also that he stayed home. I don't know

whether that means that he doesn't have many or whether we are one of

the lucky ones — or B.C. is — to have him around.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[11:45]

(Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Anyway, I enjoyed his wallow through nostalgia. He

bathed himself in these memories. Like all memories, I think they tend

to be coloured. Nostalgia erases the unpleasant memories, and you

retain only the pleasant ones. For instance, he's obviously forgotten

that this great administration that he joined belatedly.... St. Paul's

conversion on the road to Damascus comes to mind; it's rather a cliché

also. But he fought it until 1975; he fought every step of the way. He

couldn't lick 'em, so he joined 'em. So that's where he was.

I think he's made a tremendous analysis of our problem. The only

place where we disagree with him is on the solution. That's what he

said. He lauded the Japanese. What have we done here? We've created a

complete state of insecurity in the public workforce and in the private

sector in this province — a complete state of chaos. Then he lauds the

Japanese. What does the Japanese worker have? I'll tell you what the

Japanese

[ Page 951 ]

worker has, and I'll tell you what the Japanese

government has. It has complete government and industry planning;

that's number one. The Japanese workers have lifetime job security;

that's number two.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's a kind of tenure. It's the kind the minister

enjoys — and the Japanese worker enjoys — but it's the kind he would

deprive from everybody else. Something else Japanese workers have:

low-interest loans from their companies to buy homes. They also have

six-month profit bonuses on profit-sharing. They have paid vacations at

company resorts. So don't talk about what what's being done in Japan

and what you're doing here. You are trying to destroy those very safety

nets that we've had here...that the Japanese worker has achieved.

And you want to take it away from them here.

The minister said that we have outstripped our industrial base. He

said we've been far too concerned with developing our resources. What

will happen, he suggests, is that now that we've got that bill, maybe

we'll have a little bit left over for people. I thought the reason for

government was people. It isn't necessarily for profit or for exports

or anything else. It seems to me that it all comes down to being for

people — not just what little bit you have left over. The whole reason

we have a government is for people; I think we should know it.

The diversification that he talked about has not taken place, which

has made us extremely vulnerable. That is the truth, and that is the

serious side of what I have to say today. That is one of the most

serious things. We haven't done the things other countries have. We

haven't provided for diversification. The minister says we've

outstripped the ability of our industrial base to pay. Who's done it?

The NDP? This administration has been in power for 27 of the last 30

years, so whose fault is it if we've outstripped our ability to pay?

It's because we haven't diversified; that's the problem.

What are you going to do about it in the future? You've had a

chance, and so has the western world, for at least 20 years of

unprecedented growth. The minister also says we've got power spilling

over the dams in British Columbia; they've got power spilling over the

dams in Washington too. They've got nuclear plants that they can't go

ahead with in Washington. How much are we using alternative and

non-renewable resources in the province of British Columbia? About 3 or

4 percent. If we're going to do this we could take the leadership from

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and ask him to

help us diversify. Help us to provide the kinds of R and D we need, the

aggressive selling, that would make us far less dependent on the

megaprojects in the resource field. That's what our problem is.

We've been insisting upon that kind of diversification all through

this budget debate. I don't know why we're on the budget debate today.

Why today particularly? We had two or three days of budget debate and

then we didn't see it again; it went away. We did all manner of

legislative striptease. We had a little ankle showing on Bill 9,

perhaps some cleavage on Bill 6, and maybe a glimpse of a shoulder on

Bill 3, or something like that. They tantalized us with these things.

They were so proud of the budget they wouldn't even bring it forward

for debate. That's the truth.

We've had some severe times here in the last year, and we began to

wonder when Moody's actually reported that we had slipped in our credit

rating, because our economy was in such a turmoil. I think it is going

to be worse, not better....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you hope.

MR. ROSE: I don't hope it gets worse. Why would I hope that?

If people are bragging about how great things are and somebody in the

opposition seeks to clarify and set the record straight, and if the

government spends most of its time patting itself on the back, then I

think somebody else should have a look and see exactly what the causes

are.

I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the transcript of

a telephone conversation with Molly Conway of Standard and Poor

investment rating house, New York. Ms. Conway is on the Canadian desk,

in charge of credit ratings. She was asked why the province has been

downgraded to AA from AAA, and I'm now quoting Ms. Conway: "It reflects

a deterioration of the province's own creditworthiness. There we were

primarily concerned with the economic volatility of the province." Is

the economic volatility getting any better? Is there labour peace? Is

there the kind of tranquility that would allow us to expect greater

investment here at the moment? Of course there isn't, because the

government has chosen to use a sledgehammer on both the public and

private sectors, as well as to attack those people who could least

afford to protect themselves.

Continuing to quote from Ms. Conway: "The downturn last year was

much more significant than any of us expected. It indicated that the

economic base hasn't been diversified." What have we been calling for

for years? R and D, diversification, aggressive selling, new products.

Has that happened in British Columbia? The minister gets up a little

while ago and calls for all of these things. Where has he been? He's

been sitting in that government since 1975. What's he or the government

done about that? "It hasn't been diversified to the extent necessary to

protect the province from that kind of downturn." Now what Conway, of

this prestigious investment house, is saying is simply this: if you're

completely dependent upon megaprojects and the exports of primary

resources, then when you have a world downturn, you're stuck and

vulnerable, and you're going to be wounded. That's what has happened in

British Columbia.

Now that we have the government back in power, all bright-eyed and

bushy-tailed, is that somehow going to change? Well, Standard and Poor

doesn't think so, not in the immediate future anyway:

"That was the primary reason the downturn last year

was much more significant than any of us expected. It indicated that

the economic base hasn't been diversified to the extent necessary to

protect the province from that kind of downturn. We were also concerned

about the size of the budgetary deficit last year and the budgeted

deficit for this year."

A lot of people are concerned about it. A lot of people besides Standard and Poor are concerned about the same thing.

Then Ms. Conway was asked this question: "There has been some

commentary that the deficit may be in error. Did you get close enough

to gauge its accuracy?" "We would expect the deficit to come in

somewhat lower than budgeted because the province has tried to be

conservative in its revenue estimates." Where have we heard this

before? Overestimate spending, underestimate incomes, and guess what

you've got? Deja vu. The same thing is going to happen again. Again

quoting Ms. Conway: "As you know, last year the big part of the deficit

was caused by a revenue shortfall. I think they're pretty careful not

to do that again."

[ Page 952 ]

Now this is not a radical socialist speaking here. I'm not quoting

anybody like J. S. Woodsworth or Tommy Douglas or anyone like that. I

am quoting a telephone conversation from one of the most important

investment houses in New York City. They have condemned this

government's performance. Well, the Premier can smile. He can smile all

the way to the bank. When he gets to the bank this year, he'll find

it's cost him two hundred million bucks more in interest alone. So

laugh that one off at the bank. That's a very serious thing. And it's

because the province has been mismanaged.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't blame me; I'm NDP. I wasn't here. I was one of those evil people that you're trying to keep out.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister mentions, too, that he's praying to

the Lord. Well, Remi de Roo is praying to the Lord too. Are you praying

to the same Lord? I think Remi's probably plugged into the Lord a

little better than the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that good leadership?

AN HON. MEMBER: Standard and Poor don't think so.

MR. ROSE: No, they're standard and we're poor. That's what happens.

I want to turn to something else now. We always hear that the

economy is fragile. I'm quite sure that that word has probably resulted

from advice of the pollsters, because, you know: "Don't rock the boat.

The economy is fragile." I think that's true. The economy is fragile.

Recovery is fragile; it may not even be here. I'm quite sure that if we

didn't draw any attention to the sins of the government, members across

the way would feel that the recovery would be much more rapid. We don't

buy that, because we think it's our job to point out the error of their

ways, their sins. But anyway, we hear that.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I'm really concerned about it,

too. I think that we can't go on the way we're going, locked in this

kind of struggle. I think that we're going to somehow have to find our

way out of this, because you can't have a province working if it's

going to be locked in mortal combat. So we're going to have to look for

some way out.

On July 18 the Financial Times came up with this editorial:

"Consensus, Not Combat." We've heard from other people, not just New

Democrats, who say that we had a mandate for restraint, not revenge.

This is what this budget looks like to me: a vengeful budget. Remi de

Roo said it was an evil budget, because it treats the weakest segments

of our society.... It attacks single parents, the elderly, the people

who need social assistance, the handicapped....

MR. MOWAT: Tell us where.

MR. ROSE: I'll come to that.

Here's the Financial Times editorial on July 18. The Financial

Times , I think, would be called a responsible journal and not

necessarily a New Democratic Party publication. It has this to say:

"The British Columbia government, like those of other provinces, needs

to get its deficit down. But a 16.6 percent increase in the retail

sales tax to rate 7 percent from 6 percent, may not be precisely what

the doctor ordered to promote economic recovery." We've heard what the

restaurateurs have said. They've come out of a very fragile economy and

they find that extra tax on meals hard to swallow. So do a lot of

people who go to restaurants.

[12:00]

"It's hard to quarrel with the objective of smaller

government. But a time of high unemployment — British Columbia's rate

stood at 14.1 percent in June — may not be the best time to dump

thousands of fired government workers on the labour market. It is

worrisome, too, that the planned smaller government appears to become

more centralized and powerful, with a new mandate to intervene in what

have been local matters."

That covers a lot. It covers the schools, the municipalities, every

fire and police department, junior colleges, the universities — this

centralization. This really hasn't got a great deal to do necessarily

with employment or economic recovery, but it certainly is a facet of

this budget. It certainly is a thrust, a theme, of the budget: more

control by the Kremlin and less control in the local municipalities.

That's what it means.

It says here: "The provincial government's own

spending is rising by more than 12 percent, when most other provinces

are holding spending increases to about 8 percent." Everybody else goes

down, but the provincial spending goes up. On what? On more

centralization, more mega-projects? What are you spending it on? "This

difference suggests the Bennett administration is restraining others,

but failing to restrain itself." It goes on to say: "The new harsh tone

of politics implicit both in recent federal actions and the British

Columbia budget seems to indicate that some of our leaders are turning

from consensus to combat." These aren't my words. They're the words of

the Financial Times . "The talk about consensus may be cheap, but

fighting each other could prove expensive." I think we've seen this.

We've seen a deliberately leaked document, or what appears to be a

deliberately leaked document, on the changes to the Labour Code. These

changes would make B.C., instead of one of the most progressive

provinces in terms of labour legislation and labour rights, one of the

worst. You think you want to make this place the Alabama of Canada? You

want to take away people's rights so that they'll come down there and

the right-to-workers will move in and start a textile mill? So tell

everybody to tote that barge, lift that bale, and don't belong to a

union. Decertify them all.

MR. REID: Equal opportunity to work.

MR. ROSE: I didn't mean to provoke them, Mr. Speaker, but you

see how the tensions have risen. If we can be shouting at one another

in anger across the floor, even in simulated indignation, it's obvious

that what goes on here may or may not be a microcosm of what goes on in

society. If there were a lot of social and religious tensions and

economic tensions, then how can an investor be confident about the

future of the province? Is that the kind of climate we need to have our

province progress, whether it's through the Social Credit or any other

government? I don't think it is. What we have to do is to develop some

kind of a means whereby we can get working with one another again and

stop beating one another up.

[ Page 953 ]

I would like to indulge myself in another quote from another radical

journal — I've just left the Financial Times . This radical journal is

called....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Democrat .

MR. ROSE: No, it's not the Democrat ; that's not radical. It's the Vancouver Province .

The Premier's cartoon is not particularly flattering to him. He looks

like a thief in the night. He's got this cape on. I'll withdraw that

because....

The headline of their editorial is: "Here's a Chance for

Compromise." The editor has this to say: "Premier Bennett should grab

at the opportunity handed him by the B.C. Employers' Council to

negotiate a truce with his restraint opponents and work out ways of

reducing government services with less confrontation." We'd all agree

to that, shouldn't we? I think we could all agree with that.

"Council president Jim Matkin says the government and the

various communities of interest affected by its legislative program should

sit down and resolve their differences. He says each problem area in the controversial

package should be tackled one by one." I'll skip a little bit, but I think we agree with this. We're not going

to agree with it while this sword is hanging over people's head, because

you don't whip British Columbians around. Our traditions of bargaining rights,

organization and collective bargaining go back a hundred years. They go back

to the coal-mines, where people just didn't lose their jobs; they lost their

heads when they tried to organize. We have a tradition in this province that

nobody's going to wipe away with just one fell swoop without trouble. But

do we need trouble? I don't think we need trouble. We need to calm the place

down.

Anyway, Mr. Matkin is a former deputy minister and is well known in government

circles in both this administration and the one preceding it. He says: "Governments

often reveal their legislative objectives in green papers and white papers so

as to get some feedback from the public. Specific legislation is then formulated,

based on public response. That's a well-recognized part of the parliamentary

process." Have we had that? No. We've had leaked documents to debate

in public, like the changes to the Labour Code. Have we had consultation? Sure,

we put down the bills — Bill 9, Bill 3, Bill 6 — and then say: "Well, we're

going to consult now." When? As the editorial has to say:

"....they do not 'negotiate' on legislation already

introduced. Mr. Matkin would argue he's merely suggesting consultation,

which, of course, he is. But in practical terms the consultation would have

to involve some give and take by the government as well as the groups concerned,

if Mr. Matkin's objective is to be achieved. He says 'we want to get

back to business in the province.' "

I don't think I could say that any better. I think that's very sound

advice. I don't think we will achieve it in this particular atmosphere,

because I think it's far too highly charged.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've noticed this in other instances, but

people can accept change. Human beings and society are quite able to

accept change. But they can only accept change at a particular rate.

You can't change everything on them — all their traditions, all their

security packages, all their safety nets, all the things that have

grown up in a generation — and suddenly cut those out overnight without

inviting trouble.

I return to my theme: why double trouble? It's gone from triple-A to

double trouble for $200 million, and what we want to do is to try and

see if we can get something operating in some sort of a manner of

consensus in which we will be able to get the province moving again. I

think that is the important thing. But you can't expect people to

absorb.... People don't like to change. All of us have a conservative

streak. We don't like change. We find it unsettling, uncomfortable. But

if you change their whole lives, their traditions, how they go to work,

how they go about their business and how they express their grievances,

of course they're going to react. Why should you expect them not to

react? With our traditions here of militantism, of course they're going

to react. They're going to react militantly, because they're not going

to be pushed around, and that is no atmosphere.... You push too hard

here, and somebody else is going to push you back.

MR. MOWAT: Only if you inflame things.

MR. ROSE: Oh! That's a tremendous compliment. I've never

been complimented in such a way — that my speeches would be

inflammatory. Most people find them kind of dull, but if you find them

inflammatory I would think that I've made progress.

I'd like to return to another theme. I've got all kinds of things

that I could read into the record. I think I'd like to read this little

letter here. It's from a man by the name of Sam Taylor. He sent it to

all MLAs. He's printed it by hand. He's got this to say. Mr. Taylor, by

the way, lives on 13th Avenue in Vancouver. He suggested:

"The Social Credit Party was elected by the people of

British Columbia to restrain government spending. Under the terms of

this budget government spending has increased in spite of layoffs.

"The public expects its politicians to work within existing

labour practices, laws and ideals of humaneness that have taken hundreds of

years to develop in the western world. The twenty-six pieces of legislation

that the government has proposed abolish many social services and eliminate

the expectations of fair dealing for public service employees, renters and those

who in the recent past would have taken their grievances to the Human Rights

Commission. This legislation was not presented as an election platform."

I've noticed, Mr. Speaker, that parties in other countries — certainly in

Britain; parties other than their own, and I think all parties are guilty of

this, including my own — are far more open when they publish an election manifesto

that is their platform. It isn't just the Labour Party which publishes manifestos

— or is the plural of it manifesti? I don't really know, but let's call

the plural manifestos. Anyway, you can fairly well depend on it that that's

what they ran on, that's what they'll be elected on, and that's

the legislation that they'll introduce. That hasn't happened here this

time.

As this man suggested, there's nothing here that suggested there was

anything under the hat regarding those 26 bills during the election

campaign. Some people have said that the Government lied during the

election. I wouldn't suggest that. They suggest that the party lied. I

am not suggesting that. I am far too refined to make suggestions like

that.

Interjection.

[ Page 954 ]

MR. ROSE: I'm quoting Mr. Taylor, and I notice that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is here:

"Our political system is based on the premise that

politicians present platforms and the citizens through their votes

choose the party which best represents their collective will. Not only

did the Social Credit Party not present its views, the leader, Mr.

Bennett, lied. During the campaign, when asked if hospital user fees

would increase, Mr. Bennett replied that they would not.

"The budget and accompanying legislation should be

withdrawn. A new budget and new legislation should be drafted in

keeping with the ideals of fairness and democracy that as a

civilization we have worked so hard to develop."

I don't know Mr. Taylor, but he seems to make eminently good sense to me.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't shout any of that "hyperbowl" at me. I want

to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you feel that if you were

anywhere in the public or private sector you would feel confident at

this time to either invest or even buy anything. What would you be

doing with your money? I think you would probably suggest that it would

be a good time to save it. I don't think that is what the businessman

needs.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, you haven't sold it all yet. You want to sell

British Columbia. Well, you are doing a pretty good job, but you

haven't sold it all yet. You haven't sold that big nation in the

interior that the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was

talking about. We just about sold it once to Wenner-Gren, but we

haven't sold it lately.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would ask them to stop picking on me.

I used a little example the other day, and I would like to repeat it

because it is one of the best examples I can think of. If you were a

young teacher planning a renovation for your house or buying a new

house, would you think this a good time to do that?

MR. MOWAT: Yes, if I'm a teacher with two jobs on the side.

MR. ROSE: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

says he has two jobs on the side. I thought this job was a full-time

job. I would like him to spend a little bit more time in the

legislature and stop his outside moonlighting.

MR. MOWAT: On a point of order, I understood the member to

say that I had two outside jobs, and that I was not putting in my full

time at this House. He was referring to teachers. I said there were

many teachers who have moonlighting jobs. I would ask him to withdraw

the suggestion that I am not doing my job in this House.

MR. LEA: It can't be a point of order on the part of the

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, because he can't even speak. He

can't speak in the House, because this member has the floor. So what is

the point of order about?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We really shouldn't be interrupting the hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody. However, if the hon. second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain has any concerns about the content of the

speech, he may bring them forward when the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody is finished.

MR. ROSE: That is extremely sound advice, Mr. Speaker, and I

can see that you are certainly learning your job in the chair with

extreme rapidity and alacrity. We will all benefit from your judgment

on this. I want you to know that I wouldn't want to misquote the hon.

member, but I think if he is going to rise, it shouldn't be on a point

of order. It should be on a point of personal privilege. If I've

vilified him in any way, and I certainly wouldn't intend to do that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we please continue on the budget?

MR. ROSE: I know you're anxious to hear my concluding remarks on the budget, Mr. Speaker, so I won't make you wait any longer.

We were talking about the person described as a teacher, who might

go out and buy a house and.... I don't know if the member said the

teacher had two or three jobs or he himself had two jobs. Anyway, he

said that it would be a good time to do this. Maybe prices are so

deflated that this would be a good time — I don't know. But if he was

going to buy or renovate a house, the teacher has to be really stupid

to buy things with the kind of job security they have now. If people

are insecure, how can they? If they have no job security.... If you

don't intend to do that, then why don't you tell people? Why are you

spreading all this insecurity? You're not telling anybody anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come we increased the budget by 7 percent in education?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I'm suggesting to you that you're cutting back over

the next three years by about that much too. So what are you doing?

You're running faster to stay in the same place.

I don't want to get deflected by these asides. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker,

is that people are not going to spend their money if they don't have any

confidence. They're not going to spend it in the hardware stores; they're

not going to spend it anywhere. If a person who is going to renovate a house

is a public servant or a teacher, they may not be able to get a mortgage to

do it, because they've got no job security anymore. If they are stupid enough

to proceed at this time, they're not going to be able to employ the carpenter,

the guy that sells cement, the man who sells lumber or the person who sells

glass and doors and doorknobs and that sort of thing. The theme I'm trying

to underline is that if there is no confidence in your security or the economy,

people are unlikely to take investment risks. That is also underlined by our

friends in New York, Standard and Poor. They've said that the

[ Page

955 ]

economy is so fragile, because people have no confidence in it, that we're

engaged in combat instead of consensus and that there is little chance of the

recovery becoming more than fragile. I'm suggesting that people in government,

people in high places, powerful people, look and see what they're doing

and don't just rely on some sort of a Rotary Club ideology that somehow

smaller government is going to make us all rich. It's been defied everywhere

in the western world. I don't know why it's going to work here. The

reason we're in trouble is that we've spent too much of our interests

and efforts on single-resource exports and have not diversified our economy.

Don't take it from me, Mr. Speaker; the member for Vancouver–Point Grey

has suggested that we've been too conscious about resource development and

haven't looked into....

Does that mean two minutes? I thought that was a little Peter Rabbit sign or something. You should be putting it up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just graded your speech out of 10.

MR. ROSE: I suppose this is a facetious time but I don't

think it's foolish. I think what we're talking about is what is

accepted by many thoughtful people. If you think you're going to get

your way out of this by high tech I've got some words for you on that

one as well.

Anyway, I've finished all I can say in the time I have available. I

think the way we're going is dead wrong. I think it's wrong-headed. I

don't think it's going to work and I don't think it's going to help.

All it's going to do is hurt the people that are the weakest and

poorest and have the smallest voices in our society.

I wish I had time to read to you, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion: "Dear

Socred government: I voted Socred last time, and I'm writing to express

my strong disapproval of the package of legislation being proposed by

the government." He signs his name — it went to everybody — Mr. Garnett.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, he wrote to the office of the Premier. If

people are saying that who supported this government, it means we

haven't won them all. Some people are really disappointed in this and

think it's wrong, including the supporters of the government.

I hope you will correct the error of your ways, your

shortsightedness. Let's get on and try to do something about building

this province, instead of isolating one another into armed camps where

we're beating each other up, punching hell out of one another. In the

meantime, the province goes down the drain.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I

rise this afternoon to take

part in this debate and support the fine

budget introduced by the Minister of Finance some time ago.

As the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

and I have often discussed: fiat lux — let there be light. This afternoon I'm

prepared to shed some light from our perspective on the budget, and I'm

sure the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody, who has entertained us so well and

provided some insight from the New Democratic side, will be more than prepared

to listen to what I have to say.

It has been obvious during the budget debate that has transpired

within the last couple of days that we do have a contrary opinion in

this House as to where we're going and why we've said what we have; why

we've said it and why we've done it. I guess, as the mouse said as he

ran across the mirror: "There's always another way of looking at it."

Something we have to consider is that we do have contrary opinions. The

proposition that government spending should be increased — I'm sure

that's what the New Democrats are asking us to do — to provide an

economic stimulus is really seductive, in the classical sense. The

music is sweet, the melody familiar, but, like Homer's Ulysses, we can

only be assured of a safe passage through stormy seas by deafening our

ears to the siren's song. It is a very seductive message that we in

fact pour money into the economy, into the civil service or whatever,

to do this.

One of the things that's always intrigued me is the sort of magic

that comes with a civil service salary if he's injecting his money into

the community. As long as that money is injected into the community, no

matter who injects it, it's a good thing for that community. I was

interested to hear one of the members — I believe it was my good friend

from Atlin — state that it would be a bad thing if civil servants were

unemployed, and he came to the conclusion that those people would stay

unemployed. I would be critical of that, hon. member, in terms of what

you said, not in terms of you yourself: the presumption that once a

civil servant leaves the civil service he is unworthy of any other

employment. I would submit that that's an incorrect presumption and

something you should avoid saying, because you're not giving those

people any credit at all. As a matter of fact, I can relate two

instances in Prince George of civil servants who have been terminated

and have already found employment in the private sector. I think we

have to realize that those people are talented people: they do have

skills that they brought to government which they now can bring to the

private sector. That is something we have to endorse and not say that

because they're terminated by government they'll never find other

employment. I think we're doing a great disservice to the civil service

by saying that type of thing.

As I mentioned earlier, we do have contrary opinions here, and many

things have been said. The opposition and other people have asked if we

really did say during the election what we were going to do. I can

assure you that I did, hon. members, during my campaign. It's been a

position of mine since I was on school board that the less government,

the better government. I'm prepared to stand on that. I've maintained

that position for a long time. My record on school board was to support

contracting out — oh, a dirty word! — but that's the way I felt. I've

always felt exactly that way. I would submit to you and all hon.

members of the House that the more we can encourage the private sector

to do the work that government has been doing, and the more we can get

that government money out to the private sector to perform some of

those services, the better off we'll be. We did take that position

during the election campaign, and we're prepared to stand behind it now.

I'll tell you of a couple of other interesting positions that were

taken during the election campaign, particularly in Prince George. The

hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) spoke about the right to

work. That member might be interested in knowing that I have a tape

recorded by CJCI

[ Page 956 ]

May 3, 2:30 in the afternoon, where one of the candidates, Mr. Andrew Schuck, says: "The people of B.C. need the right to work."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did he run for?

MR. STRACHAN: The New Democratic Party. I'll be more than happy to share that transcript with the members, if they wish.

MS. SANFORD: You're really stretching it this morning, aren't you? You're really reaching.

MR. STRACHAN: No, that's there, hon. member.

Another candidate — a leader at that point during the election campaign — said:

"If our party is elected, Prince George will get a steel mill, Victoria

will get an $11 million tourist convention centre, and all sorts of wonderful

things." Victoria gets a convention centre and we get acid rain. Thanks.

Back to the budget, and back to the proposition that government

spending has to be increased and we have to provide that economic

stimulus; that no one but government can provide it, and certainly not

the private sector. The general state of democratic societies in the

late twentieth century may be compared to drug dependency. Western

democracies have become so psychologically habituated to the quick fix

of unrestrained government spending in response to every conceivable

complaint and social ill that in some cases the very foundation of

those systems may be at risk — a past reference to Bill 3. As you know,

in some of our legislation we are concerned about administrative

salaries. The hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke about this earlier.

[12:30]

I've said that the very foundation of systems may be at risk unless

we do take action now; it's a serious concern of mine. For instance,

I'll give you an example of administrative salaries. I happen to know

that the administrator of the Prince George Regional Hospital — 415

beds, including an extended-care unit, CAT scanner and many other great

services provided by the Ministry of Health and by the government of

British Columbia — receives what I consider is a good salary: it's a

little less than what a cabinet minister would make, so you've got an

idea of the range. I think it's a handsome salary and an appropriate

salary for a man who is running an operation of the size of the Prince

George Regional Hospital — a truly tremendous service in our city.

Yet I find out that in fact the administrator of a far smaller

hospital in the Okanagan, with 250 beds, to be precise — I won't go

into any further detail than that — is making one third more salary

than the administrator in Prince George. That just can't be accepted.

We have to get a handle on our government spending, understand where

it's going and bring some of these types of salaries into order. We

have reached a point in social development where one in four employed

persons is employed at some level or emanation of government. Beyond

this very obvious and direct dependency, other large sectors of the

community are dependent upon government through direct income or

support through a host of other programs.

In striving to ameliorate an open list of social conditions on an

incremental basis, democratic governments around the world have nearly

lost sight of the overall relationships between the citizen and the

state and between production and consumption. That is the problem we

face now. In western democracies the overall government share of the

economy, broadly defined, is clearly predominant and nearly the

majority share of all reported economic activity. In a spirit of

open-handed generosity, we have travelled down the road to what Nobel

prize-winning economist Frederick Hayek dubbed "the road to serfdom."

That's the position we're in now, and that's why we have to address

what we are doing.

Many comments have been made today, one of which was about job

creation. I'm sure the New Democrats are going to say, "Why don't you

have a few people contribute to job creation?" As a member for Prince

George South, I can assure you that we have contributed considerably. I

would just give the one example that's affecting our area so

dramatically and in such a positive manner, and that is the northeast

coal project. It was quite interesting for me to learn a couple of

months ago that general construction contracts to Prince George general

contractors on northeast coal have totalled $85 million and are rising.

That was a figure that came from the month of May. I'm sure they're far

higher now. But that, in fact, is the contribution that government does

make through the private sector to our economy on how to make our

economy go. It's certainly been a benefit to Prince George.

Let's not forget that probably one of the most significant benefits

the government made to the private sector was the position we were able

to take and maintain during the recent countervailing discussions with

the U.S. It was a long hard strike. It was sustained mostly by the

private sector industry, and my hat would be off to Adam Zimmerman of

Noranda. But in fact we won that fight. If we hadn't, I can assure you

that the economy of British Columbia would be in dire straits right now.

private sector. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) asked what we were

doing for the native people. I'm going to allow my colleague from

Omineca to speak to the Attachic TFL that was offered by our Ministry of

Forests and is serving the native people, the first citizens of that

area, in an extremely good way.

Mr. Speaker, constituencies of dependency, once established — that

is the constituency of dependency of the social service and all the

social services we have provided — prove almost impossible to dislodge.

For convenient political purposes they may coalesce to oppose any

change which aims at independence and thus threatens the organizational

and bureaucratic structures which grow up to service those

dependencies. Each constituency of dependence, through automatic

entitlement programs and a host of accompanying statutes and

regulations, progressively adds layers of impediments and disincentives

which combine to clog and harden the artery of society and to restrict

the flow of its life blood.

Yesterday's undreamed dreams of luxury become today's absolute

rights. Memories shorten. All sense of historical perspective is lost,

and the cult of instant gratification, magnified by television,

challenges any form of fiscal reality and threatens to destroy the

precious spirit of independence, freedom and initiative.

Interjection.

[ Page 957 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Slavery? I'm glad you mentioned that, Mr.

Member — the leader — because we have become slaves to the social

service system. That's exactly what we're trying to dispense with.

We're trying to shed that yoke. We have to do it now or we'll never do

it. That's our picture. That's our message. Can't you accept that?

That's the problem we're in, I can assure you. But we will do it. We

will do it through the private sector by encouraging the private sector.

It's Friday afternoon, so I'm going to maybe close. But I was

encouraged by the recent annual report of the Ministry of Tourism.

Maybe here's a good example of how the government, through initiatives

and through its direction, can encourage private sector industry in our

province. What I find most interesting is on page 33 of the annual

report of the Ministry of Tourism, where they talk about the great job

that that ministry has done in marketing British Columbia as a

preferred area for shooting feature films, because of low production

costs and a variety of location choices. I might point out to the hon.

member for Atlin that a lot of the filming for the movie "The Ice Man,"

on which about $10 million was spent in British Columbia, was done in

Stewart. Is that in your riding? I thought you would be pleased to know

that and to know how government can....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, $10 million. That's throughout B.C., but a

lot of it was spent in Stewart because a lot of the filming was done

there. A movie called "First Blood" actually spent about a million

dollars in the town of Hope.

Getting to where the opposition can understand how government can

encourage the private sector and how they can participate in our

economy, if we look at page 33, the total amount of money spent on

films shot in British Columbia, using our great scenery, comes to $36

million. That ain't hay, I'll tell you. That's a lot of money spent in

our province. The majority of it stays in British Columbia; most of the

people working on the sets — the electricians, carpenters, welders,

tradesmen, lighting people — are all British Columbia citizens. When a

major film company comes to our province they bring some stars, a

director and a very small crew. The labour-intensive sector of film

production in the province is British Columbian labour, and I would

commend that to all of you.

I've been given numerous notes here, as it is Friday afternoon, from

the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and from our honourable Whip (Mr.

Veitch). Accordingly, I move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the Leader of the

Opposition asked the Chair if references could be brought on a decision

that was brought in earlier. I would refer members to Beauchesne's

fifth edition, page 152,

section 423; and page 153,

section 424,

paragraph 5.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:39 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada