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 )

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

55 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M201). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 55

Oral Questions

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 55

Ms. Sanford

Severance payments to deputy ministers. Mr. Hanson –– 56

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 56

Mr. Barrett –– 57

Throne speech debate

Mr. Mowat –– 58

Mrs. Johnston –– 59

Mr. Stupich –– 60

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 65

Mr. Davis –– 67

Mr. Nicolson –– 70

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 75

Mr. Lockstead –– 78

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1981-82.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 78

Liquor Distribution Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Trade Practices Act annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Liquor Control and Licensing Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 78

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the winner and

two runners-up in the 1983 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia

Centennial Scholarship are with us in the members' gallery. As members

are aware, this is the most prestigious scholarship awarded by the

province, and was established by the government to commemorate Her

Majesty's visit to British Columbia during our province's centenary.

The scholarship is used to support a graduate student from a British

Columbia university who wishes to continue studies at a university in

Great Britain.

This year's winner of the $20,000 scholarship is Mr. Kevin Wright, a

psychology graduate of the University of Victoria, who intends to

pursue a law degree at Cambridge. We also have with us the two

runners-up, who each receive $4,000. Mr. Richard Steeves, a physiology

graduate of the University of British Columbia, is going on to pursue a

degree in biochemistry at Cambridge, while Mr. Andrew Weaver, a

mathematics graduate of the University of Victoria, will study math at

Cambridge. These young men are joined by their justly proud families.

I would ask the House to join me in offering our best wishes as

these very special guests prepare to continue their education in

England.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to add my congratulations to

all the winners today. Mr. Rick Steeves, one of the runners-up — his

father Bob, who passed away three years ago, was one of my best

friends, and I know he would be very proud today to see his son here in

this Legislature. Rick's mother, Sharon, and his brother and sister are

here today. I would just like to add my congratulations because their

father was such a hard-working man and a good representative of the

free enterprise field in this province. I just know he would be proud

if I got up and said a few words about his son today, and to his

mother, Sharon, who has done a great job with that family. I'm happy to

add my words of congratulations.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to recognize and

welcome a member of the Legislative Counsel of the State of Victoria,

Australia, Hon. D.M. Evans, MLC member for Northeastern Province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some young

people who have worked arduously for our caucus during the period,

despite the fact that for much of the time we weren't here this year.

But our legislative interns are leaving us today, and I would like to

congratulate them for the work that they have done. They are: Mamie

Shepherd, Rob Strandberg, Brent Whitty, Dorothy Holme and Peter

Hertzberg.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the galleries today is

my wife Joan, and with her, visiting from Sydney, Australia, is her

father Arthur Smith. I hope that you will make the second visitor today

from Down Under welcome.

MR. REE: Also in your gallery are three interns who worked for the government

caucus the last few months. On behalf of the caucus, I would like to thank them

for the job they have done. We had the pleasure of their company at lunch today

when the government caucus hosted them. I would like the House to acknowledge

the three interns: Dinah Verwolf, Gil Field and Greg James, who are in the caucus.

Missing is the fourth item, Don White, who also assisted during the year. I would ask the House to thank them.

I might also remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon

there is a reception in the Ned DeBeck Lounge between 3:00 and 5:00 for

all of the interns. All the members should go up and say hello.

MR. KEMPF: Also in the gallery this afternoon are two

long-time friends of mine, His Worship Mayor Adrien Meeuwissen of

Houston, and Mr. Charles Sullivan, chairman of the Houston health

board. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to

ask the House to extend a warm welcome to some of our partners in

restraint. We have with us in the gallery today Her Worship Mayor

Audrey Moore of Castlegar, president-elect of the UBCM; His Worship

Mayor Don Ross of Surrey; His Worship Adrien Meeuwissen of Houston;

Alderman Ralph Gallicano of Revelstoke; Alderman Fred Bryant of

Chilliwack. Would the House please welcome these officials. We hope to

spend some time this afternoon getting to know each other much better.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I see we have an old friend in the gallery — Mr.

Gregg Smith, who is home on leave from Rome, where he is studying for

the priesthood. Would the House please welcome him.

MS. SANFORD: It is not too often that constituents make the

140-mile drive from Courtenay to attend the Legislature, but today I

spot a constituent in the public gallery. I would like the House to

welcome Jack Goosen.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would add my welcome on behalf of the other

member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Reid) and myself to Mayor Don Ross, who is

with us this afternoon.

MR. MOWAT: I'd ask the members to welcome the first lady of my house; my wife Anne is in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M201, Estate Administration Amendment

Act, 1983, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier with respect to

the appointment of Mr. Tozer as government agent in Kelowna. According

to the Government Employee Relations Bureau job description for Mr.

Tozer's new position, during an election period it would involve the

supervision and direction of Deputy Registrar of Voters and election

staff. In any free society, the apparatus of elections must be beyond

partisan politics. Would the minister confirm that that is one of the

aspects required by him in the nomination of Mr. Tozer for that

position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. Mr. Tozer was selected by order-in-council because, in the government's view, he could

[ Page

56 ]

undertake the job of government agent in the best

possible way. As you know, returning officers are appointed for each

constituency, and they will carry out their traditional function.

MR. HANSON: It is clear from the job description that the function of registrar of voters is part of the government agent's position.

On a supplementary, the Premier has informed us that he is

considering making all government agents political appointments through

his office. Has the Premier decided that Socred Party apparatchiks will

be government agents in the other 50 districts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is making an

assumption. I've said it's possible that we could make order-in-council

appointments. That member is suggesting that order-in-council

appointments are political. A number of appointments are made.... I

know you weren't there, but others were when the New Democratic Party

was government and made order-in-council appointments. If they

considered those appointments to be political, that would be their

viewpoint. I consider those appointments as the government selecting

the people whom they consider best able to serve the people of British

Columbia.

MR. HANSON: To the Premier, that particular Kelowna

government agent position was advertised in the Public Service

Commission's Postings, with a closing date of March 23 of this year.

Approximately 20 people put in applications. Then on April 14, 1983, in

the middle of the election campaign, the competition was cancelled.

Would you confirm to the House that you yourself intervened for the

cancellation of that competition?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I won't confirm that to the House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the

Premier on this subject. In view of the fact that the position of

government agent in Courtenay has been vacant since September 10 of

last year, can the Premier advise us whether he has selected an

appropriate party hack or a detached relative to fill this position?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Premier, if he cares to answer....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly I'd love to answer it. Without

giving any credibility to the description and the assumption made by

the member, I would say no — but thank you for bringing it to my

attention.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO DEPUTY MINISTERS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the

Premier on a different subject but generally the same theme. Just

around the time the election was called, Mr. Norman Spector, who was

working in the Premier's office, contacted the chairman of the

Government Employee Relations Bureau and advised him that if any deputy

minister was to be non-voluntarily terminated, the severance pay would

be 18 months' salary — approximately $100,000 — without considering any

length of service. The chairman of the Government Employee Relations

Bureau was so incredulous that he required this in writing.

Can the Premier explain to the House how in a period of so-called restraint,

when ordinary public servants are being asked to sacrifice, such a generous

benefit could be offered to deputy ministers, including Norman Spector and Douglas

Heal, who have worked less than two years for this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that the

member would understand that Dr. Spector is a deputy to the Provincial

Secretary as well, and if he undertook to write such a letter it would

be in his capacity as Deputy Provincial Secretary. Therefore the

question would more appropriately be placed to the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Chabot). However, isn't it wonderful that nobody has been

dismissed and nobody has to face those types of costs?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that it was

at his request that this policy was made to the chairman of GERB and

through him to all deputy ministers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't confirm that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier advising this House

that Mr. Spector would have the authority to grant a $100,000 severance

package to employees with 18 and 19 months' service?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I've already suggested that if he wrote

such a letter it would be in his capacity as Deputy Provincial

Secretary. You might want to pose the question to the Provincial

Secretary, who has that responsibility.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to

the Provincial Secretary. What role did you play in this particular

policy determination which the chairman of GERB was not aware of?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was the question again?

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary is fully aware that the

chairman of GERB works in his ministry and that the chairman of GERB

demanded of the Premier's office that that policy directive be in

writing because he was so incredulous. He was not aware of such a

generous settlement in any other jurisdiction. What role did you play

in authorizing this particular policy change?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, you're making an assumption

about the generosity of settlements for non-voluntary leaving of a

position, which is an erroneous assumption, I might say. Secondly, I

played no role.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Premier, again on Mr. Tozer. It is interesting that the salary

level established for Mr. Tozer is at the very top of government

agents' salaries. In fact, it is beyond any appraisal level. In the

Government Employee Relations Bureau policy and in the Public Service

Commission policy they cannot go beyond 96 percent of salary for any

position. They have granted Mr. Tozer, through your instructions, 112

percent of salary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are in question period. I must insist that a question accompany the

[ Page 57 ]

member's seeking of the floor. There will be ample

time for debate, but at this time we ask questions with a short

preamble. That is the policy, hon. members, that you have instructed me

to follow.

MR. HANSON: I was trying to indicate the public's confusion

surrounding the establishment of this position. Will the Premier tell

the House why Mr. Tozer was placed at the distinguished level of the

top of the range without any experience in government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tozer has 7 1/2

years experience in a senior position in the Premier's office, and the

decision was made by government.

MR. HANSON: Why is Mr. Tozer being paid $6,000 per year more

than any other applicant could possibly have obtained under the public

service policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the figure designated in the order-in-council.

MS. SANFORD: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35

to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of

urgent public importance, and I'll state the matter. The board of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District meets tomorrow to consider rezoning

of the former Spetifore property, now owned by Dawn Development Corp.,

from agricultural to urban use. This issue arises because the present

government excluded the property from the agricultural land reserve,

contrary to the recommendation of the Agricultural Land Commission and

of independent experts such as the B.C. Institute of Agrologists. We

need a full, clear debate in this House on the importance of preserving

our shrinking agricultural land base prior to the discussion which will

take place tomorrow in Vancouver. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move

that this assembly do now adjourn to debate the establishment of a

public inquiry, under the Inquiry Act, to examine the circumstances

surrounding the exclusion of the Spetifore property from the

agricultural land reserve and the desirability of rescinding

order-in-council 3381.

MR. SPEAKER: I shall review the submission and bring a ruling

back to the House. I must remind members that when we are canvassing

under this particular section, the idea is to be somewhat brief and not

to enter into argument on the matter.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order. The motion calls for a public

inquiry based on the fact that there's a decision to be made tomorrow.

I would urge the Speaker to make his decision now, in order that the

debate can transpire prior to a decision that may undo everything that

would be done by this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I have given an undertaking to the House to return at the earliest opportunity, as I did yesterday, I believe.

MR. BARRETT: It has come to my attention that question period

only took ten minutes today. We have another five minutes to deal with

the government's arrogance.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. member may have....

Question period shall resume for a further five minutes. I apologize

to the House on that matter, and I thank the member for bringing it to

my attention.

ORAL QUESTIONS

(continued)

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. BARRETT: During the question period today, we have been

attempting to determine whether or not it is now government policy to

determine the selection of government agents through order-in-council

or by competition through merit. Can the Premier inform this House and

the people of the province whether or not from now on all government

agents' positions will be appointed through order-in-council?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If we make a determination such as the one we've made about such a position, it will be made public after the cabinet decision.

MR. BARRETT: I am asking the Premier whether or not the

policy now is for the appointments of all government agents to be made

by order-in-council as the precedent, newly set, with the appointment

of Mr. Tozer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm telling the Leader of the

Opposition that if we make such a determination on any such position in

the future, it will be made public in the same way, as all

orders-in-council are public.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier is informing me and this House that

from now on all appointments will be scrutinized politically and that

announcements — after the political scrutiny — will be made by the

cabinet. Is the Premier now confirming that we are in the process of

destroying a merit-system-appointed civil service and setting up a

political structure of appointments made directly from the Premier's

office and cabinet meetings, with announcements to be made afterwards?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

[2:30]

MR. BARRETT: Then how did Mr. Tozer get appointed? It was by

order-in-council, in violation of every practice of merit service in

the civil service. I ask the Premier clearly: can he assure the people

of British Columbia that we are not moving towards a system whereby

order-in-council appointments will be made to key civil service

positions such as government agents? Will he explain why the Kelowna

government agent's position was different than every other appointment

in that position?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government will

continue to make appointments in such manner as it considers best to

serve the people of British Columbia. That may not satisfy the Leader

of the Opposition, but our commitment and responsibility to the people

of British Columbia is to put those people in positions of

responsibility who we think can undertake to the best of their ability

the very

[ Page 58 ]

necessary work that the people of British Columbia need at this time. The government will make decisions on this basis.

I reject the assumption made by the Leader of the Opposition that

this government will make those decisions on a political, partisan

basis. In our judgment, any decision we make on future appointments of

any kind that require order-in-council — and that may be of any kind —

will be made on our best efforts at finding suitable people to do an

outstanding job for the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier would have us believe that there

was a scrutiny of the applicants for the best possible person for this

job, has the Premier personally perused the file of every other

applicant? Does he remember their names? Would he give this House a

resume of all the other applicants' backgrounds which led to him

rejecting their applications and selecting by merit Mr. Tozer? Mr.

Speaker, I submit that the Premier never read anybody else's file at

all, and that there was no comparison or evaluation of merit. It was a

selection of a relative and nothing else. Name the other ones.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I reject again what the Leader of the

Opposition says, and he continues to perpetuate an untruth, which he

knows to be untrue, about someone being a relative. I know he's made an

error in that respect. It's quite clear, but I don't mind that. I've

listened to it for seven years. The government will make our decisions,

and when decisions are made we will make them public. But obviously we

do not discuss in public all of the consideration that goes into making

all cabinet decisions. Anyone who has ever chaired a cabinet

effectively knows full well that while you announce decisions, you do

not discuss all of the...

MR. BARRETT: What about the other applicants?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...aspects that go into discussions or into the considerations of making that decision.

MR. BARRETT: Arrogance! Unbelievable arrogance!

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I offered my congratulations to you

this morning in your absence. It's my pleasure to do so when you are

here today. This morning I had the pleasure of saying how honored and

pleased I was to be elected as a representative, second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain, and to be a member of the Bill Bennett team

that's going to lead us to great things in the future.

I was speaking about the government's legislation in August 1979,

when this government — the first government in Canada to so so — passed

part 10 building code bylaw for the design standards for

this was passed in 1979 and has been the keynote legislation in Canada

access to jobs and education. We note now that this code is being

revised with new legislation coming forward that will assist the

visually and hearing impaired. I would point out to the members of the

House that one out of seven British Columbians have some problem with

mobility. This is excellent legislation that looks after their needs.

I know we will be discussing in this session the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. I have had a great deal of involvement

with that because of the many tragic injuries we see in the Canadian

Paraplegic Association. We presently have a $75,000 minimum liability

on the policy holders. Our sister province has only $5,000 minimum;

consequently, if you are injured and hit by a car from Alberta that was

totally in the wrong, you could sue for $5,000. It is my hope that our

government will look at increasing this limit to a minimum of $1

million and put in a no-fault clause so that citizens that are

catastrophically disabled will have the funds to return to the

community and become useful and productive citizens.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I shall also be working with the government on these settlements to

be looked at to be structured similar to the Workers' Compensation

Board. Often we see a person receive a large grant of money through a

litigation suit and not have the capacity or the ability to look after

it, and it is soon dwindled away and before long he is back on the

welfare rolls, and the funds have not been properly administered. So

the possibility of a structured settlement would assist.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the policies of our

government. I believe on May 5 we were given the majority mandate by

the people of British Columbia to lead. And we received this mandate by

the strong platform that we put forward to all the voters of British

Columbia, particularly our program on restraint. I spoke during the

campaign to many persons in the education field and many hospital

workers and public-sector employees, and they told us they were going

to vote for us because they believed in the restraint programs and that

the restraint programs would lead to more jobs.

I further understand that when our leader went to a first ministers'

conference and brought forward the idea of restraint he could not get

any one of the other first ministers across Canada to second that

motion. I must ask you to look at where those provinces are today.

I think there is a challenge before this House that we must govern

in a way that will assist all of our citizens, and we must do this in a

very active and productive way by increasing production, increasing the

number of jobs. We can do a lot of this through the show that we will

be putting on at Expo. We can show the world through Expo that we are a

large city, a major-league city, and a city to be looked at in the

future. Expo will benefit so many of our citizens. We will continue to

see a great legacy left after they have built and left Expo. I know

there are plans for many buildings to be constructed by various nations

that will be left on site, and they can be taken over by many of our

great voluntary agencies such as the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame.

I think this government will continue to expand the many excellent

programs in place. We will develop new ones to meet needs, and we will

also eliminate those programs that are not effective, that are not

working, have no value and are extremely costly.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to serve with my colleagues and to be

part of the Bill Bennett team. My grandmother told me that if I was

ever going to speak, to stand up, speak up and shut up. With your

permission, I have not stood up; I trust I've spoken up; and now I'll

shut up.

[ Page 59 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have the honour to rise in this House today

as one of the newly elected members for Surrey. I am honoured and proud

to be a part of Premier Bennett's government team, and I offer my

personal congratulations to him and to members of his cabinet in this

thirty-third parliament. The strong leadership displayed during

difficult times has been, acknowledged by the people of British

Columbia in the support given us on May 5. I look forward to working

with each and every member here to address the needs and concerns of

our citizens. This is not the time for petty partisan politics; let us

put them aside and do the job we were elected to do.

I would like to congratulate all other hon. members of the

government and the official opposition, particularly all the new

members. I wish each member well in the months ahead, as we commit

ourselves to providing the high standard of government this province

has come to expect. In the absence of Mr. Speaker, I would like to

extend my congratulations to him, and to you on having been elected

Deputy Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have two such dedicated and

responsible men in those positions of trust and authority. As a newly

elected member, I must admit that I am still somewhat in awe and a wee

bit nervous, but I will carry on. I think I'm really more in awe at the

responsibility given me by the people of my constituency. I must

express my sincere thanks to the people of Surrey and White Rock, who

turned out in record numbers on May 5 and who placed their faith and

hope in me and in the Social Credit government. It is my sincere hope

that I never give them cause to regret their decision.

My constituency of Surrey, which includes the city of White Rock, is

the largest in British Columbia. I am proud to say that the two Social

Credit members received approximately 38,000 votes each from this area.

I believe it is important that we constantly remind ourselves of the

strong mandate we received, which was given because of the policies,

platforms and commitments made during the campaign, and that we get on

with the job of bringing about the changes that we know the citizens

want.

[2:45]

At this time I would like to pay tribute to the former members for

Surrey. On behalf of my constituents I would extend a very sincere word

of appreciation to Bill Vander Zalm and Ernest Hall. Bill Vander Zalm

served on Surrey council for ten years prior to being elected to the

Legislative Assembly. His efforts on behalf of his constituents are

certainly noteworthy and appreciated. He was always accessible, and I

know many of my constituents still call on him for help and advice. It

is to be hoped that he will enjoy his sabbatical.

I would also, on behalf of my constituents, like to express my

thanks to the former second member for Surrey, Ernest Hall, who spent

13 years in the Legislative Assembly. The strong support given him in

the May 5 election would indicate that a good many of my constituents

were pleased with his representation, and I would hope that they will

feel free to call on me or the other member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)

whenever the need arises. I am ready, willing and able to work for all

my constituents, not just those who voted for me, and it would be my

hope that all members feel this way.

There have been countless new and exciting programs and initiatives

begun since 1975, all designed to meet the needs of the citizens of

British Columbia. None have been so bold and imaginative as the

comprehensive restraint program introduced by the Premier to deal with

the economic problems in this province caused by the worldwide

recession. This program was initiated with several important goals in

mind. This program was initiated in order to preserve vital social

programs in the face of declining government revenues. It involves a

selective approach, which allows for restraint in non-essential areas

while permitting the continuation of funding to our essential programs.

The Premier led the way in showing other governments how to shoulder

their share of the heavy burden of these difficult times. Other

governments across the country soon followed B.C.'s lead and developed

their own restraint programs based on our model. The people in my

constituency of Surrey placed restraint and jobs at the top of their

priority list and I am pleased to be part of a government team which

has been addressing and will continue to address these concerns.

Initiatives taken by this government have resulted in many hundreds

of jobs for Surrey businesses and residents. Contracts awarded to

Surrey firms dealing with Tumbler Ridge, Ridley Island and the

Quintette site development — and I'm only mentioning these — brought

about economic benefits to many of my constituents, and for that, Mr.

Premier, I say thank you. Some of the Surrey firms which received

contracts on those jobs are Surrey Iron Works, Bel Construction, Jalmar

Construction, Ansha Contracting, Viney Contracting, Goodbrand, EB.

Stewart, Seaward Construction and Artisan Manufacturing — to name just

a few. It is evident to all concerned that projects initiated by the

government, but carried through by private industry small or large, are

most beneficial. It is my hope that initiatives such as those shown at

Tumbler Ridge will continue.

Surrey–White Rock is a large and diverse community with a population

of approximately 180,000. We are a true mosaic of peoples. A very

substantial percentage of our 142 square miles is made up of

agricultural lands, much of it in the lowlands and protected by dikes.

I am pleased to be a part of a government which recognizes the need to

protect and preserve our viable farmland, and in this recognition has

continued to financially assist our municipality and diking districts

in order that proper repair and preventive maintenance is carried out

on the dikes. I will continue to make the needs of our farming and

lowland communities known to my colleagues in order that they be

continually aware of the required assistance.

Although we have come a long way in Surrey during the past ten years

in our efforts to have more industrial and commercial development

within our boundaries, we have been unable to provide sufficient jobs

locally for all of our working population, and many people must commute

to Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. That is why ALRT must come to Surrey. The

extension is not just a wish; it is an economic necessity. The

increased ridership will certainly more than justify the extension. It

is my hope, and a goal I have set, that the extension will proceed

without any unnecessary delays, in order that it be complete in time

for Expo 86 — and that the Surrey and New Westminster lines will be

open simultaneously.

This government has been very good to all communities in British

Columbia. Surrey and White Rock are no exception. When money was more

readily available, municipalities were certainly encouraged to

undertake new programs and projects with provincial assistance. As a

long-time Surrey alderman, I can readily admit that we were really

getting used to regular and substantial cost-sharing programs, which

have

[ Page 60 ]

now been curtailed. In other words, we were

spoiled. But it is hoped that this is a temporary curtailment, and as

our Premier leads us through these financially difficult times we can

see a light at the end of the tunnel spelling recovery.

As I look back at my municipal experience, I believe it important

that we review areas of the Municipal Act with regard to expenditure of

local taxpayers' funds. I am of the opinion that major non-essential

capital projects proposed to be undertaken by a city or municipality

should go to referendum. The taxpayers should have more input into

their local government's decisions. I am also of the opinion that the

GVRD should be relieved of some of their functions, and I particularly

refer to the planning function. These are areas into which I hope to

have some input during the next few months.

It is with great anticipation that I look toward actions to be taken

by this government with regard to privatization of many government

agencies. My particular concerns lie in the involvement of government

in the ICBC operation and the liquor outlets. It is my hope that we can

start immediately to diminish our involvement in ICBC, and I look

forward to discussions toward this end. In the area of liquor

distribution, it would be my hope that this government will allow more

agency stores, not just in the smaller communities, but in built-up

areas as well. May I suggest that we look at the Newton area of Surrey

for such an outlet.

In my naivete I came to the Legislature with the hope that all

members would put aside their differences which surface during election

campaigns, and get down to looking after the people's business. It is

with real disappointment that I listen to speeches from members of the

opposition party, as they dissect the Speech from the Throne, and from

the Leader of the Opposition, who seems primarily preoccupied with

staff decisions made by our Premier. Is that really what we're here

for? I would suggest not, Mr. Speaker.

The Speech from the Throne was, in my opinion, a very positive

document, and did indeed reiterate that there is no free lunch. In my

opinion, it clearly stressed our government's priorities, led by health

care and education, and surely our opposition cannot find fault with

those priorities. Surely there can be no fault found with our goal of

providing an economic climate which will bring greater economic

stability as well as a broader tax base to our province. We and our

children will benefit from any immediate restraints which are necessary

for future recovery. This government was elected to make hard decisions

and they are prepared to do so. This is a responsibility I take very

seriously.

I am really excited about British Columbia's future. The government-

sponsored projects are creating jobs for British Columbians: ALRT, the

stadium, B.C. Place development, Expo 86, northeast coal, to name just

a few. But we must begin by putting our own house in order. The

spiraling costs of government have been brought under control by the

courageous restraint program introduced by this government last year,

while at the same time the government has successfully created an

economic climate in which people once again have the confidence to

invest in the future of the province. The result of that confidence is

the recovery which we are now beginning to enjoy.

The economy of British Columbia is growing again. In fact, it is now

growing at a faster rate than the economy of the rest of Canada. I have

great confidence in this government, and I know that my confidence is

shared by the people of British Columbia. That was demonstrated quite

clearly in the recent election, and it is obvious that the people of

this province trust us and respect us. It is my sincere hope that we,

as a government, will continue to deserve that respect in the future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I start by congratulating the

member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on being appointed as

Deputy Speaker, and to congratulate the Speaker, which I have done

previously.

May I also join those members who have already welcomed the new

members to the House. I can recall when I first entered the House it

was the practice for everyone to welcome the new members to this very

exclusive club — very limited in membership. There is only one way to

get in, and a very finite number, at least under the present rules: 57

of us. That's as large as the club can be at the present time, and

there is only one way to get in. It carries with it some very certain

responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and there are some words about

responsibilities in the opening speech that I'd like to refer to and

commend particularly to the new members. I despair of commending them

to the older members on the other side of the House, but I am hoping

that maybe some of the new members might pay particular attention to

some of the words in the opening speech.

I'd like to start from the very first paragraph: "May I express the

wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs of the people you

represent will be met in the course of your service as individual

members and as the Legislature in our magnificent province." Mr.

Speaker, we can all concur most heartily in those words. I think the

most important words are: "and the needs of the people you represent."

From there on, Mr. Speaker, the speech does fail the people of British

Columbia. Unfortunately we've waited a long time for this opening

speech. The previous one was some 19 months ago. We now have an opening

speech that promises nothing for people who need assistance — nothing

for a needy four-year old constituent living in darkness and fear,

waiting for an operation for cataracts, an operation twice postponed in

a period of one very long year, waiting not because there aren't beds

but because there are not sufficient staff in the hospitals, due to

restraint.

[3:00]

The opening speech promises nothing for the baby who died waiting

for an anesthetist who was not available, due to restraint. That is the

cost of restraint, Mr. Speaker. Nothing for some 1,500 people waiting

for so-called elective surgery in one hospital, the Nanaimo Regional

Hospital in my own constituency. As recently as this morning the list

was 1,500 — not because there aren't empty beds, Mr. Speaker, because

indeed there are 42 empty beds. Fifteen percent of the capacity of that

hospital is made up of beds that are empty due to government restraint.

So when we talk about restraint, Mr. Speaker, let's consider the

effect of this restraint on the people whose needs we are urged in the

opening paragraph to consider. At the same time as we're talking about

health care, about the needs in health, we read in the opening speech,

on pages 14 and 15, about new facilities being provided: "The

completion of several new facilities across the province demonstrates

my government's commitment to quality health care." Then we go on to

list some of these facilities. What point in building new facilities

across the province.... Many of these were announced during the

election campaign when the Minister

[ Page 61 ]

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) went to community

after community, left some out, went to others, promising new hospital

beds. At the same time, I expect, in every one of those communities

there were already empty beds simply because his restraint program had

denied those hospitals the opportunity to engage the staff they needed

to keep those beds in use. All in the name of restraint.

This opening speech promises nothing for the youngster with learning

disabilities who could do well with some special attention — special

attention that is denied because of the government policy of restraint.

It has nothing for the gifted youngster who could do much better than

the average, with some special attention — special attention that is

denied because of this policy of restraint; nothing for the unemployed

young adults who would welcome an opportunity to attend regional

colleges to upgrade their education, to learn new trades, new skills,

only to find that the enrolment in the regional colleges is curtailed

due to this policy of restraint. They are all sacrifices at the altar

where the Bennett team worships their god: restraint.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, threatens the fragile fabric of recovery,

about which the Premier spoke during the campaign. It threatens those

innocent of any wrongdoing. In the speech we read about health

expenditures having increased by 13 percent in the past year. The

concern, again, is about the cost of the service without any boasting

about the level of service that we're providing, how good it is, or

even saying that the dollars spent are being well spent. There is no

mention of that in this area at all, simply concern about what it is

costing to provide health care in the province of British Columbia.

It threatens the unemployed. On page after page in this opening

speech the government threatens that the number of unemployed will

increase. We've already established records; page after page threaten

that there will be more unemployed. Not only that, we're closing the

door to employment opportunities in so many areas of public service,

like Crown corporations. The government is by far the largest employer

in the province, and we're saying that in every area the government is

going to insist upon laying people off, not filling positions,

increasing the number of unemployed. Their answer to the unemployed is

to say: "We're going to make more of you." There is no promise of any

assistance in this document.

The government promises, in this opening speech, to take no

initiatives to increase employment opportunities. There is only one

province in the country which has an NDP government. The Manitoba

government has not chosen to abdicate so completely its

responsibilities to — as the opening speech suggested in the first

paragraph — look after the needs of the people.

The Conference Board in Canada, in a quarterly provincial forecast,

talks about the economic performance of Manitoba and other places. The

actual rate of unemployment in 1982 in Canada as a whole was 11

percent. In Manitoba it was 8.5 percent; in B.C. it was 12.1 percent.

How about in the month of May, the latest figures that we have? In

Canada the situation has worsened; it has gone from 11 percent up to

12.3 percent. In Manitoba it has worsened as well, from 8.5 percent up

to 10 percent. But in B.C. it went from 12.1 percent up to 13.5

percent. Is that a record of which the government should be proud, Mr.

Speaker? The 1983 forecast produced by the Conference Board in Canada

says that for Canada as a whole, the rate is going to increase up to 13

percent. For Manitoba they expect a nominal increase from 10 percent up

to 10.4 percent. What do they expect for British Columbia? An increase

from 13.5 percent up to 14.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, that's the

difference between a province where an NDP government has accepted the

responsibility for looking after the needs of the people and the

government of British Columbia, which says over and over in the opening

speech that they do not intend to interfere at all; they intend no

action that will create job opportunities in the province of British

Columbia.

The opening speech threatens those involved in education: teachers,

non-teaching staff and students. It threatens all of them with

cutbacks. It threatens all of them with lost employment opportunities

and threatens the students with lost educational opportunities.

In the matter of taxes, it promises to hold the line and to juggle

the formula so it won't look as though you are paying so much. That's

on page 7, Mr. Speaker, in case you missed it. When the NDP

administration was in office the proportion of the cost of taxation

paid for by the provincial government level, as opposed to that paid at

the local level, increased every year. Every year it increased. Every

year in the seven to eight years since the Social Credit administration

has been in office the proportion paid by the local taxpayers

increased, except in the last year when they changed the ground rules

and took away from the local authorities taxation over business and

commercial properties. That's the only way they were able to change the

proportion.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to the cookie jar, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister waits and listens to the cookie jar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps most serious of all, this

opening, speech threatens our economy. On page 5 it threatens to take

action "to improve our industrial relations" — defined as a promise.

Again on page 11 it threatens "to improve the state of industrial

relations in our province." The system now is working; the government

isn't, and the people aren't working. Certainly the system of

industrial relations is working. The 1982 annual report of the Labour

Relations Board — the government's own report — shows that the system

is working.

The number of B.C. workers off the job because of strikes and

lockouts dropped dramatically during 1982. The 1982 annual report of

the Labour Relations Board shows only about one-third as many work

stoppages took place last year as in 1981. Significantly, one of the

very large work stoppages — there were only two large ones — was the

B.C. government employees because of a breakdown in bargaining between

this government and its employees. Had that been resolved it would have

been an extremely low year. The system is working. Why tamper at this

time, during a period when we are living through this fragile fabric of

recovery? Why threaten to tamper with the system that is working, as

the government's own Labour Relations Board report shows? What kind of

confrontation are they going to encourage by taking on the trade

unions? What kind of results are they going to get in the event that

they try to push organized workers into rebelling against changes? What

happens if the workers keep on the job and the employers start imposing

[ Page 62 ]

lockouts? Will the legislation work that way too? If it does I

hear someone from the back bench say that it will — is that going to

strengthen our fragile fabric of recovery? To start this kind of

confrontation between the government and employers, between the

government and employees, between employers and employees? I urge the

government to consider very carefully, before they start interfering

with industrial relations which currently are working, as the

government's own reports show.

Of course the main enemy throughout this document are the people who

are doing most to deliver government services, the people working in

the public sector, which includes the direct employees of the

government. It includes all of the employees working for all of the

Crown corporations, in every hospital, in every school district, in

every municipality. All of these are people who are threatened time

after time in this opening speech. They are the ones to blame for the

trouble that we are now in, Mr. Speaker, if one were to read the speech

the way it is written. "The mandate entrusted to my government by the

people of British Columbia is to pursue economic recovery, through

restraint on the public sector...." All we have to do is take it out on

the public employees and we're going to have prosperity. That really is

a simplistic approach, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good idea.

MR. STUPICH: I hear that it's a good idea.

On page 5, it is repeated: "My government believes that an intrusive

and overweight public sector, far from being part of the solution to

our economic difficulties, is in fact part of the problem." Once again,

it's the loyal employees in the public sector who are to blame for the

economic problems of the day.

On page 6: "While restraint will continue to be the overriding

principle of public-sector management...." It keeps coming, over and

over again. I don't suppose I've picked them all out, but they keep

coming up. Again on page 6: "the level of public services, including

attendant employment levels, that has grown up over the past 30

years...." That's the cause of the problems. Again on page 6: within

the past 15 years this situation has worsened. For more than half of

the last 15 years, this administration has been in office. I certainly

agree with them about some of the appointments that they have made as

being part of the problem. They certainly have created the problem to

some extent. But in the main, public employees are dedicated

individuals who enjoy their work and are doing their best — in spite of

difficulties — to serve the public in whatever position they happen to

be in, no differently than private employees in that respect.

Indeed, if increases in productivity are to be sought after.... I

don't deny that we should all be trying to increase our productivity in

whatever field we are involved in. But if that is the goal, do you get

it by threatening to fire or not to hire to fill positions? Do you get

it by threatening to oblige them to work longer hours, without

assistance?

[3:15]

One of the proudest moments of my career as Minister of Agriculture

came when a visitor told me he had certainly noticed a change in the

department of Agriculture. It used to be that when he came to visit

senior members he would drop into their offices and they'd have time to

sit and visit, time to go out and have coffee. Time didn't seem to be a

problem at all. But within six months of the NDP administration's

arriving in office, he had to be careful, when he walked down those

corridors, that he wasn't knocked down by someone running from one

office to another. No one had time to talk to him. Senior staff members

were working night and day and on weekends because they were enjoying

the work they were doing. They realized they were providing a real

government service, and they enjoyed it. They felt there was some value

to the work they were doing. We didn't threaten them, we didn't oblige

them to work longer hours, but we did make them feel that they were

important people in terms of providing government services. We made

them feel wanted and valued. Laugh and joke all you want, but it was

one of the proudest moments of my career to know that people felt good

about working in that department because they were achieving something

and were prepared to go that extra mile, were prepared to be more

productive and do what the government says it wants to achieve: that

is, to increase productivity.

What does it offer for economic development? We certainly need some

of that right now. It talks about the mining industry on page 9. It's

kind of funny; it's not meant to be a joke: "The mining industry, a

backbone of the provincial economy, has experienced severely depressed

markets." With that we can all agree. "However, I'm advised that the

stable investment climate resulting from the recent election will

translate into one of the most active exploration years ever in our

province." Yes, keep up the applause, but just let me read a little

more here and then continue the applause.

Again quoting from this material supplied by the Conference Board of

Canada quarterly provincial forecast, let's look at the provincial

forecast for our gross domestic product with respect to mining. We see

that in British Columbia the production from our mines in terms of

dollars decreased in 1982 by 20.8 percent. It was a bad year — 20.8

percent less than 1981. In Manitoba it was a bad year as well, and the

decrease there was 5.3 percent. For 1983 they forecast a further

reduction in Manitoba of 2.8 percent; and for British Columbia a

reduction of only 6.2 percent. These are not our forecasts; they're

from the Conference Board of Canada. They see the position being that

much worse than in the province of British Columbia. Of course, they

didn't have the throne speech to go by. Had they had the opportunity to

read that, they might have revised their forecast.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Let's go on with this then — an NDP government.

Let's look at capital expenditures. What do they forecast there? That's

important. In Manitoba in 1982, capital expenditures did drop below

1981 by 12.6 percent; in British Columbia, by 15.5 percent. Worse than

Manitoba in 1982. In 1983, Manitoba is forecast to increase —

nominally, but nevertheless on the right side of the ledger — by 0.4

percent; in B.C., to decrease by 6.7 percent. In every way you want to

compare the two provinces, one under an NDP administration and one

under a Social Credit administration, obviously Manitoba is doing

better than the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think about the employer's tax in Manitoba.

[ Page 63 ]

MR. STUPICH: In spite of the employer's tax in Manitoba, it

would appear they're doing much better than we are here in B.C. Maybe

that's the route to go.

What about the most important resource of all, and that is forests.

On page 10 is a

section headed "Forestry." It starts just below the top

of the page and ends on the other page. If you measure it you find one

entire page in this 16-page document is taken up with a discussion of

forestry, and not one word about protecting the resource. Certainly the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has had a lot to say about it

on other occasions. You were here, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of

Forests introduced the legislation to provide for the forest and range

resource fund. He talked about the importance of it then. Quoting from Hansard of May 14, 1980:

"...the Ministry of Forests Act passed by this Legislature

in 1978 required that by this session of the Legislature a complete analysis

of the state of the forest and range resource, together with a five-year management

program, be presented.... The resource analysis indicated very clearly that

in British Columbia we are beginning to come to the end of our old-growth timber"

Another problem is that there is a constant reduction taking place

in the area of forest land. These two factors have made it very clear

that the province must do much more in the future in order to be able

to produce more wood on forest land.

Then they go on to talk about-the program. "This bill is part of a

more fully realized commitment" — we are talking about 1980 — "to the

need to invest more and more money in this very important forest

resource." Mr. King of the NDP spoke in response and said that the only

criticism the opposition had was that the government was not doing

enough. In the 1980-81 annual report, the first following development

of the five-year forest plan, the Minister of Forests admitted that

part of his failure to live up to his expectations was the high level

of vacancies in permanent positions. Since then he has promised to

create even more vacancies to get along with even fewer people, after

admitting that he was not meeting his objective. After telling us how

important these objectives were, he's now saying that in the future

they're going to do much less. In our most important resource the

government is promising only that it will do a worse job in the future

than it has in the past.

To paraphrase the first paragraph of the opening speech, this

government is admitting its failure to meet the needs of the people of

this province. In the past seven and a half years never has a

government in the province of British Columbia exhibited such gross

mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility as has the present

administration.

On page 2 of the document we read that the downturn began in the

third quarter of 1981. That's sometime after September 1981. Yet last

year's budget speech of 1983, on page 22, shows that by the fiscal year

ended March 31, 1981, the government had used up its cash reserves by

$313 million in excess of revenues.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We were supposed to have created a deficit of

$261 million. The minister asks me to tell him about that. But the

government, in what itself admits was a good year — the fiscal year

that ended some six-plus months before the downturn was supposed to

have happened — dipped into cash reserves accumulated by previous

administrations to the extent of $313 million, with no excuse at all.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that there was no $271 million deficit

created by the NDP administration. You know that was a complete

fabrication and a downright lie — a complete falsehood. You know that,

Mr. Speaker. I know it and you know it. The fact that it was a lie was

proven by a report they commissioned themselves: the Clarkson Gordon

report. It was proven by answers to questions on the order paper. It

was proven by the public accounts filed in this House, as of March 31,

1976. It was a complete fabrication. Yet their deficit in what was a

good year exceeded by $42 million the deficit that we were supposed to

have created. Every year since then they have gone on with increasing

deficits. The figures are in the public accounts filed in this House;

they're on the order paper in answer to questions; they were in the

budget speech last year, showing how much the cash deficit was on March

31, 1981, and on March 31, 1982, predicting that by the end of March

31, 1983, there would be a further cash draw down. The only thing wrong

with that was that they were a billion dollars short in their figure.

Let's look at the NDP record of meeting the needs of the people, as

we were urged to do in the opening speech. Let's take a look at

finance. We established the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which they are

threatening to do away with. In the course of its existence it has

contributed $1.4 billion to the public treasury. That is a record of

which we are proud.

We bought Canadian Cellulose for $1 for the people of British

Columbia. It cost the people of British Columbia $1, which never

actually did get paid over. That's all it cost. Two years later that

asset was appraised as being worth half a billion dollars. It is one of

a number of assets that were turned over by this administration to a

private corporation and made almost valueless by their incompetence in

running the affairs of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Political

interference wrote down the value of those assets to less than half.

That's the record of this administration. We build up the assets; they

fritter them away.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm reminded, yes. We built some railcars in

Squamish. When that plant was being shut down by the present

administration, the Premier promised to go there and tell the workers

why he was shutting it down. He hasn't been there since, to my

knowledge. That's their record. It built cars, and six months after

they shut it down, they had to go down to the States to get cars

because B.C. Hydro needed them for their railroad.

Agriculture. The farm-income-assurance program has been a model for

the whole continent. It's still there on paper. It's not much good to

the farmers, but it's still there on paper. The Agricultural Credit

Act, which is still there on paper, is not of much use in its present

form but still there and ready to be resurrected. And the Land

Commission....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. STUPICH: The Land Commission not for long? My concern,

Mr. Speaker, is that the Land Commission will not be there for long.

The way they're handling the decisions and the fact that they're all

taken into cabinet meeting and the

[ Page 64 ]

decisions are reversed in the secret confines of

the cabinet room, makes one wonder why we should carry on with the Land

Commission. But I urge that the government be cautious in getting rid

of that legislation. I know I heard "not for long." We went through

quite a fight in the community and got a lot of support for that when

people realized the importance of it. I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the trouble we had bringing in the legislation will be

nothing compared to the trouble that this government will have in

getting rid of the legislation if they are determined to do so.

ICBC. You may have had your problems with ICBC, as I have had as the

member for Nanaimo servicing my constituents. But you haven't gotten

rid of it. I don't hear "not for long" this time, and I hope I don't.

We established ICBC and had to do it in very short time. We had hoped

to take two and a half years to established the largest insurance

corporation on the North American continent. But when the insurance

companies knew that we were going to do it, they walked out and left us

with very little time to pull together what was a mammoth organization.

Mincome. Talking about servicing the needs of the people, they

didn't get rid of Mincome, Mr. Speaker. They changed the name. They now

call it GAIN. It's the same program, and the maximum amount of money it

paid to an individual under that program is exactly the same as it was

the day we left office in December 1975. The program's still there.

Pharmacare. They changed Pharmacare. I don't say they improved it,

but at least there still is a Pharmacare program. We started that when

we were government.

[3:30]

Minimum wage. We brought in staged increases in the minimum wage so

that it was staged in over three periods. There has not been a change

in the minimum wage legislation in this province since we left office

in December 1975. We were working for people. I ask that administration

who they are working for.

The Labour Relations Board. Again, they're threatening to meddle

with that. And again I caution that they consider the risks before

interfering with something that is working. That was established by the

NDP administration.

Community recreation projects established and built in every

community in the province of British Columbia and several in many of

the communities. That's a real mark, Mr. Speaker, and it was servicing

the needs of the people of the province. What has this government done?

One project in one community — B.C. Stadium, for which they can't even

find a name. That's one project,

whereas we had something positive

happening in every community in the province.

Debt. Parity bonds were reduced by $103,250,000. Instant debt. They

could be called at any time at all at the initiative of the holder. So

we reduced that debt progressively. Each time they came up for renewal

we would redeem half of them and let the other half out because there

were people wanting to buy them. But we reduced that debt by $103

million.

Education finance and schools. We increased the provincial

government portion of the cost of financing schools. We took over the

cost of financing colleges. There is also the Island Trust legislation.

Last on my list, but not least, is the restoration of the building in which we are meeting today.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I hear: "That's worthwhile." I'm not sure

whether that member was approving or disapproving, but may I just

inform that member that when we arrived in office we found out that on

the floor of the attic of the building were tubs, pots and buckets all

over to catch the leaks coming through the roof. There had been nothing

done to maintain the building in the previous 20 years of Social Credit

rule. Now to give the present administration their due, they have

continued the program of renovation and improvement since then; they

haven't stopped. But we started that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the

member was serious in saying....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe they still leak.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Socred record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's quite common that

when a member is speaking people will have contrary opinions. However,

I think we are getting quite unruly, and perhaps we could maintain some

order and semblance of parliamentary procedure.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's look at the Socred record — a steady deterioration in

education, a steady deterioration in health services, and fantastic

increases in borrowing. In the 104-year history of this province from

1871 to December 31, 1975, the total direct and indirect debt of the

province — that's all of the debt of all of the Crown corporations —

was $4.4 billion. In 104 years we had built up a debt of $4.4 billion.

It worked out to $1,800 per capita. In the next seven years under this

Social Credit administration, that total direct and indirect debt had

increased threefold. It was up to $14 billion by the end of December

1982 — three times what it took 104 years to accomplish. But that isn't

all, Mr. Speaker. To pay for the groceries in that seven-year period,

they sold three of our ferries. We had owned those ferries since 1965.

Previous to that there was a debt. Since 1965 there was no debt on the

B.C. Ferries, but in 1976 this government sold three of those ferries

and is buying them back over a period of 18 years. In addition to that,

they mortgaged every publicly owned building in the province with one

exception — the building that we are in. Every other publicly owned

building in the province is mortgaged to pay for groceries.

They frittered away assets that were accumulated by the NDP

administration. I’ve already talked about BCRIC. They've blown $552

million in special purpose funds accumulated by previous

administrations. Gross incompetence. Mismanagement. And they've also

added to it by bringing in unlimited borrowing through treasury bills

that are now at the point of simply borrowing to pay back debts that

they incurred three months previously. The bottom line is that they

have broken all records for the increase in the rate of unemployment

and the increase in the rate of bankruptcy; and, to top it off, their

increase on human resources, according to this speech, has been 32

percent in just one year. That's the result of what they've done.

Mr. Speaker, for everything wrong that has happened in the province they put the blame on the sick, the students, the

[ Page 65 ]

low-income renters and others — the unemployed,

those on welfare. In their arrogance — and they've demonstrated that

over and over — they should remember that while 49 percent of the

people who went to the polls voted Socred, 51 percent of the people who

went to the polls voted against the kind of arrogance that we've seen

here today in question period, and against their actions since.

Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I can do nothing more than urge the members,

and particularly the new members.... As I referred to the opening paragraph,

I now refer to the closing paragraph — almost the closing paragraph: "I

pray you will reflect fully on the effect and example of your decisions on the

people of our province and country."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As some of my colleagues have observed,

and as is only proper at the beginning of my comments, I would like to

congratulate you on your reelection to the position of Deputy Speaker;

and I'm sure you'll pass on best wishes to the Speaker as well on my

behalf. I'd also like to pass on best wishes to all of the new members

who are in the House today and to some of those who aren't with us any

longer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's very tempting, Mr. Speaker, when following a member like the

member for Nanaimo, who takes such large flights of fancy, to respond

to all of the things that he said in regard to the throne speech,

rather than make the remarks which I had intended to make. I won't do

that, because it would take too long, for one thing, to attempt to deal

with what the member for Nanaimo called the NDP record. Just sitting in

this House and reflecting on what he said about that great government

of 1972 to 1975, I'm sure that every member on the NDP side of the

House would have to agree that it was one of the greatest governments

that ever existed. Thank God we had the people who judged, and they

made their judgment very clear. They knew that the debt, that the

member for Nanaimo says never existed, was not a ghost. Otherwise, they

would wonder why their kids are paying off the interest and why that

debt is still only half paid off, and why our kids and your kids are

going to have to pay for that debt for 20 years down the line. That

debt existed, it's there yet, and it's a blight on future generations.

I would just make one other comment about what the member for

Nanaimo said. I really liked his comment that the NDP record over those

years was meeting the needs of the people. Well, the people didn't

agree in 1975, they didn't agree in 1979, and they overwhelmingly

didn't agree in 1983.

1 don't want to deal with all aspects of the throne speech. Some of

my predecessors who have spoken in this House have dealt so well with

many of the thoughts that I just want to pick out a couple of things

that interest me perhaps more than others, starting with the statement

that begins on about page 3 in Hansard , which talks about the

restraint-on-government program beginning and leading us into economic

recovery, with inflation being cut by more than half, now below the

national average. In recent months mortgage rates have been reduced,

again below the national average, interest rates have been lowered by

more than five points, and, best of all, there have been actual

decreases in the cost of living.

The Lieutenant-Governor in his speech said that he was pleased to

observe that we in British Columbia are proving equal to this challenge

of meeting the needs of restraint and meeting the opportunities for

recovery. I liked the statement that he made about the foundations now

being laid for enduring economic recovery; that's going to take the

cooperation of every British Columbian to ensure. We're going to do it,

Mr. Speaker, by being part of a great team in British Columbia pulling

together in a partnership for recovery.

MR. REID: That's the spirit of B.C.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for Surrey said, "That's the

spirit of B.C.," and I couldn't agree more. We're going to have to be

strong as government, to help lead the way to a new, healthy and

buoyant economy, to develop markets for our products, to build

confidence, to create jobs, and to provide a helping hand, more than

anything, I guess, for our businesses and our individuals to share in

our bountiful resources, and to make sure that we can generate the

revenue necessary to maintain and enhance the best social service

programs in North America.

We're doing that in several innovative ways, like our B.C.

development bonds which are now channeling our citizens' savings into

jobs for British Columbians and providing the springboard for new,

innovative ways in which we can achieve high-technology development in

our province and fund small business, which is so important to the

ongoing economic recovery. Thousands of job opportunities are opening

up all over this province because of those growth projects that your

government had the nerve to embark on when every other government in

Canada was retrenching. Expo 86 is going to welcome the world to

British Columbia; we'll see some 15 million visitor to our province in

the six months of Expo, with an impact of well over a billion dollars

into our economy.

I know that all of us, on both sides of the House, are very, very

proud that the first plank in the B.C. Place development is now open:

the new B.C. stadium. And aren't we all proud of it? Every British

Columbian has the right to take a look at that stadium with pride and

say: "That took a lot of nerve and vision to go ahead in times of tough

economic conditions." I wonder where all the doubters are now? You

never hear them any more. You know, I even heard the other day the

great Al Davidson of radio station CKNW doing an editorial in favour of

the B.C. Stadium; and when Big Al comes on our side, we've got the

world on our side, Mr. Speaker.

ALRT, which was officially opened the other morning — the Spirit of

B.C. — will be not only a showpiece for Expo 86 but the heart of the

Lower Mainland's transportation system. Besides the jobs — 3,500 direct

jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs in the development of that

ALRT system — you know what we're most proud of, Mr. Speaker? We're

proud that we bought Canadian. And we're proud that we bought Canadian

in that system despite those people on the other side of the House, and

others in municipalities and other places, who told us we were crazy to

trust Canadian technology. Well, we trust Canadian technology because

it's among the highest in the world.

[3:45]

Our B.C. home program has helped more than 50,000 people weather the

pain of too high interest rates. Northeast coal, the biggest mining

development in Canadian history, is providing thousands and thousands

of jobs, and will for the next 50 years. We haven't forgotten the

southeast. Roberts Bank is undergoing its $170 million expansion in

order to

[ Page 66 ]

carry increased tonnages from the southeast part of

British Columbia, and we want to see some action by all people in

British Columbia, whether they be NDP or Socred or Liberal or

Conservative, to make sure that the Crow rate gets changed and that the

$16 billion of investment that will flow from the Crow rate changes

gets going in British Columbia — over half of it right here in this

province.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has

embarked on a huge program of roads and bridges in order to maintain

not only our vital transportation systems but also jobs for thousands

of British Columbians. As the throne speech has said very eloquently,

we are committed to restraint in government as an integral part of our

recovery program, because our recovery program will not work until

government gets its own house in order and provides the impetus and the

example for the private sector to get their house in order. We are

committed to bringing down the size of government. We are committed to

reducing the size of the public service in a fair and equitable way —

the most fair way in Canada. We are committed to getting government out

of the affairs of our citizens as much as we possibly can. We are also

committed to using the credit of the people of British Columbia very

carefully in a manner that won't bind our future generations to ongoing

oppressive debt but instead will meet the needs of today and get us

back to balanced budgets as quickly as possible.

There are some other ingredients that are necessary, and were

mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, to meet the challenges that

are facing us. First, we need some bridging programs to put unemployed

people to work over the short term. We also need to provide

opportunities for training so that when that recovery comes we're not

left in the lurch without a skilled and willing workforce ready to take

up the opportunities that will be available to them. Then, of course,

we need an better approach to industrial relations in this province.

In the first area, a number of programs have been developed that

have now produced over 20,000 jobs. We're extremely happy with the

programs we've developed in cooperation with the federal government.

They have worked better in British Columbia than anywhere else in

Canada. For instance, over half of all the jobs created under the

program for bridging in the forest industry in Canada were created

right here in British Columbia.

The NEED program — again a program in which we are working with the

federal government — will pour some $50 million into British Columbia

in the next 12 to 18 months. All of these initiatives, as was pointed

out in the throne speech and as I said earlier, which are so important

to our economic recovery, must take place in the context set by

industrial relations. We have so much going for us in this province

that we must not let industrial relations uncertainty dull our

competitive edge.

When I was first appointed Minister of Labour about nine months ago,

I sent out a call to everybody who was interested in providing some

input into our review of industrial relations conditions. I must say

that the response was overwhelming and, in fact, still is overwhelming.

It has been constructive, for the most part, and very helpful. There

were a lot of riddles in some of the input that I got from various

kinds of people, and certainly some perplexities. The chief riddle was

that the adversarial relationship between employees and employers in

this province has become institutionalized in a system whose chief

purpose often seems to be to fight the same old battles over and over

and over again. It is very rigid and very legalistic. I've often

wondered, since looking at some of these briefs that have come before

me, whether employers and employees don't really share the same goals.

Yet the whole basis of our system puts the employer and the employee

into separate camps — never the twain to meet. Through our laws, we

have made the employer frightened to relate to his employee, lest he

gets hit with an unfair labour practice. We have built a wall of labour

experts, labour lawyers, industrial relations consultants and so on

between employer and employee and, in my opinion, have abandoned to a

large part real employee-employer relationships and relations for this

thing we now call industrial relations.

MR. MACDONALD: May we have a translation of what you just said?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. I said there are too many lawyers in the system, Mr. former Attorney-General.

I said earlier that the system has become very rigid and very

legalistic and it has also become very expensive. You know that you

can't go before the Labour Relations Board today on even a simple

matter without having a $20,000 bill and it is not unusual to have a

matter not much more complex costing the parties in excess of $100,000.

I'll tell you that if we don't come to grips with some of those

problems very quickly the system will self-destruct and we won't have

anything left.

One of the most consistently mentioned subjects in the briefs that I

have received as Minister of Labour is this whole matter of democracy

in the workplace. Again, it leads me to wonder why such a fundamental

issue as a person's livelihood should not be subject to the same

democratic standards that we take for granted everywhere else in

society. I believe that people should have a right to say whether or

not they want to be represented by a union. They should have the right

to express their choice in the time-honoured, democratic fashion,

namely by secret ballot. I think that consistent and fair application

of this democratic principle in the British Columbia workplace is long

overdue.

I don't want to get political in a Speech from the Throne, but we've

just come through a very important election in which the people of B.C.

rejected in no uncertain terms the woolly-headed socialism of the

Barrett people. They said no to the Barrett who toyed with the

northeast coal project. "I'll cancel it. Well, maybe I won't cancel it;

I'll review it. Well, maybe I won't review it; I'll renegotiate it.

Well, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about at all." They said no

to the Barrett who was raving threats to the Americans when cool, calm

and reasoned measures were needed and, thank God, they were given. They

said no to the Barrett who wanted to sell out B.C. to support his

fellow NDPers in support of keeping the Crow rate.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member has

been here a significant length of time and knows that you do not use a

member's name in the House. You've used it three times. You are a

three-time loser. Why don't you either smarten up your act or put

something together that's a little better than that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'd be happy to withdraw "Barrett" and substitute "the Leader of the Opposition."

[ Page 67 ]

I'd like to go back to make sure that we understand that the people

of B.C. rejected a Leader of the Opposition who wanted to sell out B.C.

at the expense of all of the people of British Columbia to support the

Crow rate, playing into the hands of his national leader, who in turn

is playing a very dangerous game with the western Canada economy as a

pawn in pursuit of political power. Mr. Speaker, they said no to the

Leader of the Opposition who had a plan to stumble backwards 50 years

to embrace the Roosevelt era of job creation. The B.C. people said no

and instead said they would opt for a government with a plan that is

working to build economic recovery. It's a plan for today and tomorrow

— not for reaching back into the thirties for relief-camp solutions,

but building real jobs, long-term jobs. It's not a tribute to the past,

but a promise to the future. Yes, they said no to the Barrett NDP and

instead said yes and gave the Bennett Social Credit government a

mandate to pursue economic recovery through restraint in public

spending and encouragement to the private sector.

We see some strong signs of recovery now, but they can be fragile

and it won't be easy. Quick-fix solutions like those rejected by the

people on May 5 will not work. The problems are complex, but we've been

through tough times before and we've come through them. The people who

brought us through those tough times were judged by the people who

followed, and I suppose we'll all be judged sometime too. Thanks to the

leadership of our Premier and the bold programs outlined in the Speech

from the Throne, I think they will judge us as having made it through

safely and wisely. They will, if we all work together.

The members on the opposite side of the House today have a wonderful

opportunity. I think the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) said

in her speech that we should now put aside partisan politics. The

members of the NDP have that chance now. Accept that the people want

you to put aside your negativism and your natural tendency to oppose

everything put before you. Show the people how big you can be —

wouldn't that be something? Support this great throne speech; do

something for the people for a change. They told you on May 5 that they

want Socred and NDP to pull us together, not, as you do so often, to

pull us apart. So come on, let's get on with this great throne speech.

Stand up and we'll support it unanimously, and the people will thank

you.

[4:00]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will pass on my

congratulations to the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) and the

member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) for their election to the

esteemed offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Their knowledge of the

rules is profound and their impartiality has been well established;

however, it's their ability to turn awkward situations into manageable

ones by a good sense of humour that's made the work of this House a lot

easier. I'm sure you'll pass on my best wishes in that connection.

Congratulations to you also, and to other new members in this House,

all of whom are on the government side — happily for the people of the

province. Welcome to the Legislature. It resembles a bear-pit at times,

but it has its compensations. I'm sure we're all looking forward to

hearing from them.

I enjoyed the tone of the Speech from the Throne. It had the right

ring to it. It certainly carries out the platform of the Premier and

the Social Credit party as enunciated during the recent provincial

election, and identifies several areas of concern. The government will

effectively, for example, downsize government by eliminating some

programs that may be desirable but are not essential, and by

transferring other activities to the private sector; secondly, it will

reduce duplication of government activities and strive for maximum

efficiency and effectiveness in delivering programs; thirdly, improve

our industrial relations so as to foster greater productivity and

international competitiveness; and finally, if I have to select four

headings, encourage private-sector confidence.

I know the main emphasis is restraint. It has to be restraint under

the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If there is a difference

around the world between the left wing and the right wing, especially

in economics, it's that the left wing is more concerned about the

problem of unemployment than about inflation. It sees unemployment

really as the only problem, and is not exceptionally concerned with

inflation. It always advocates that governments spend their way out of

unemployment — spend, spend, spend. Essentially, at government levels

this means printing more money, postponing paying bills and shouldering

future generations with the problem. We in this country have been

trying for years now to spend our way out of unemployment. We've not

been unduly concerned with inflation. We have to tackle inflation as a

first priority, and restraint is a program which does that.

The right-wing parties around the world have basically endeavoured

first to tackle inflation and, by solving the inflation problem, solve

the unemployment problem in the longer term. The right-wing governments

around the world have generally been endorsed by the electorate in that

process, at least in recent years. But these governments are still

spending too much.

In the United Kingdom the government of Prime Minister Thatcher is

spending 115 pounds for every 100 pounds it takes in in income to

government there — a 15 percent deficit, if you like. To the south of

us in the United States, the Reagan administration is spending $120 for

every $100 it takes in — a 20 percent deficit. The Trudeau government

in Ottawa is spending $125 for every $100 it takes in from the

taxpayers — a 25 percent deficit. That's enough to look after the

provinces as well.

Unfortunately, in the last couple of years we have had to depart

from the traditional approach — at least of Social Credit governments —

of balancing budgets and, as happened in the late 1970s, building up a

surplus. The surplus was run down by the end of 1981. Latterly we, too,

have been in a deficit position. Right now we are spending some $115

for every $100 that's coming into the provincial coffers in taxes. It

cannot continue, but unfortunately that's the situation we're in.

Income has fallen off, particularly from the resource industries. It

will revive in time, but we are in a deficit position. Those in the

opposition who say, "Spend more, spend more, " are really saying:

"Spend even more dollars, more than the 15 percent deficit we have, a

20 or 25 percent deficit; accumulate debts for future generations to

pay off." We are probably facing two or three years of deficit.

Hopefully, the 15 percent will become 10 percent and 5 percent and by

1985 or thereabouts we will have a balanced budget, be into the black

and begin to accumulate a surplus again and pay off the debts that

we've incurred currently.

This practice of governments running deficits — and this government

is an exception in that it's only been in a deficit position for a very

short time — has added to the fires of inflation. Today, if you allow

for the federal government with

[ Page 68 ]

a 25 percent deficit, and most provinces with a 15

or 20 percent deficit, that is bound to degrade and devalue our money —

the Canadian dollar — at a rate of at least 10 percent a year. It means

that interest rates over a several-year run can never be less than 10

percent. If you allow for costs of administration and some coverage of

risk, this means interest rates in the 10 to 15 percent range. We

cannot escape that. We must be at least above that interest rate simply

because governments are profligate and insist upon spending far more

than they have in current income. That's a matter of great concern. Our

government is determined to get back on track, to get back into the

black. If only the federal government and the other provinces would

follow suit, we would have some hope of bringing inflation down to the

single-digit category. That hope doesn't exist as long as we're

spending as much as we are.

This government, through this Legislature, is spending essentially

on people programs. Three-quarters of the money it sends out every day,

every month through the year, goes to Health, which is a people

program; to Education, another people program; and to Human Resources.

Health care alone is one-third of our total budget. Last year our

spending in real terms was up another 10 percent in health care. We're

spending more each year on health care even though the real income of

the province is actually declining, or at least leveling off. It has to

recover dramatically if we are going to be able to afford this

continuing increase, this growth and expenditure, this increased effort

in the health care area.

In education we spent roughly 10 percent more than we did the

previous year. Some people are still saying that we are curbing

education. We should be cutting back in some areas, because our student

population has declined. Other areas such as technical training

obviously are important, so we will continue to spend heavily in those

areas. In Human Resources, with so many people unemployed, with so many

people running through their unemployment insurance, we are bound to

increase our outlays there — a 20 percent increase last year. So in the

case of the people programs — health, education and welfare — we had to

increase our expenditure, especially in the health care and Human

Resources area. Those demands will continue through the next few years.

They will continue as long as there is a worldwide recession. They will

continue as long as our export trade is less than optimum from our

point of view. We're in a deficit position already. Restraint is

imperative to limit the debts that we pass on to future generations.

Restraint is imperative to keep interest rates down to some orderly

level, so that construction and other activities will get underway and

put more of our people back to work.

There's a reference to productivity in the public service. That's

important. I don't really know how we can measure it effectively, but

we can certainly reduce the number of public servants measurably. The

total number of people in the public service of the province has risen

over the years. It has continued to rise until very recently. Each year

I ask for the numbers, and they seem to go up year by year. I have hope

they are flattening out. Perhaps they will go down a bit if we stop

hiring as many people as we have in the past. I don't look for any

dramatic improvement in that area. In any case, it's only about 10

percent of our total budget. So if we save a percentage point or so

there, it doesn't have a major impact on the finances of the provincial

administration. So we have to look elsewhere — other than to restraint

on numbers in the public service.

"Elsewhere" includes, for example, our Crown corporations. I'm

one who believes that B.C. Hydro has a substantial role to play. I think it

should continue with at least some part of its construction program to provide

employment. But I would split it up. I would certainly divorce the gas operations

from the hydro operations and have a more understandable structure out there,

so that not only the MLAs but also the public at large can have a better idea

of what's going on behind those very imposing facades which are erected

by Crown corporations and by government corporations.

I'd have B.C. Ferries, which is also a very well-run operation, at

least break even on its main routes, its high-density routes across the

Strait of Georgia. In other, thinner routes it will always have to be

supported by tax money. But I would have it break even; that would

lessen the burden on the treasury.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

B.C. Rail has essentially covered its operating costs, but for many

years it has never covered any of its capital costs, nor does it pay

most of the taxes that other corporations — certainly corporations in

the private sector — pay. I would do something which has been

postponed, if not regarded as anathema, by Social Credit

administrations: I would capitalize all of the debt, have the province

take over the debt, wipe the slate clean, and then tell the management

of B.C. Rail to run its operations from now on at arm's length from the

government — but don't ever come back for any more money from the

treasury. This has been done on a number of occasions with the CNR and

with other Canada-wide Crown corporations. I think it's really the only

way to cut the management of a Crown corporation off the apron-strings

of government, to make them financially independent and financially

responsible. I think that should happen. Now that we're in a deficit

position anyway, I hope we can see fit to assume that debt — or at

least have the province assume that debt totally and leave B.C. Rail

clear to run its railroad on its own and effectively from now on.

I would privatize some of the operations of ICBC. Surely a number of

the functions which are now performed by that large government-owned

operation can be contracted out.

I'd sell off Pacific Coach Lines, which more and more is duplicating

the activities of B.C. Transit. It's one of the few corporations that

we might be able to sell to the private sector.

B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It's an NDP invention. I realize that

their plans for it were much more than simply stripping revenue off the

oil and gas industry; that it was to carry out oil and gas exploration

activities in the north, get into the pipeline business and get into

the oil refinery business in a very big way. We should eliminate that

corporation. Certainly all of those powers should be done away with.

The main reason I would go to a royalty system, as distinct from a

corporation device for stripping revenue out of that industry, is that

the oil and gas industry would have a better idea of where it stood. It

wouldn't be waiting from day to day and month to month for some

announcement from on high in Victoria to determine its future

profitability or fate. The royalty approach would make the industry

understandable, because it would then be like the oil and gas

industries not only in other provinces in Canada but across North

America. It would be more understandable; it would attract more capital

from outside; it would mean more activity up north; it would mean more

jobs.

[ Page 69 ]

[4:15]

I'd redo the Motor Carrier Act, trim it right down, reduce the

powers of the Motor Carrier Commission substantially, get them out of

rate regulation certainly. In the area of taxis, I personally think

that we should have less regulation. In the lower mainland we should

perhaps have one licence-granting authority, one large competitive

market area for taxi operations. This would make the industry much more

efficient. The Economic Council of Canada recently did a study of taxi

systems across Canada and concluded that the Vancouver one was the

least efficient. They concluded that it was too fragmented, that taxis

were running one-way empty far too often and if they could be full both

ways across municipal boundaries much more often, as is the case in

some other jurisdictions, taxi fares could be cut by as much as a

third. Costs would certainly be cut, energy usage would be reduced.

That's the kind of deregulation I'd like to see us undertake.

It's easy to be glib about getting rid of Crown corporations, but

it's difficult. As the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) just said, nobody wants them. A classic example is Brazil.

Brazil, over the decade of the seventies, set up some 600

government-owned companies. They employed 1.3 million people —

instantaneous full employment, at least for the very short run. But

they got into difficulties. Certainly the Brazilian economy got into

difficulty because it continued to borrow against the future; it

continued to spend far more than it took in as income. The typical

government corporation in Brazil had an income as follows: $25 million

from operations — that's out of $100 million, 25 percent; $25 million

from the government in the form of a grant; $25 million coaxed from

other state-owned activities, principally banks; and they were short

$25 million. So latterly — this is in the last year or two — the

Brazilian government, in an attempt to become more respectable in the

eyes of the world's financial fraternity, has endeavoured to sell them

off. Of the 600, they decided to sell at least 200 government

companies. In the last two years they've managed to unload fewer than

So this business of governments taking over, governments getting

involved, tends to be a one-way street, a disastrous route to follow.

In the last decade Brazil has been doing the kind of thing that the

NDP, the more socialistic parties, would have us do: not only set up

government corporations to hopefully do jobs and provide employment but

also to run effectively. They cannot be run well when they don't pay

the normal taxes that others pay, are carried through their periods of

difficulty and finally aren't able to manage because they don't have

the natural and sometimes harsh disciplines of the private marketplace.

So much for Crown corporations. They are difficult to unravel and

difficult to dispose of.

Now in the private sector — and we are looking to the private sector

to provide us with much of the drive to bring the economy back onto an

even keel to provide jobs — we have various opportunities. I hope that

as the mining industry recovers it is given an opportunity by the

provincial government to develop some local hydro sites or other energy

sources, if they happen to fit in with their own particular northern or

other local operations. I hope that this would be true particularly if

they are able to put forward proposals for processing raw materials

from B.C. sources, providing more employment onsite before they are

shipped out of the province. We have an opportunity, at least in the

next decade, likely in the late 1980s, to sell natural gas in liquefied

form to countries around the Pacific Rim. Not all of that gas will come

from British Columbia sources by any means. It will come, in large

part, from northern Alberta, perhaps even from the Northwest

Territories. But that development will be desirable from several points

of view. It will provide more jobs in the northeastern comer of B.C.;

it will provide more work for Albertans and people in the Northwest

Territories. It will provide more income for all levels of government

certainly, and help us to pay for our people programs.

I think British Columbia — which I understand supports an export

project involving a pipeline gathering gas in northern B.C., Alberta

and the Northwest Territories and shipping it out through Prince

Rupert, will make its stand known as to taxes on gas in transit across

British Columbia. We have to decide that there are much more important

issues, particularly jobs involved, and that having an undeclared

policy as to taxes on gas or any other raw material transitting British

Columbia for international trade is an issue which should be cleared up

once and for all. I believe we must fit in with an international

agreement — for example, between Canada and the United States — which

says that the states in the U.S. and the provinces in Canada won't of

their own sole initiative impose a transit tax on materials,

particularly energy, transitting that province or provinces. I think

British Columbia has to declare its policy in that regard, and I hope

it's the same as that of Alberta and Saskatchewan, namely that we won't

impose taxes on materials — energy, for example — transitting the

province which are in any way greater than taxes we would impose on our

own corporations operating within the province.

I disagree with the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) on this. I'm

one of those who would like to see us continue in the aluminum

reduction business — refining aluminum. I'd much rather see us do that

than get into the production of pig-iron or even steel. It's a far

cleaner industry than the basic iron and steel industry is. It uses

hydro power. I'm sure developments can occur which will be protective

of the environment. I'm sure there's enough money to be made in the

refining of aluminum and the further processing of aluminum in this

province to pay for any environmental rehabilitation to compensate or

offset any environmental degradation which might otherwise take place.

I'd very much like to see us telling the world that we're happy to see

an energy-efficient industry of the future — it's one of the recent

past but also the future — like aluminum come to B.C., expand in B.C.

and help to provide additional jobs for British Columbians.

Toyota has announced that they're building a plant in the lower

mainland to make castings for wheels for automobiles for the North

American aftermarket as well as for Japan. That's the kind of secondary

industry which would logically come here if we also are large and

efficient producers of the primary metals. So that's another reason why

I'd like to see us press on in that hydro resource-related industry —

an industry which, incidentally, uses foreign raw materials in its

production.

One area which has to be of great concern because of its great

potential is tourism. Tourism is perhaps the number two industry behind

forest products in this province. In time, it's bound to be the number

one industry. We have to be concerned about certain aspects of tourism.

So far the province hasn't focused on one which I believe is of

considerable importance, and that is the airline side of things. We

have CP Air here, and it's a very large employer — one of the largest

[ Page 70 ]

employers in the greater Vancouver area. We have to

be concerned about which carriers have access to our airports, and the

federal government has favoured Air Canada over the years. They have

discriminated, in my view, against CP Air and latterly against Wardair

and PWA. We as a province have to weigh in in that battle. It's a

difficult one because other countries will give up one airport or

landing area for each one we have. We have a limited number of cities

in this country of any size which are interesting to airlines of other

countries. But in this process of pairing off cities and allocating one

Canadian airline or another the job, we should do our utmost to make

sure that Canadian airlines, and especially airlines based in western

Canada, have an equal look-see with the chosen instrument of Ottawa,

Air Canada. This is an area of concern because it's a matter of

employment here as well as opportunities for tourism, more efficient

travel and so on.

I'll refer to capital for private purposes. Savings are scarce;

capital is scarce. One of the reasons capital is very scarce nowadays

is that governments are doing so much. They're not only borrowing for

people programs and borrowing to offset these large deficits they're

running, but they're also, in a number of instances, engaging in

physical projects which also need money. This is particularly true of

the electric power utilities across Canada. In Canada today there's a

pool of capital of the order of $90 billion. That's the generation of

savings in this country — certainly something far less than $100

billion a year. Governments at all levels — federally, provincially and

municipally — are mopping up some $75 billion, borrowing at that order

of magnitude, so there's very little left for the private sector. The

private sector has to compete first with governments, and because

governments can in effect print money they can borrow at almost any

interest rate. So the private sector in this country — and this is true

of a number of other countries as well — is being squeezed as far as

savings are concerned. There isn't anything like the pool of savings

left to the private sector that one would normally assume would be

available to the individual entrepreneur or to the corporations. It's

being mopped up by government, and that's another reason why

governments should reduce and endeavour to eliminate deficits.

I believe we should have two sets of accounts in government: books

which relate to our current year-by-year operating accounts and books

which relate to capital, to physical projects with lives of 2, 5, 20 or

even 50 years. The latter should be made whole, or paid off, over the

useful life of the project. In other words, balance your books on

current operating accounts. Also, in the long term, balance your books

on capital accounts. Don't try to balance capital accounts year by

year; balance them in the long term. Finance big capital projects,

particularly in slack times, with long-term financing and a determined

long-term payout. This is the way Hydro has been financed, the way B.C.

Ferries should be financed, the way light rapid transit has to be

financed — over the long haul. It can't pay off in the short run; none

of them can, because of their very nature.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro has always had income to match its outgo.

Interjections.

MR. DAVIS: Well, I'm sure you people would have wanted it to

spend even more, had you been in power, so I'm not too concerned about

it having a limited debt.

In any case, light rapid transit is a good example. It, in my view,

is the most effective way to move people around the lower mainland.

We're going to have a B.C. population, by the year 2000 or thereabouts,

which is double the present population. We're going to have congestion,

especially in the downtown areas and in the fastest-growing areas, and

therefore a certain mileage of the light rapid transit line can be

built confidently now. A part of that mileage which in my view is

essential is an extension across the Fraser River to the Surrey area.

Surrey is by far the fastest-growing part of the lower mainland —

that's one reason. Secondly, connecting up Surrey will provide a far

greater percentage of riders than the capital outlay involved. In other

words, you get more riders onto the system early than the investment

would indicate, so it's economic. And finally, the government in 1979

as a matter of principle decided to go to Surrey and to Coquitlam

anyway, so we should get there sooner rather than later.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a plea for my own profession —

the engineers. The outlook for the next year or so is bleak. There are

more than 1,000 professional engineers unemployed in greater Vancouver

right now. Many of those people have been employed in the past on

government projects, be they provincial or municipal or simply related

to capital projects which government at the senior levels undertook in

this province. Now they need provincial initiatives. One obvious area

where additional work could be provided is light rapid transit; I'd

like to see the government at least decide to build the bridge across

the river, because that would employ engineers in British Columbia who

are foremost in the world in that kind of construction. I'd like to see

the bridge structure up or nearly up at the time of Expo in 1986.

I think that that is the kind of investment that governments can

make in times of recession and high unemployment, and that it's an

investment which will be recovered over the lifetime of the project,

one which has a bottom line of zero — in other words, it will be paid

back. It'll be paid back handsomely, especially in subsequent decades.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to sum up by saying that governments generally

are in difficult straits; they're running deficits. This government for

the first time, really, in its history is running a serious deficit. It

can pull out of the deficit position, but it will take a couple of

years. It can't cut back on the people programs, and I hope it doesn't

increase taxes, so we have to count on the private sector to generate

the kind of income which will keep our people programs whole over the

next couple of years. Meanwhile, I would like to see it show further

initiatives in some capital project areas which will employ my fellow

engineers and in projects which will pay for themselves in the long

term.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I came to this thirty-third

parliament with best wishes for this government which has received a

mandate from the people of British Columbia. There is, in being

re-elected, a sense of absolution for things that were done wrong in

the past; there is an opportunity for a fresh start. While I probably

have personal ambition like anyone else in this particular chamber — I

think we are all here because we have a great deal of personal ambition

— my ambition is for the province of British Columbia, and I place that

ahead of any personal interest.

[ Page 71 ]

This Legislature and this government had, and still have, I believe,

an opportunity for a fresh start. I would caution them: enjoy your

victory, but also realize that we sit on this side of the House still

representing a considerable minority of the people of this province —

some 45 percent. While the electoral victory is very large in terms of

seats and there are only 22 members here — while we lost 4 seats in

this election — do not be misguided by a very small change in the

popular vote. If that popular vote had swung that very small

incremental step in the other direction, we might well be turned around

in the House.

The election, as I say, brings to this government an opportunity to

put behind it the mistakes of the past four years — and, I would say,

particularly mistakes in the past four years, as opposed to the years

1976-79.

For various reasons this government has been given a mandate, and I

would like to congratulate them. I would like to have the very best of

hopes and aspirations for this government over the next four years,

because if this government performs well, then the people of British

Columbia are going to be the beneficiaries. I'll put that ahead of any

of my personal ambitions, as to whether I serve on the government side

or in opposition.

But already my feelings of good wishes for this government are being

slightly eroded by the conduct of the government, who seem to be

relishing their victory and manifesting it by new heights of arrogance,

which we see exemplified in the appointment of Mr. Mike Bailey to the

Premier's office at a 50 percent salary increase and in the way the

government is handling itself over the invasion of one of the

non-political areas. That is the area of the government agents — maybe,

I think, some of the most respected people within our communities — and

the appointment of Mr. Tozer to this position. The Public Service

Commission was bypassed for the first time since W.A.C. Bennett took

over the government of this province in 1952 and did away with the

patronage system that proliferated under a series of Liberal and

Conservative governments and coalitions.

I am not so old that I was of voting age when that change of

government took place — I was rather young — but I certainly do

remember some of the excitement of my very good friend's mother. She

has been the president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and

she has been active in the Social Credit League. She has been an active

Social Crediter right from the very beginning, and I certainly know

that her greatest reaction to the emergence of that early Social Credit

government was to the abolition of patronage, the abolition of that

type of government where even if you had a lowly position — no matter

what position — if there was a change of government you didn't even

bother to show up for work the day after the election because the local

bosses and so on would totally overthrow and change the government.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: You probably weren't born in British Columbia

and don't remember this, as I do. But, wherever it isn't too late, and

I hope the government will see this as an early stumble, just the

product of some early exuberance over their victory. I hope newly

elected hon. members on that side of the House, whom I congratulate,

and even some of the recycled members who are back....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: The two-timers; yes. I congratulate them also.

But I hope, for the sake of British Columbia, that we will not take

this step back into the past. It's very ironic that; it appears that a

government that is against a ward system in Vancouver — and I can think

of only one reason for being against a ward system; I can think of lots

of reasons in favour of it — would seem to be creating a ward system.

Because they have as a motive the one possible drawback of a ward

system, they seem to be heading toward the creation of a Tammany Hall

style of government here in British Columbia, something we saw tested

in the recent upheaval in Chicago, and fortunately swept aside. So

while Chicago is cleaning up its electoral act and its practices in

terms of moving toward non-partisan hiring of people, this government

appears to have taken a first stumble. I hope it is but a first stumble.

I was pleased to see announcements in the throne speech — actually

the restatement of announcements made during the past year — about the

creation of four new parks, two of which are in the riding of

Nelson-Creston: McDonald Creek Park at Nakusp and the Valhalla

Provincial Park, upon which I submitted a private member's bill to this

House for the past two years. It is the culmination of the efforts of

many people: people in the Valhalla Wilderness Society, people who have

supported this park concept in British Columbia and other parts of

Canada, in parts of the United States and all over the world. This does

mean that we have an opportunity now to realize some of the potential

by exploiting the potential of the Valhalla Provincial Park, and it

will be a tremendous stimulus to investment in the tourist industry

over the next few years. It will have to be given some time but it is a

very positive move, and I wish to congratulate the minister publicly in

this House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Also, I'm pleased to see once again the announcement that a new

pulpwood supply area is being designated in the southeastern part of

the province. A couple of years ago I brought photographs to this

assembly showing pulp logs piled up out in the woods — logs that were

surplus to any kind of disposal. There was not the pulping capacity at

the Celgar mill at Castlegar. Any plans made in 1975 under the previous

government to go ahead with this were postponed and postponed until it

fell into the hands of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, and

they have not yet seen fit to make the necessary expansion to utilize

the pulpwood in the area.

[4:45]

While I still believe that the most intelligent decision would be to

expand the mill at Castlegar, another possibility is to encourage

expansion and doubling of the Skookumchuck mill over at Canal Flats.

But what I have brought to this House.... It has taken some time, but

there has been some listening; I've been repeating this many times. The

fact is, for the lumber manufacturing industry in our area to be truly

efficient, we do need some market for all of these pulp logs, because

there is still a tremendous amount of decadent overmature timber

stands. In some instances, 60 percent, even 80 percent, of the fibre

taken out of some timber block areas has to be set aside because there

is no place for it to be utilized.

I'm also pleased to see that work has begun on removal of the Black

Bridge in Creston after many years. I travelled over the Bailey bridge

and viewed its dismantling just over a week ago.

[ Page 72 ]

I also recently attended the opening of the Creston extended-care

unit in the hospital — 20 new beds. It is something which has taken a

long time in coming. When I was Minister of Housing in 1975 I purchased

additional land adjacent to the Creston Valley Hospital, which at that

time was intended for intermediate care. It has made possible the

realization of increased extended care in the area.

I'm also pleased to see that the Kaslo senior citizens' housing

project is underway. However, I would like to say — I note that the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is here — that we have,

particularly in the Creston area, probably the highest percentage of

people in any community in British Columbia who qualify for the senior

citizens' homeowner grant on the property tax. Even though we have

created a new intermediate-care home in the last three years, and even

though we've opened a new senior citizens' housing project in the last

three years and now extended care, the need is very great. The number

of seniors is growing, and the waiting-lists continue to proliferate.

Also, in terms of senior citizens' housing there is a great need in the

area of New Denver-Silverton. In the throne speech I note that about

600 units of senior citizens' housing have been committed for this

year. Back in 1975 in one day alone, I, along with the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the then member for Vancouver-Burrard,

Mrs. Ron Basford and other officials cut ribbons opening more than 600

units in three separate projects in Vancouver. We opened units in

Chase, and way up on the Yellowhead Highway and in communities all over

this province. Six hundred units are not going to keep up with the

demand. I'm pleased to see that in the past years we've actually opened

several senior citizens' housing units, and I'm pleased to see that the

community of Kaslo will have its first. But much remains to be done.

I'm pleased to see Kaslo dyking and flood protection. I'd also like

to thank the senior executives of the B.C. Development Corporation for

their cooperation in getting LIFIP funding and other funding for the

Ymir Forest Products mill, which is going to open very soon in the Ymir

area.

I suppose that brings me to the difference in philosophy between

this side and that side. In the throne speech this government is

saying, "Let's just leave it to the private sector," but what they're

really saying is, "Let's leave it to the large major corporations." I

don't see any real special tribute being paid to small business in

this. I really believe that one of the problems that we have when

you're talking about the layering of bureaucracy, parallel

organizations, overlapping commissions and various other things, is

that you're talking about what happens after you people have been in

government for some seven and a half years. You have created many of

the Cro