1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3273 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Stupich –– 3273

Mr. Campbell –– 3277

Mr. Rose –– 3278

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3282

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: I hope the opening speech is on a word

processor, because when I read the opening speech of this year and last

year I find it very easy to get confused as to which one I am reading.

So much of the wording is the same, word by word. Next year we can

expect it to be the same again, can we?

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

It's a paragraph that I should know by heart; I repeated it over and

over during the debates from July 8, I suppose, until some time in

October. "May I express the sincere wish that your goals and objectives

and the interests of the people you represent will be met fully in the

course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature of

our magnificent province." As I pointed out many times last fall,

unfortunately the government did not take that particular bit of advice

to heart. Skipping through to the final page of this year's throne

speech, once again we find the wording very similar to that presented

in the House on June 23, 1983: "Hon. members, you now begin a most

important and demanding session." We certainly did on June 23. "Our

people are beginning to sense a new confidence" — this is a bit

different, but from here on it's the same right to the end. "I pray

that in carrying out your duties, you will reflect fully on the effect

of your decisions on the people of our province and country." I raise

the question again: I hope that this year the government, before

presenting its program, will reflect fully on the effect of its

decisions on the people of the province and the people of our country.

"Through the continued leadership of my ministers and through the

efforts of the Assembly, you must strive to build a stronger British

Columbia. May Divine Providence attend your deliberations." Mr.

Speaker, I think that did not happen; there can be little question

about that. "In our Sovereign's name I thank you."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

To get back to the content of the speech itself, I certainly want to

take issue with some of the points made. Here is a quotation from the

second page of the throne speech about the restraint program and its

results: "I am advised that over the past two years the rate of

inflation in British Columbia has been reduced from 14.3 percent to 5.5

percent." Although it's not said explicitly, certainly the suggestion

is there that the government is taking some credit for this.

There are three items that have the greatest effect individually on the changes

in the cost of living. The first is interest rates. Mr. Speaker, you will remember

the efforts of the present Premier and the then Premier to persuade the federal

government that interest rates should be kept high, so certainly the government

can take no credit for the fact that interest rates have dropped. The cost of

energy is the second factor. This government has been more active than any other

government in the country in increasing costs of energy — for example, increasing

the gasoline tax, increasing the cost of hydro and natural gas, In all of these

fields of energy, price increases in B.C. have been higher generally than in

any other province in the country. So certainly the government can take no credit

for having done anything in that area. The third item is food, and I think not

even the government would suggest that it has any real influence on the cost

of food.

When we look at the major factors included in the cost-of-living

index, we find that this particular government has done nothing, except

to exacerbate the situation with respect to limiting increases in the

cost of living. Any change, any downward trend in the cost of living,

is something that has happened in spite of the actions of this

government, or as a result of factors that have not been under the

control of this government.

The next sentence reads: "Nearly 14,000 new businesses were

established in British Columbia." Other speakers have made some mention

of this, but I am looking at a memorandum prepared about bankruptcy

statistics, December 1982 and December 1983. From January 1982 to

December 1982 in British Columbia, 1,042 businesses went bankrupt; in

the whole of Canada, 9,723. So 11 percent of the total number of

bankruptcies occurred here in the province of British Columbia. That's

not out of line as compared with the number of companies we have in

total. But that was 1982. The government is saying: "Isn't it great

that in 1983 we formed 14,000 new companies." But the statistics show

that the number that have gone bankrupt in this past year has gone up

almost 23 percent, to 1,279, while the number of businesses that have

gone bankrupt in Canada as a whole has decreased by 7.6 percent to

8,981. Now rather than 11 percent, in the most recent year 14 percent

of the total number of bankruptcies in the country have occurred in the

province of British Columbia.

It's great news to talk about the number of new companies that have

been formed. but we hear nothing about the individual tragedies of the

1,279 businesses that have gone bankrupt. There were 14,000 companies

formed, but 1,279 operating businesses — because to go bankrupt they

must be operating — went bankrupt in this period, an increase over last

year and a reverse in the national trend. The national trend is down,

but in the province of B.C., under this particular administration,

there has been an almost 23 percent increase in the number of

businesses that have gone bankrupt — not a record of which the

government should be proud. It would have been better from their point

of view had they not bothered to mention how many new ones have been

formed.

Reading on in the throne speech: "Though much has been accomplished,

much remains to be achieved. Too many of our people are still without

employment." There's no question about that. Once again the government

can take credit for this backward move. Unemployment has increased. The

government boldly and confidently boasted about the rate at which it

was going to increase unemployment, when on July 7, with the package of

legislation and the budget of 1983.... That's not the business before

us now; it's past history. On that date the package of legislation they

introduced and the government pronouncements indicated that, as the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said, of 300,000 people some 25

percent were going to be without a job –– 67,500 people were going to

be without work. That did increase unemployment. The Speech from the

Throne

[ Page 3274 ]

says much remains to be done. Mr. Speaker, one

would hope not much more of that, because that has certainly created a

very dampening effect upon the economy of British Columbia. People are

still wondering who is going to get the axe next. Almost daily we read

of another small group of government employees being laid off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wonder if we could oblige the

member for Nanaimo and offer some courtesy — refrain from carrying on

conversations in the Legislative Assembly.

[10:15]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but if you're having

trouble, I'll just speak a little louder and let them go ahead and have

their meetings.

Getting back to my point, I would hope that in saying much remains

to be accomplished with respect to unemployment, the government is not

threatening to carry on its program of firing people and threatening to

fire people. Certainly there would be no better way of holding back

improvement in our economy than to threaten more and more people with

unemployment.

"Interest rates and mortgage rates are still too high." I think most

of us would agree with that. There may be a few of us who are collecting interest

rather than paying it, but I believe most of us would agree that interest rates

are too high. Even those receiving it must recognize the effect this has on

the economy. I made the point of saying earlier that it's one of the major

factors entering into the cost-of-living index. Once again, Mr. Speaker, when

the government says interest rates are too high at the same time as their Premier

has never, to my knowledge, backed away from his advice to the federal government

to keep interest rates high, I wonder whether or not the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier talk to each other.

"Kept high by massive government deficits." I think they're pointing

a finger at someone here; I suppose they're pointing a finger at Ottawa.

The Minister of Finance had some comments to make about the budget read in the

House of Commons yesterday. Perhaps they're pointing a finger at the United

States and other countries — I don't know,

What about our own deficit position? Last year, for the first time

in 31 years, a deficit was budgeted for, and for the first to be as

large as $1.6 billion is really setting some kind of a record. So when

the government talks about deficits being too high, and the effect this

has on the economy, perhaps they should be putting their own house in

order. Do you remember the deficit for the year before that, Mr.

Speaker? The government budgeted for a break-even and found out at the

end of the year.... Although we don't have the final figures, the

figures as presented in the budget speech on July 7 last year for the

year ended March 31, 1983, showed that we had experienced a deficit of

$978 million. Almost a billion dollars, and they had budgeted for a

break-even position. It's one thing for the federal minister to budget

for a deficit of $31.6 billion. At least he knows what he's doing, what

is happening and what the figures are. But for our Minister of Finance

to be 20 percent out and not to know about it until the figures are in

at the end of that year raises some questions as to the credibility of

his budget in the first place; or the accuracy of the information that

is coming to him.

In one year they were $978 million out. We're talking about deficits

and that one was unplanned — at least, we were told that it was going

to be a break-even position. The year before that we were told we could

expect a surplus of $325 million; instead of that, we had a deficit of

some $278 million — $600 million out. The year before that we were told

it would be a break-even position and we experienced a deficit of $313

million. For four years in a row we've had deficits from this

administration, and we've never had them in the province since Social

Credit were first elected in June 1952. There was one in 1976, which

some of them would still try to blame on us, even though it didn't

occur until some three and a half months after we left office. But

leaving that one aside — not laying that at their door right now — for

the last four years there has been one deficit after another, and

they're getting larger each year. So in the throne speech they point

the finger, without directing it at anyone in particular, and say that

the problem in our economy is led by increasing government deficits —

while they go merrily on their way increasing government deficits.

"All Canadians are paying the hidden tax of excessive interest rates."

Certainly British Columbians have for years been paying the hidden tax of interest

costs on all of our Crown corporations. We've been absorbing that. But only

in the last two years have we started to pay interest on direct government debt,

and that's going on. It's certainly the most rapidly expanding item

in the budget. We haven't seen this year's budget, but I think there

can be no question but that interest on the public debt is going to be the major

factor and that the treasury bills being marketed regularly now are actually

not doing the job. They're providing enough to pay off the principal on

the rollover, but the interest itself has to be financed from other sources.

So it was great when these were being sold and when they weren't maturing;

but now that they're maturing regularly, the government is gaining nothing,

and marking time by the sale of treasury bills — marking time and having to come

up with the money for the interest.

"Wage Restraint in the Public Sector." "Our ability to maintain

essential services in health and education has been enhanced." Mr. Speaker,

I don't know what it's like in your constituency, but I know what it's

like in my constituency. I've travelled around this province fairly extensively

in the last six months on political business, and I haven't yet hit the

riding where education and health services have been maintained. The government

says that its ability to maintain essential services in health and education

has been enhanced. It may very well be that they have the ability, but they're

certainly not showing it.

Interjection.

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

If their ability to deliver essential services in health and

education has been enhanced by this program of firing people, then, for

goodness' sake, let's see some evidence of the enhancement. Regularly I

get pleas from constituents and organizations in my own constituency to

try to do something about some particular, relatively small item that

doesn't affect many people — each one of them. But it happens every

week. In a period of time a large number of my constituents have been

affected by the cutbacks in health services and in educational

services. Yet I'm sure these people will be comforted to know that the

government has the ability to do all these things, but chooses not to

do them. At least, if it had the

[ Page

3275 ]

ability, there's the hope that someday it may actually exercise this ability

and do something to deliver essential services in health and education, Mr.

Speaker, there will be a lot more discussion of that in the budget debate and,

of course, when we get to estimates. I would expect this year's estimates

will take a little longer to deal with than last year's.

"I am advised that significant progress has been achieved in reducing

the size of government, including the number of persons employed in the public

service." Well, we'll have to wait until we see the budget to see just

what the effect of that is. In the budget last year we saw that the level of

estimates for the year ending March 31, 1984, exceeded by more than 16 percent

the original estimates for the year ending March 31, 1983. This was supposed

to have taken into account a 15 percent reduction in the number of employees

on the government payroll. That's possible. It suggests to me that other

items have been increasing in this period. One of the other items is that work,

instead of being done by direct government employees, is being done by organizations

that are hired to do the work normally done before by government employees.

Of course, the person providing these services has to make a profit, has to

risk something, and has to allow for that. Inevitably the cost of that service

is going to increase rather than decrease. It would seem to me that since the

level of service in Education and Health, the two major ministries when it comes

to spending money.... Since we all know that the level of service in those two

areas decreased last year, yet we know that the total budget expenditure increased

more than 16 percent, it must be that the alternatives to having direct government

employees do these jobs has been a much more expensive route of getting less

accomplished for the people of the province than was previously the case. That's

my feeling at the moment. We'll find out next week when the budget comes

down.

"Organizations have been streamlined and certain functions transferred

to the private sector." I have to say: at what cost have they been transferred

to the private sector, in terms of taxpayers' dollars spent and cuts in

the level of service available to the people of our province?

"Export-led Recovery." "The vitality of British Columbia's

economy is directly and inextricably linked to its ability to export goods and

services. Over the past 20 years Canada's exports have...." This is an

interesting one, Mr. Speaker; I'm glad you're listening. Our vitality

is linked to our ability to export goods and services. That's point number

one. The very next sentence says: "Over the past 20 years Canada's

exports have increased from a fifth of its output to almost a third." Canada's

exports as a whole are going up. B.C. depends upon its exports. British Columbia's

share has consistently been double that of the national average. Nationally

we're doing well in exports; B.C. is doing better than well. Our economy

depends upon our exports, yet our economy has never been worse off since the

depths of the Depression.

How come, if everything is right, when we get to the end we find out that the

answer is wrong? What has this government done when, in spite of the fact that

when we compare our record with that of the national average, we find we're

doing better — and when we say we depend upon doing better in that way.... We

are doing it; we're accomplishing everything we should be accomplishing.

Yet when we come to the end, we find out that B.C. is worse off than most other

Canadian provinces. It's worse off in terms of increased unemployment. It's

worse off in terms of — I gave figures earlier — the number of businesses and

individuals — I didn't use those figures.... It is worse off in terms of

the number of people and businesses that have gone bankrupt. It's worse

off in terms of the cutbacks in services to people. It's worse off in every

way. Our deficit for the year ending March 31, 1984, has increased at a rate

of infinity — there was none projected the year before. Even if we say, well,

the minister was out a billion dollars and he should really have projected that,

at $1.6 billion it's still 60 percent higher in one year. Goodness only

knows what it will be next year. By every measure we're doing worse, yet

the government says things are great because Canada's exports are increasing

and B.C.'s are increasing in proportion to the national average, so everything

should be great in B.C.

I recall a series of television ads, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you

can too. The taxpayers paid for them for some four months early last

year to tell everybody: "Isn't it great we're living in B.C. Everything

is going wonderfully in B.C. Just vote right and everything will keep

going wonderfully in B.C." Well, we've had the measure of that since,

haven't we, Mr. Speaker, particularly as I read from the opening

speech. Because everything is going right we have the ability to

deliver health and education services. We're not doing it, but we do

have the ability. Isn't it great we can do it. If we want to we can do

it. We're not doing it. That's not so great. Also, by every measure

we're doing worse, even though, when we look at our exports — which we

are supposed to be depending on, which are supposed to be the barometer

of what's happening in B.C. — we find out that things have gone worse.

"Historically the United States has been our largest trading partner.

But in recent years we have diversified our economy as Japan and other markets

have become increasingly important." Mr. Speaker, we can all agree with

that. I think it has been the aim of all governments in the past 20 or 30 years

in British Columbia — and Canada, for that matter — to try to diversify, to

try to arrange our economy so that we would not be so dependent upon that single

very large market to the south, upon which we were so dependent; to try to move

into the Asian markets — the Japanese particularly, because it was the greatest

opportunity at the time, and now, of course, other markets are opening up. We

can only compliment the government for trying. But we would like to have some

answers. This is not the opportunity, but later on — I'm just serving notice

now — we want to know what is being accomplished, What was accomplished, for

example, when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), during the height

of the labour-management-government dispute last fall, when things were at their

worst, when we were really standing on the brink.... I used those words when

speaking in the Legislature last fall. Maybe it was a deliberate move by the

government to try to calm things down a bit; I don't know. But the Minister

of Labour went, of all places, to China. Was that to study labour-management

relations, or government-employees relations? Mr. Speaker, I hope we'll

have an opportunity to get from that minister some idea as to just what he learned

that would help him in his work as Minister of Labour in the province of British

Columbia.

[10:30]

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

[ Page 3276 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm told that I'm wrong. I'm not

making any points; I'm asking questions. Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll find

out later on.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), again, at the height

of the crisis in education — it's hard to say what's the height there,

because there are problems every day — went to Germany. Now I'm not

opposed to his going to Germany. I think the timing was somewhat

peculiar, unless it was felt that getting that particular Minister of

Education out of the way at that point in time was good. That could

very well be. Certainly getting the Minister of Labour out of the

country when there were labour-management problems, or labour

government problems, was a good idea too. If he went somewhere else,

that's good. Wherever he went was good. The fact that he wasn't here

was the plus. I agree with the Minister of Forests.

Interjection.

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

The Minister of Education went to Germany, and I'm sure he must have

gone there for some purpose. I'm sure he would bring back some message

to tell to the people of British Columbia. I don't recall having heard

anything about that yet. Later on, at some opportunity, even in the

throne speech debate, the Minister of Education might like to stand up

and tell us about the purpose of that trip and what was accomplished.

If nothing was accomplished, so be it. But let's find out what was the

purpose and whether there was something in there about.... He'd hardly

be the one to sell coal, I think. But we're talking now about the

vitality of British Columbia's economy. Other ministers went to other

places. All I'm saying is that later on there will be an opportunity

for those ministers to tell us how their travel plans around the world

did contribute to the development of B.C.'s economy. I hope that they

will be able to tell us something positive about their efforts to

diversify our economy, because we need it. There's no question about

that. We took certain steps when we were government. Some of them paid

off, some of them didn't. Some of them were long-range proposals.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I missed what the Minister of

Forests said. He's great at speaking from his seat. Very seldom does he

manage to get up on his feet. It's usually from his seat that he makes

his best speeches. Can you hear him mumbling right now, Mr. Speaker? I

can't hear what he's saying. I sure wouldn't want to miss it. We don't

have many opportunities to hear that minister.

Interjection.

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

I'm looking through the speech right now an&trying to pick out a few

things. I notice a heading here: "Housing. An increased number of housing

starts is anticipated for 1984 and 1985." Well, two things about that.

Increased over 1983? I think if they doubled over 1983 we still wouldn't

be building many houses. Any increase is good, but I'd like to know what

is the base year and what are we talking about. We did embark on a program a

year ago, and I'm wondering what the effect of that was. I think we have

to be careful where we put those houses, too. I'm not sure about your constituency,

Mr. Speaker, but I had an opportunity to travel to the North Peace recently

— the member isn't here right now — and I'm told that today the vacancy

rate in all residential accommodation in that prosperous, thriving community,

which voted 75 percent Social Credit, is 30 percent. They might do even better

today, because all the people who could afford to move out of town have left.

The rest are probably still voting loyally and blindly for the government that

got them into this mess. Mr. Speaker, if we're going to be building houses,

let's build them in Fort St. John, because there's lots of room for

the workers to be accommodated while they're working on the other houses.

Unless more planning than that goes into it, we'd better not build any more

houses.

Dawson Creek is not so bad. Once again we're blessed. The member for

that area, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), is out of the country. We can't help but be ahead

when he's away. Again, the vacancy rate in total residential

accommodation is 20 percent — I'm going on the figures given to me

while I was there. There aren't that many communities in B.C. right now

where there is a desperate need for a large increase in the number of

housing starts. There are some areas, but they're limited. Certainly in

my own constituency there are far more houses for sale than there are

buyers. We don't need many more right now.

The forestry picture: there was some discussion of that yesterday.

The minister did get into a debate in question period, which didn't add

very much to the picture; but it can't help but be described as a

disastrous situation for the province of British Columbia. In spite of

his boast about the increase in the number of seedlings, we all know

that we aren't doing enough in reforestation, and we haven't done

enough for the last 50 years. We've never done enough. Doubling it

would be a small beginning. There's a tremendous backlog. There'll be a

greater opportunity later on to talk about that.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) was

here. I can't let this paragraph go by without reading it into the

record again: "Traffic Safety. My government will continue to work

towards reducing driving hazards through enforcement of regulations and

legislative initiatives. Special attention will continue to be given to

the problem of drunk drivers." We can all agree with that second

sentence, but what about traffic safety? What about motor vehicle

inspection? Would that the government could change its mind on that one

matter and bring back motor vehicle inspection — not just bring back

the stations that were closed, but make provision for motor vehicle

testing in every community in the province. I'm not suggesting that the

government should establish its testing stations in small communities,

but arrangements could be made for someone to do the job. There must

be, compulsory motor vehicle testing. It's fine to get after drunk

drivers; that's one avenue. But certainly we've had enough incidents —

we've had the report from ICBC — to know that we need motor vehicle

testing, and the most efficient way of getting it is through the motor

vehicle testing stations that we have. There were concerns that it

didn't cover the whole province. We all agree with those concerns, and

I suggest that the way to get around that is by entering into contracts

in other communities with people who are already in the business. Let's

take another look at that

[ Page

3277 ]

one and see whether the government couldn't change its mind and relent

in the interests of traffic safety, and in the interests of saving lives and

cutting costs. I believe ICBC actually had a figure in its statement as to what

it was going to cost ICBC and the people of the province in increased premiums

because there would not be these motor vehicle inspections.

Industrial relations:

"Positive industrial relations are a key element of British Columbia's

economic future. My government has been conducting in the past year an exhaustive

review of labour legislation. A committee of independent experts will provide

ongoing advice to my Minister of Labour. My government wishes to ensure that

the parties involved in industrial relations and British Columbia's economic

development are served by new approaches to industrial relations to be pursued

this session."

In the absence of anything more than that, all we can do

is express fear that once again the government is going to rush into action

without sufficient consideration. I don't know how much preliminary work

has been done –– I drove the Minister of Labour out of the House,

so he's not here to comment — even if he would — from his seat. If the government

is actually working on these changes, I hope they are consulting everyone affected

— organized labour and management. When they get to the point of coming up with

some idea as to what they should be doing, this ideally would be one of the

instances where a White Paper might well be circulated ahead of time so that

everyone in the community would know what the government had in mind, what direction

they were planning on going. A select standing committee of the Legislature

could review the legislation, listen to witnesses and hear arguments.

We're treading on very dangerous waters in looking at labour

legislation that has been serving the needs of the people of this

province. Employees and employers have been getting along reasonably

well with the present legislation — much better than under the previous

legislation. Let's not change it without taking a very serious look at

what we're doing, without letting everyone involved have a voice, an

opportunity to get into the discussion to make sure we are doing the

right thing before we make a move. Mr. Speaker, this one worries me.

Human rights: I can't help but be concerned about that. Once again,

we'll have to wait and see what kind of legislation the government

brings in.

Getting back to the last page: "Hon. members, you now begin a most

important and demanding session." That's what he said on June 23. It is

important and it is a demanding job. It's important for the people of

the province. We saw the heights to which quite a large number of the

people in the province could be aroused when we saw the demonstrations

that took place in the fall of 1983. There was no need for that to have

happened.

The government had been re-elected with a substantial majority in terms of

the number of seats. Everyone accepted that. Certainly the NDP accepted it,

and the people of the province accepted it. But the people of the province did

not expect the kind of legislative package that came in on July 7: the revenge

motive with the attempts to do away with many people services that had been

widely accepted. These services were introduced mainly by the NDP administration

but were generally accepted throughout the community, and it was even forgotten

when they were brought in or by whom. The important services that were being

done away with had been working and serving the needs of the province at minimum

cost in terms of our total budget. There was no reason to expect that kind of

treatment, yet the government acted in a hurry and, I would hope, has repented

somewhat since then. There was no need to divide the community in the way in

which the people in the province were divided with that budget, the attendant

legislation and the outbreaks of antagonism that took place after that. The

government could have achieved everything it wanted. If it was really looking

for restraint, it could have done that. If it was really looking for downsizing,

there were provisions for that. Whatever its goals were, they could have been

achieved without upsetting the people of the province in the way in which it

was done.

The throne speech would indicate that there are other goals that the

government wants to meet but have not yet met. Surely by now the

government will recognize that there is a right way and a wrong way of

meeting these goals. Hopefully when the government is planning its

legislation and getting it through caucus they will have in mind these

penultimate words in the throne speech: "I pray that in carrying out

your duties you will reflect fully on the effect of your decisions on

the people of our province and country." Mr. Speaker, I support the

amendment.

[10:45]

MR. CAMPBELL: I support this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and

I believe it lays out a clear path of where the government is going.

The previous speaker talked about upsetting the people last summer and

fall, and I believe that one of the reasons the people were upset is

because they perceived that there was confusion here in the House.

Sometimes there was confusion across there, and they did stir up the

people. I would hope that during this session of the Legislature the

opposition will act responsibly to assist the government in putting

through legislation that is going to help the people and the economy of

this province. Certainly some of the legislation that was passed last

year, in spite of all the hollering that was done by the opposition,

did improve the situation within our province.

The number of persons employed in British Columbia has increased by

2.5 percent within the last year, and that is a start. It is fine to

say that there is still a lot of unemployment. Yes, there will be

unemployment, because if more people come to work in British Columbia,

so will more people come here attempting to find work. So the more the

employment is created, the more the people will come here. There is no

question about that.

Inflation has dropped from 14.5 percent to 5.5 percent, and that is

because of the government restraint program. Our Premier, who foresaw

these problems, was the first to propose a restraint program, and later

on the other provinces fortunately also saw this. The Prime Minister of

Canada saw it, and yet yesterday, in an attempt to grab votes, the

federal government announced in the budget that they are going to

disband the restraint program. The opposition wanted to do the same in

this province before the last election; they feel that is the way to

get votes. The people of this province know that's not the way to make

the province grow. That's why new businesses are starting in British

Columbia, and that's why there have been new businesses starting here.

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

[ Page 3278 ]

that's one of the things that we have to realize

here. One of the things that the opposition has to realize is that we

do have to be competitive within our province if we are going to

export. If our ministers are going to be travelling to foreign

countries to sell our products, they have to do so on a competitive

basis. We have to be a responsible deliverer of the goods and services,

and that's what this government is attempting to do: deliver these

products at competitive prices so that the buyers feel that they have a

responsible supplier of these products.

MR. BLENCOE: What products?

MR. CAMPBELL: What products? Many products: coal,

agricultural products. After they've been sitting here for a year

hearing about northeast coal and how it's going to be shipped through

B.C., the opposition sits there and says: "What products?" I don't know

where they've been this last year. Have they not been attending the

session and listening to what the government's been telling them day

after day about how northeast coal will be creating 3,000 full-time

jobs?

MR. BLENCOE: It's all smoke.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's all smoke? No, Mr. Speaker, when it's

converted into energy and steel it will be smoke, but when it's going

out of here it's products being sold in the marketplace and bringing

dollars into Canada to create jobs. That's what it's all about. It may

be smoke on the other side, but to the citizens of our province it's

jobs.

I'm pleased that this government supported the Crow rate cut in

freight rates that's also going to create tremendous employment within

our province. For the information of the opposition, Dillingham opened

their first office in Revelstoke in January to attempt to start on the

bidding of this program that's going to create the jobs there. This

government supported that program. But the NDP government in Ottawa,

what did they do? They opposed the program, as usual. They talk about

supporting, but did you ever hear them support anything across here?

Whatever this good govern ment proposes they are opposed to. The B.C.

government employees have settled, they're happy and they're satisfied.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, they're happy. Most of the people

in this province who are employed today feel that they are being

treated right and they have a good job. The people out there are not

deceived by this rhetoric from across the way. The people realize that

there have been tough times.

If it wasn't for the opposition trying to promote fear among the working

people out there we wouldn't have had these problems last fall. They're

out trying to promote fear to stir up the people rather than have the people

working and producing and living the good life in B.C.

There will be changes in the labour legislation. It has been laid out in the

throne speech. Many, many people are demanding this — both employees and employers.

Secondary picketing started last year among the woodworkers, and Mr. Munro finally

came out and pleaded with them to stop the secondary picketing. He realized

that that's what destroys the economy of the province. The union leaders

realized this.

Where's the opposition? They don't understand this. Their idea is to

shut everything down and borrow money — borrow ourselves into prosperity. Yes,

there will be changes in the Labour Code.

I noticed last night that when the federal government brought in

their budget, they again followed the lead of British Columbia in

saying that private enterprise must provide the jobs for the people of

our province. They realize that governments can't provide long-term,

meaningful jobs. Governments don't produce money; they only spend money.

I'm pleased with this throne speech. I'm pleased that it has laid

out the government's plans for what's going to happen in the future. I

trust that the opposition will read this carefully and that they will

realize that that is the way this province must be led.

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

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, may I give the ritualistic and routine

but heartfelt congratulations for your elevation to the peerage once

again. I'm really pleased to see you sitting there, looking benign and

objective but not objectionable.

I would also like to congratulate my friend from Okanagan North on

his fine speech. I think he actually created some records: it was the

shortest speech and the loudest speech and the one that had the most

clichés in it that I've heard in this whole throne speech debate.

Nevertheless he is convinced of this. Perhaps he's a follower and is

not going to jump over any traces or embarrass the government in any

way, at least not if he can avoid it.

I thought today I would maybe take a little departure from he usual

kind of throne speech debate and talk about the throne speech. That's

not usually done during the throne speech debate, and I think the

reason for it is that very few people understand what throne speech

debates are because they don't understand the words in the throne

bafflegab that most people don't understand. I had a constituent ask me

to explain what some of the words meant, so I've taken a number of

excerpts from the throne speech and translated them for him. I'd like

to base my remarks on these actual excerpts from the speech itself.

Here's the first one. It says in the throne speech: "The public

sector has now available the necessary tools to restrain spending and

minimize to the extent possible the burden on taxpayers." That's hard

to understand because it's a bit complicated. What they really mean,

under translation, is that we fired a whole bunch of public servants.

But does that mean we're going to lower the budgets at all? I don't

think so.

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

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

"Court Reporting Going Private." It will cost more to go to court

when the provincial government contracts out the job of court reporting to private

individuals instead of staff members. "Attorney-General Brian Smith today

said in Victoria the government will offer almost 150 court reporters the opportunity

to work on a contract basis." If you're going to do that, what's

the point in contracting them out? "Jail Nurses Feeling the Heat."

Here's the regional director, a top civil servant, Ted Harrison, quoted in

the Province on January 13:

[ Page

3279 ]

"Harrison said the corrections branch is looking at

the possibility of privatizing all services that don't require staff to

be peace officers." But he says that there's no likelihood, really,

that there will be any saving here from the privatization.

Harrison says: "This contracting out isn't likely to save money."

So what's the government doing it for? Why is the government behaving like

Eaton's and Woodward's, contracting out part-timers? Part-time employment

is going up in Canada. It's gradually going up and up as we lose full-time

jobs.

If it isn't for the saving of money — and I can give you the stats

on that, but I don't think stats are necessarily that impressive to

most people — what I want to suggest to you is that the contracting out

is to break the public service unions.

It's to remove people from the opportunity for pensions, health

benefits and fringes, to make certain that people who are contracted

out do not get the same benefits as other workers in terms of job

security. That's what it's all about, nothing more than that. So never

let this business of the bafflegab.... "The public sector has now

available the necessary tools to restrain spending." The budget coming

up is not going to reflect much of that. If it is, it's because you

have overestimated and underspent.

Here's another one.

MR. REID: Good management.

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

Economic recovery. Here's what the throne speech says: "I am advised that the world economic situation remains

uncertain." What does that mean? If you translate it, as I did to my friend in my constituency,

the translation says: "If we Socreds can't reduce bankruptcies and

create jobs, it's not our fault. Blame the world. If we cause all this social

chaos and still nothing happens, it's not our fault; we did our best. All

we can do now is blame the world." That's what they'll do.

Probably one could argue with some validity, as some people do — reputable

economists; I'm not talking about our friend Michael Walker of the Fraser

Institute — that the Socreds in B.C. with their last budget and their accompanying

26 bills probably killed the recovery. They killed the confidence in a consumer-led

recovery. That's our criticism of the government. Firing schoolteachers,

nurses, sheriffs and all the rest of it probably killed the recovery, because

schoolteachers, nurses and sheriffs are not going to go out and buy homes or

anything else if they don't feel that they're going to have any chance

to hold onto their jobs. That's what we object to.

[11:00]

MR. REID: You'd hire more.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: That is precisely what you said. You want to fire

more. You want more people unemployed. That will bring the wage rate

down, and then we can become the Alabama of Canada and make Michael

Walker really happy. That's what you're after.

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

problem.

MR. ROSE: I can tell you a little bit about taxpayers. I now

that the tax-paying public above $50,000 a year pay virtually no taxes.

It's the people who are down in the $10,000 and $12,000 and $15,000 a

year range who you're putting out of work who are the taxpayers in this

country.

How in the hell are they going to pay taxes if they are fired? Civil

servants pay taxes just the same as everybody else. What happened in

Qualicum? You fired 23 teachers because of your policies, and you lost,

in addition, 36 more jobs in that community. What did you gain there?

You put a bunch of our friends, those people along the main street, out

of business. There are going to be even more bankruptcies.

More people have gone bankrupt in the last year in this province

than in the previous years. We lead all of Canada in bankruptcies.

That's what it has done.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Promoting investments. "My government...will consider innovative

vehicles for stimulating...job-creating activities in large and small

business." What does this really mean if you translate it, Mr. Speaker?

I think this is what it means: we are prepared, as a government, to

provide bigger and better give-aways and tax loopholes and subsidies

and welfare to corporations. That's what I think you're doing. The feds

have done that. In the last budget, here is what happened. In 1984, a

year of terrifically high unemployment, he unemployment rate federally

was 11 percent, and the aftertax profit of corporations are up 25

percent. I think that is terrific if they invest the money in Canada.

MR. REID: They do.

MR. ROSE: They do not. I'll give you another little

statistic. I know you don't like listening to statistics. What do you

think the corporations did with their profits? I'll tell you what they

did with their profits. They haven't invested their profits in Canada.

In 1960-69, $132 million a year went out of the country. In 1970-79,

$942 million per year went out of the country in foreign investment.

What do you think the cable companies are doing with all their money?

They are putting it down in the States. Between 1980 and 1982, 2,950

million went to foreign investments. That's where those profits went.

They didn't go into job-creating at all. That is what happens when the

corporations get their give-aways and their loopholes. What do they do

with it?

Another way they spend their money is on mergers. Does that create a

job? Except maybe for tax accountants, it doesn't create any jobs at

all. There were 414 mergers in 1980; in 1981, 490; in 1982, 596; and

the preliminary figures for 1983 show 608 mergers.

If you spend it in investment abroad, and you spend your money and

your profits on buying up the big fish eating the little fish, how does

that create employment? The point is that it hasn't created employment.

The policies of the federal government have not created employment. We

are at the highest unemployment rate in history, and in B.C. it is even

higher. How can you argue? I love the happiness boys. All the gloom and

doomers, the critical people, are over here. That's our job. The

happiness boys are all over there. Who is cutting everything to the

bone? It's the happiness boys. If we cut everybody down, somehow we are

going to have prosperity. Utter nonsense!

[ Page 3280 ]

International trade. Here is a quote from the throne speech: "My

government will sponsor missions that include private-sector

representatives...to India, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of

Canada. So now, on top of footing massive travel bills for all these

high-flying ministers, we are going to take along some friends and

corporate executives. The public is going to foot that bill too. That's

really terrific. Now I wouldn't say that those were the same people who

might have given lavishly to campaign contributions to the government.

I would never say that. But I sure wish that I were a corporate

executive and that I could fly around the world with the minister. I'd

like to go to Japan with Mr. Phillips, maybe to Holland with the

Minister of Agriculture or to Germany with the Minister of Education

while he figures out how we are going to change our education system to

make it perhaps a little bit more germanic or germane or something.

Here's another one. "To encourage the entrepreneurial spirit among

our younger citizens, my government will support enterprising students

who create their own summer jobs." Isn't that lovely? That reminds me

of Opportunities for Youth. That was a federal program that gave away

hush money to middle-class kids by the billions. Over ten years it was

the most discredited program that we had, and who got the money? Kids

who could fill out the application forms, kids who could dream up nifty

little make-work projects. Who is going to get the money this time?

Kids who really deserve it, who have to fight higher tuition fees and

much more difficult loan application forms for student assistance? Are

they going to be the kids from poorer families who really need it? No,

they are not. Who is going to distribute that money? Is it going to go

into Socred areas like the Liberal money and the job creation programs

go into Liberal areas? Who is going to make the decisions? Where are

the criteria? We want to look at that one. I'd be willing to bet you

that certain Socred ridings will benefit, and the people who will get

the first shot at the money will be friends of the government. I'm

cynical about things like that.

Energy advantage. "My government has examined various methods of

increasing B.C. Hydro sales so as to reduce surpluses, increase revenue

and minimize rate increases to British Columbia customers. My

government has now approved long-term electricity exports by B.C.

Hydro." Now what does this really mean? After you scrape away all the

bafflegab it means that B.C. Hydro and "my government" so overestimated

our energy needs that we built far more dams than we needed and there's

not a damn thing we can do with that stuff but to export it. That's all

we can do with it. You're going to sell it abroad because you've dammed

every river because your projections are so rotten.

You guys who are so great in business, your projections are so rotten that

you're as bad as the Americans who have built so many nuke plants because

the nuke lobby got to them, but now the rate hikes facing the customers down

in the States — New York and other places — are mammoth. Here are the same kinds

of energy estimates. In 1965 it was estimated that we would double our energy

requirements every seven years. They've never changed. But now energy is

not nearly meeting those projections. What can we do but sell it? Of course

we're going to sell it. We probably didn't need to build all those dams.

You can't just let it run over the spillway, as my hon. friend would suggest.

It's a good thing we're not into nuclear power. What else can we do

with it? The only other thing we can do with it is to raise the rates of every

customer in British Columbia. That's the only alternative we have. You're

trapped. Don't make a virtue out of a necessity. Don't clothe your rotten

motives in noble words. You're stuck. You're cornered. That's why

you are doing this, because your estimates were wrong. You blew it.

Mr. Speaker, this has to do with tourism. Where's the Minister of

Toursm (Hon. Mr. Richmond)? Oh, he got sick and went out. He didn't

want to hear this: "...efforts will be concentrated on encouraging more

Canadians, particularly the province's residents, to vacation in

British Columbia." Terrific! I don't know what that's going to do to

the Premier's tan. Does that mean that the Premier can't go away

anywhere into the sun belt next January? What about all the cabinet

ministers? Where are they going to go?

AN HON. MEMBER: East Sooke.

MR. ROSE: East Sooke? That's first prize: a vacation in East

Sooke. If you win the prize you go for one week to East Sooke. If you

come in second you get two weeks in East Sooke.

Interjection.

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

Anyway, I'd be very interested to know whether the minister, the

Premier and other high-flying ministers will be having fun in the sun

next year. The throne speech, if we're to believe it, says "efforts

will be concentrated on encouraging more Canadians, particularly the

province's residents, to vacation in British Columbia." That's

terrific. No more plane trips, even if we do deregulate.

Housing. Here's something for the member from Surrey. "My government

will introduce new legislation to achieve a better balance between the

interests of tenants and landlords...." What does this really mean?

What this means is that landlords will welcome greater freedom to hike

the rents and evict tenants without any government intrusion. We don't

want any government intrusion into this, because that might provide a

little fairness in the housing market.

Traffic safety. "My government will continue to work towards

reducing driving hazards through enforcement of regulations and

legislative initiatives." What does this really mean when you scrape

away all the nonsense and all the rhetoric — all the wording that's

around it? In translation it says: "Now that we've abolished all

government testing of cars and buses, in spite of tragedies, we intend

to compel motorists to patronize selected private garages all over the

province at four times the cost." That's what that line means. That's

what they regard as fair, when three inspectors take a whole week to go

over a bus, and there are 800 buses on this Island that are going to be

tested each year by one inspector. More nonsense! When you ask the

minister in charge of transit what they are going to do about testing

the transit buses, she doesn't know. A week later you ask her again and

she still doesn't know. I think if you asked her a week from now she

still wouldn't know. We don't care about safety. We don't care about

maintenance. This is how....

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

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

[ Page

3281 ]

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

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members! Can the Chair please remind you

that debate in this House flows back and forth through the Chair and

not between members on the floor. Thank you.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you admonished

that second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). If we've got such a safe

transit system, why are you abolishing the testing? Is it going to get

better? Oh, no, it's got nothing to do with testing. Okay.

"Consistent with my government's confidence in the ability of the

private sector to carry out a greater share of activities that have been undertaken

by the public sector in the past, the Ministry of Forests will be pursuing new

initiatives to permit redistribution of forestry functions to the industry."

My constituent says: "What does that really mean?" In translation

it means that for years we have failed to restore our logged land, and you can't

argue with that, in spite of putting a million trees in last year. You can't

catch up all at once. We haven't got the trees and the manpower; we haven't

got anything. But we've recently terminated half our foresters, and we intend

to let our most important industry police itself. How terrific! Are you going

to let the restaurant owners inspect and police the kitchens of restaurants?

Is that going to be next? Are you going to let the packing companies, rather

than health inspectors and veterinarians, police the abattoirs? Are you going

to let the foxes protect the chickens? This is the kind of drivel....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, I don't want to hear from old Wolfgang over

there. Why do I need to hear from him? He's howling all the time. He

has a chance to make his own speech even if he isn't Mozart. It's not

musical anyway.

If you treated the doctors in terms of their recommendations on the

health industry the way you treat teachers, you would be laughed out of

the country. Why should somebody who's never even been to school know

more about education than those who have spent their lives at it? What

nonsense! What mythology! "Everybody knows how to run a school. How do

I know? I know all about schools because I went to one. I went to grade

7. Obviously I know how to run schools; everybody knows how to run

schools."

Health care. "Recent legislative initiatives of the federal

government threaten the quality of health care provided to British

Columbians." Here are the feds again. I'm glad the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen).... What does it really mean? In translation it

means that federal Health minister Monique Begin has warned that she

will cut off all federal funds if we dare to jack up user fees and

medical deterrent fees again. That's what that question means. But it's

the feds' fault if we don't have a decent health-care system, not ours.

Blame somebody else. If our economy is no good, blame the world. If a

lot of people are out of work, blame the unions. Blame somebody else;

that's the way to go.

[11:15]

Municipal relations. "My government will continue to examine the Municipal

Act with the intention of further streamlining and reducing the regulatory features

of land use registration." What does that mean in translation? It says

that we are pledged to make life far more pleasant for land-grabbers and speculators,

because we want to get a lot of junk out of the way. We want to pull the teeth

of the regional districts and perhaps the Land Commission. So we're going

to simplify; we're going to streamline. I think it's a little election

payoff. Look, I don't disagree, and I know the Speaker is a former mayor;

many times it is difficult for developers to get approvals for building and

certain other kinds of enterprises, and not all developers are evil people.

There is a need through the Municipal Act to streamline the number of agencies

a person has to go to in order to get approval for anything. Nobody argues about

that. But what worries us is the streamlining and reducing the regulatory features

of land use registration — not regulations and some of the other things to help

a person get on with a septic field or a number of other approvals that you

have to have through building departments. That is bad. Sometimes it takes months,

and I understand that. But what I am worried about is what a lot of people are

worried about. We have the Land Commission because municipal councils were unable

to withstand the pressures of developers to use land that was agriculturally

valid. We're afraid that if you weaken that in any way, municipal councils

are in no stronger a position today than they were 10 or 15 years ago when this

came in.

Legislative reform. "My government will place high priority on

achieving legislative reform." I bet they will. In translation, I think

that a top Socred priority will be to pull the teeth of the opposition

by means of rule changes so we can ram our stuff through faster; in

other words, we're going to get these things out of the way so you

won't be able to filibuster — you guys over there — so that we can come

along and change the rules to the point we can ram everything right

through. Tell that to your Tory friends. I heard them ring the bells

for three weeks in Ottawa. It was important that they do that, because

they split an energy bill, which was a disaster anyway — split or

whole. At least they had that power to force the government to come to

its senses. I know that we are an inconvenience to you over there. I'm

sorry about that. But from time to time the opposition has the

obligation to say: "Hey, hold it! Not so fast. It's important that we

have another look at this." If you bang things through, you have the

tyranny of the majority: closure. That's what worried my constituents

when I had to translate for them.

Now education. Education is an interesting topic. I don't know if

it's a high priority at the moment but I'd like to read a little part

of the throne speech. I'm really pleased that the minister came back.

Here's the excerpt: "My government continues to believe that quality

education must be the number one priority.... We must promote

excellence and prepare our young people to meet the challenges of

tomorrow." What does that really mean? I think it means education will

be slanted even more in favour of the university-bound, and the

educational casualties of that kind of an elitist approach will be the

dropouts. They're going to look forward even more, I think, to a

lifetime of low-paying jobs — maybe the kind of jobs that are growing

in North America as a result of automation. So if you don't have an

education and you drop out of school, your future can be bleak.

[ Page 3282 ]

As I said in my education estimates, I'm not sure everybody is

convinced that everybody needs an education. Maybe we should be looking

at earlier apprenticeships, as they do in Europe. There are a number of

things that we could look at. However, that isn't what we're aiming

for. The direction in which we're going is to make education even more

difficult for some than it is now. If you cut the funding to the point

where there isn't a range of options, then you force kids who would

normally have taken something for their own benefit into an academic

program for which they are ill-suited. So what choice will they have?

With grade 11 and 12 exams they'll be forced to drop out, or they'll

flunk out. That's what they did before. The retention rate has been

amazingly improved over the last few years. That's what I'm worried

about.

It says here: "Excessive salary increases and inflated payroll costs

detract from quality by competing for scarce dollars." When was the

salary raised this year? I didn't hear the teachers even ask for a

salary raise. They got a zero increase in here. This is going to make

them even more unhappy than they are now, and displays again that

teachers are supposed to be whipping boys and girls, that there is a

contempt for education.

"My government believes education is for children, and that investments

in education should be directed towards acquiring skills and knowledge that

will serve them well in the future." That's terrific. Wonderful. Here

is the Vancouver Sun ,

February 14: "'Students will suffer as a result of provincial

government policy forcing them to take certain kinds of career training

at private schools instead of publicly funded colleges and institutes,'

said the president of the largest community college." He goes on to say

how the offerings of the community colleges are going to be severely

restricted because the ministry has set up a provincial priority

program. That's an interesting thing, and it lists a whole flock of

things here. Then there is a local priority program. What is the

significance of this? I think it's relatively simple yet important: the

significance is that the minister has taken over the colleges. The

minister has said: "You've got to offer these because they're on the

provincial priority program. They've got to be offered at the same

level as last year. We don't let the colleges or the community demand

or anything else influence us here. We're going straight ahead. We've

got that thrust." Then: "If you've got any money left over, fellows,

you may offer these." There are some interesting things about which

ones are offered. This is the year of tourism. You know what we may

offer? Hotel administration, waitress and bartending — that's cut. What

are we going to offer — maybe — if we have any money left? College

preparation. One of the reasons, among others, that the community

college was justifiable is that the community college would provide

inexpensive, two-year pre-university training. This is on the "may

offer" list, not on the "must offer" list. That concerns us. Employment

assessment is gone. University transfer is gone.

So there are some important questions here, especially since on January 10

the minister wrote Mr. Abe Unruh, president of the B.C. Association of Colleges,

and I quote from his letter: "The purpose of this letter is to state that

no commitments have been made on levels of funding for colleges and institutes

for future years." How can they plan? They're not going to plan. He'll

be planning. That's where the planning will take place. They talked and

talked and talked about developing a five-year plan for colleges, based on the

assumption that there would be a constant level of funding. Now we can't

guarantee that constant level of funding. Why have the access programs been

cut? Why are they on the "may" list rather than the "must"

list?

I could go on and quote some of the ten top myths about the schools.

I thought it was a very fair and good article, but I'm not going to do

that. The education

section of the throne speech says that the

government does not believe in throwing money at problems. I'd like to

translate that for my constituents: "Unless, of course, the problem is

getting re-elected. If the problem is to get re-elected, then we're

going to throw lots of money at that problem because we've always done

that." So if we take all this money that we've saved and stolen from

the people who need it, we'll use it for McKim Advertising and for the

other fast-buck boys that are very close to this government. That's the

sort of thing that I think we can look forward to.

We're often called old-fashioned over here — irrelevant; that we

haven't had a new idea since 1930. I've got a couple of quotations here

that I thought would be very important. They're from 1932: "We cannot

squander ourselves into prosperity." You realize this is at the height

of the Depression. I hear that today. That's a modern idea: we can't

buy ourselves out of the recession. This man says we cannot squander

ourselves into prosperity. Here's another one: "Prosperity cannot be

restored by raids on the public treasury." That's a good one. That's a

good right-wing statement.

HON. MR. McGEER: Who made that?

MR. ROSE: Herbert Hoover, 1932. But somebody came in by the

name of Roosevelt, and he got the government involved in intruding into

the economy. He gave those people hope, provided jobs, provided

incentives and provided some kind of social milieu that brought them

out of the Depression. The kind of thinking that goes on over there is

the kind of old-fashioned thinking that was popular with Herbert Hoover

in 1932. What happened to him? He was the biggest flop in American

history.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, good morning. And good morning

to the few MLAs who are present in this assembly. The member who has

just taken his place has already given me his apologies because he's

unable to remain in the chamber any longer. I quite understand that.

These days I think a member should be commended if he even bothers to

show up in the assembly to make a speech.

My proposal this morning is that the throne speech in future be

cancelled. It should be allowed to die a natural death for reasons of

lack of interest, not really on the part of the public but lack of

interest on the part of the members. If we're going to continue to meet

in this assembly, go through the expense and trouble of bringing

together the elected members only for the purposes of three or four....

Let me see, I've perhaps exaggerated; there are four NDP members, but

in addition we've got seven government members. It's unfortunate that

our Legislature in British Columbia should have sunk to such depths in

a throne debate. It's unfortunate that the public should be supporting

a Legislative Assembly which caters in its sitting hours to a handful

of MLAs.

Mr. Speaker, we would be better, under the circumstances, to

eliminate the throne debate unless and until the members themselves

take some interest in the proceedings. Failing that, perhaps we can

move on to business which is

[ Page

3283 ]

ultimately more relevant, rather than the

traditional grievance before supply, and do the estimates and the

legislation. Of course the budget and the legislation are consequential

to people outside the chamber, because it bears on the administrative

affairs of the province. The opportunity to provide new ideas, to

provide the competition of policies and purpose, which is the stuff of

elected membership as opposed to administration, goes now in our

province by default. In my view, that's to the detriment of democracy

and the purposes of our Legislature in British Columbia. But given the

circumstances of our Legislature in British Columbia, we might as well

accept reality. In addition to cancelling the throne debate, it might

serve better purposes to take a vote on it today. Then, when we get

into estimates, instead of repeating the process we've witnessed in the

last few years, in which a mere handful of members take the time of the

whole Legislative Assembly, we might be better to refer the details of

the estimates to committee, where perhaps two or three handfuls could

be taking part at the same time, one in one room and one in another,

before individual committees. That would have the advantage of

efficient examination of the estimates in somewhat greater detail and,

in the final analysis, a saving to the public of the expenditure on

this meeting itself.

[11:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

HON. MR. McGEER: I think that the purpose of the

recommendation becomes a little more evident with each passing day. I

don't expect that this particular suggestion will see the light of day,

because one of the consequences of lack of interest in the assembly and

the debate is an understandable lack of interest on the part of the

media in recording what goes on here with the general public. The day

when members themselves worked very hard on a speech and on the ideas

they thought were worth presenting because their constituents had been

consulted by them, and therefore the citizen had a way of speaking to

other citizens through the members in this Legislative Assembly, has

passed. Hopefully it will one day revive, but evidently not with this

particular Legislative Assembly.

Nonetheless, Mr; Chairman, defying the traditions of the moment, I

would like to address a few remarks to what I believe to be the general

issues of the day, even though the members themselves and the media are

not at all interested in the proceedings.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're interesting.

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

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is, I think, imputing

improper motives to members of all sides of this assembly. He is implying that

people are not interested in the proceedings of this House. He knows full well

that most of them are probably listening to their speakers in their offices

and also attending to their duties. He is being most improper and unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the minister did not impute any

improper motives to any member. Attendance is the responsibility of

each individual member.

HON. MR. McGEER: If I have imputed anything improper to all

those MLAs who are listening carefully down in their offices, I

challenge them to come back into this assembly and confront me. Do you

know what, Mr. Speaker? There isn't one of them listening to anything

in his office. You know it, I know it and the member opposite knows it.

But I want to give him credit, because he's in listening to these

speeches and he's not even the next one on the list. The next one on

the list isn't here, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: We may surprise you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: But it may surprise you.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, I see, there's going to be another

member. I thought that they were here not because they were next on the

list but because they were interested. I want to say to that corporal's

guard over there that I have a special respect for you members, because

you're in a class apart from the others: you attend the debates.

Mr. Speaker, to the issues of the moment. I dwelt at some length on

this issue, trivial as it may appear to be, because it really bears in

a far more serious way on the long-term role of a legislature in the

democratic process. But I want to come to the heart of any debate,

which is the essence of what divides one side of the House from the

other — those basic philosophical principles and directions that in the

final analysis cause the voting public to make their judgments one way

or another. I'm going to review what some of those judgments have been

a little later on, because I wouldn't want to disappoint the members

and have them feel that my memory was failing me.

I think that the key phrases which clearly separate this side of the

House from the other are contained in the early pages of the throne

speech, in which the government makes clear that "the restraint program

has set in motion and put in place the fundamentals that through hard

effort" will be continued and eventually produce the best of results.

"My government is providing leadership in restraint to governments

across Canada," says the Lieutenant- Governor of British Columbia. Of

course, the Lieutenant-Governor is correct in that, and therefore needs

to be supported when the vote on the throne debate is finally taken.

The Lieutenant-Governor says: "I am advised that significant

progress has been achieved in reducing the size of government,

including the number of persons employed in the public service." This,

of course, is for some not terribly good news. But given the

circumstances of Canada, it is the important message, because lying

behind those sentences is the fundamental economic principle that

governments may create jobs, but governments cannot and do not produce

wealth.

[ Page 3284 ]

We hear today the complaint and concern of many in the labour

movement, and almost everyone in the NDP, that there is this fear of

disappearance of jobs, and that governments must take the

responsibility of creating jobs. We even heard it in the federal budget

brought down in the House of Commons in Ottawa just yesterday. What we

must do, if our country is to succeed, is destroy the myths about the

economy, which, if believed, will lead to poverty instead of wealth. If

one believes that the kind of economic activity that governments

generate by hiring civil servants to provide service jobs to the public

at large.... If that production of jobs creates wealth, and if that

myth rests in anyone's mind, especially those in elective office, then

the country's long-term problems will become deeper than they are

today. There is no problem of governments creating jobs. If nobody else

can do it, we can. The problem is in creating wealth, in finding those

jobs that are attached to primary production. That's what we lack in

this country. And that's what governments cannot do. What governments

must realize is that the jobs they provide have got to be sufficiently

below the true wealth-producing jobs in society so that they don't

compromise the ability of the true wealth-producers to produce that

wealth.

The best economic lesson I ever had in my life was last fall

alongside the Ohio River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I went by a

huge plant which the taxi driver told me was at one time the largest

steel mill in the world. That steel mill is now closed. Unemployment in

the area near Pittsburgh is among the highest in North America. There

is a demand for steel. There are skilled steelworkers unemployed. There

is a plant standing idle that could be put back to work tomorrow. Then

you say: if the plant's there, if the demand is there, if the skilled

workers are there, how come it's closed? The Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) knows why it's closed, and anybody with common sense

knows why it's closed. Because the demands of the people who work in

that mill, through their trade unions, have made that whole operation

non-viable.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a tragedy. But I ask the member: has

something like that ever happened in British Columbia? Did we ever

close down a mill where the demand was there, where the skilled workers

were there? Where we closed a mill that could function and people went

unemployed? Have we done that in British Columbia? Yes, you bet we

have. Is that economic idiocy, Mr. Speaker? You bet it is, and when

that happens a lot of jobs that lie behind true wealth production fall

down as well. Then what do people do? They come and say that government

has to create jobs. What are we supposed to do? Hire more people to

provide services in schools and hospitals, or something like that, and

borrow the money to do that? If you do that, the next time that mill

tries to open it has to carry all the debt burden of the past.

In Canada we're worrying about the per capita debt of the Reagan

administration in the United States, and we realize that right here in

British Columbia we are building up a debt on our provincial account

this year which is equivalent to that of the United States of America.

Then we heard the federal Minister of Finance give us the bad news from

Ottawa. So our citizens are adding on double that again as the federal

debt. The citizens of western Canada, and all of Canada, are building a

debt triple that of the United States, and people haven't wakened up to

it. No, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is still demanding more

government jobs and more spending. Spend your way out of that situation

and you'll ruin us.

That's why we've got to establish a beachhead somewhere in Canada

that says we're going to come back and build a true economy in this

country. That's what leadership here is all about. This is why the

Premier of British Columbia should be the Prime Minister of Canada. He

is the one who understands what must be done to bring this country back

to its competitive place in the world, which which will be our true

source of wealth. Instead of boosting the Premier of British Columbia

for the prime ministership of Canada, instead of going with us on this

crusade right across our land and saying, "Follow the steps here in

British Columbia, because we will lead the country to prosperity," what

have we got? We have an opposition who are telling us what a wonderful

man Roosevelt was and what a terrible man Hoover was. I don't know what

Hoover or Roosevelt would have done, faced with the economic situation

in Canada today, but I know what Reagan or Thatcher would have done,

and I'll tell you this: we're not seeing that in Ottawa today. We need

the kind of realistic leadership in Canada that we've seen in some of

the other countries in the world that are coming back again after the

recession. The only place we can find that kind of leadership in Canada

today is right here in British Columbia. What do we have? This

corporal's guard of people asking for us to go more deeply into debt

and compound the problem.

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

[11:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: Now they're criticizing Reagan. I think

that's fine, Mr. Speaker, but if Reagan has got the United States into

trouble, will you please tell me what the situation is in Canada when

we're three times as bad and still going into debt at a record rate?

Think about that. We shouldn't be worried about Reagan in the United

States. We've got to be worried about ourselves.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. NICOLSON: Sure, out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McGEER: Right out of British Columbia? If British

Columbia is closing down mills when the mills are ready, when the

workers are there, when the demand is present, if they're leaving

British Columbia, it's the owners who are leaving, isn't it? Why are

they doing that? Because we've set taxes so high and we have so many

counter-productive work practices that they can't function. That would

be why they'd go to Australia. They wouldn't go there because the taxes

were higher, the wage rates higher or the resources better. They might

go there because there were sounder national policies. I can't say

that. They wouldn't have to be very sound to be sounder than the ones

practised in Canada today.

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

[ Page

3285 ]

long period of time. There have been pivotal years:

1933 was a pivotal year. That was the year Hoover was going down. I

tell you, they didn't turn to the left in British Columbia. No sit,

they rejected the NDP right there. That was 1933, a pivotal year.

Another pivotal year was 1937. Roosevelt was going strong in the United

States. They didn't turn to the NDP here then. No, they stayed to the

right. Another pivotal year was 1941 — pivoted to the right again.

Pivoted to the right in 1945. In 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963,

1069 we have pivoted to the right. I think there really wasn't a pivot

to the left in 1972. We'll go through 1972 again, because we need to

remind ourselves: '72 was the year when there was so much political

competition on the right that the left won. That was when the right let

down.... There was no pivot to the left. The NDP never got more votes

than they'd got previously; it was just that along came Scott Wallace,

the maverick Social Crediter, who supported the Conservative Party.

There were still Liberals alive then in western Canada, so there we

were. The public thought they were going straight ahead, and what

happened? They sunk into the quagmire of New Democratic Party policies.

That was when productive employment began to go down. As one of the

elected Liberal members said: "British Columbia under the NDP had done

the impossible: they had created despair in the mining industry at a

time of record mineral prices." It is some feat — alchemy in reverse —

to turn minerals into rock. That is still the NDP policy. They can

still turn minerals into rock, and they can turn timber into an

unharvestable forest. You can do that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You've done it. That's the problem with

believing that wealth doesn't come from resources but from government

handouts. It's yielding to the temptation of taking from the

wealth-producers and offering it to the public as your own, suggesting

to them that there is an infinite source, and that the goodies and the

handouts will be theirs if only they put in the people who are the

political alchemists capable of turning minerals into rock.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: It's not a good line; it's a fact. The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) knows that it's a fact. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knows that it's a fact. The

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) knows that it's a fact.

All through the throne speech there is a recurrent message, one of concentrating

on wealth production in the country and reducing expenditures that cannot be

afforded. It's this imbalance in Canada that can and should cause every

single citizen in our country deep concern. Many citizens wonder: "Why

should we be worrying about it just because the government of British Columbia

worries about it? After all, it's not a national concern." It's

see any demand for restraint on the part of the national government. You don't

see any move to reduce the enormous civil service in Ottawa. Yesterday I was

in the province of Alberta speaking to their Canadian Club in Edmonton. There's

a vacancy rate and a dip in economic activity in Alberta. Their oil and gas

industry, their coal industry, the productive industries of Canada upon which

our wealth depends, are in recession in Alberta because of the national energy

policy. There is, however, one city in our nation where there has been no recession:

Ottawa. Why? Because their apparent prosperity is built on government expenditures

that continue to leap ahead. That prosperity in Ottawa is loaded on the backs

of the wealth producers of western Canada, including those in Alberta. Our concern

should be twofold. Our concern should be the recession-proof condition of Ottawa,

which is a national deficit. and a true recession caused by those policies in

Alberta, which is the source of our future wealth. That's the situation

that has to be reversed.

It would be my proposal that the national government, if they cannot

have the Premier of British Columbia as our Prime Minister, at least

follow his policies. Let's begin making inroads on that $30 billion

debt by reducing the number of people who are attempting to live off

wealth that isn't there. I would start by eliminating the CRTC. There

are several hundred jobs right there. They're not doing any good for

Canada; they're merely introducing inefficiencies into the private

sector. I'd continue on by eliminating other unnecesssary expenditures

from the national capital. I think we could totally eliminate the

Ministry of Fitness and Amateur Sport. We don't need that. We could

save all those jobs.

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

Interjections.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, we want Mr. Trudeau's peace initiative.

It's one of the useful things he's done. He wasn't doing any good

running the economy of Canada. He might as well be doing something in

international affairs.

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

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

Any other suggestions? Surely the New Democratic Party can think of

some way we can save money in Ottawa. Suggest whole departments that we

could eliminate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: The Senate? All right, there's a good

suggestion from the NDP: eliminate the Senate. Certainly we've had the

worst kind of patronage appointments of all time in the last few days,

so I accept the New Democratic Party's suggestion there. Any other

ideas of what we can eliminate in Ottawa?

Interjection.

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

[ Page 3286 ]

perhaps the Senate could make some useful

suggestions as to who might go with them. If we can eliminate, let's

say, a third of the people in Ottawa and get the vacancy rate in Ottawa

to about the level it is in Calgary, and move some of those people out

to work in the oil and gas industry, we'll be back to some wealth

production in Canada; then maybe it will be possible to restore some of

the programs that the New Democratic Party has championed for all these

years, not keeping in mind that it took a little bit of wealth

production to satisfy them.

Mr. Speaker, we've pursued, I think, a useful course of debate here. I'm

going to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House,

which will be early this afternoon, with the suggestion that over the lunch

hour the New Democratic Party members might be thinking about some other functions

from Ottawa that we could usefully remove and thereby divert the taxes to more

productive endeavours here in British Columbia. With the hope of positive suggestions

from my friends opposite, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada