1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, JULY 27, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's special report No. 6: "A 'Matter of Administration': B.C. Appeal Court Judgment."

Mr. Speaker –– 9031

Oral Questions

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 9031

Donation of Xerox copier to Vancouver Junior League. Mr. Howard –– 9031

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 9032

Red Hot Video Ltd. Ms. Brown –– 9032

B.C. Hydro subdivision of Site C agricultural land. Mrs. Wallace –– 9032

Manufactured homes. Mr. Leggatt –– 9033

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 9033

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Barrett

On the amendment to vote 4 –– 9042

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Howard

Division

Income Tax Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 74). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 9050

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 67). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Bennett)

Third reading –– 9050

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Report. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 9050

Land Use Act (Bill 72). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9050

Mr. Barber –– 9052

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, sixth report.

Mr. Strachan, chairman –– 9054

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, among

the many visitors to the capital city who are in the precincts today

are two special guests in the west gallery who are visiting from

Regina: Caroline Bergbusch, who is 16, and Peter Bergbusch, who is 14.

They are children of Dr. and Mrs. Martin Bergbusch of Regina. They are

accompanied by someone known to a number of us, I believe, Miss Muriel

Pottinger, who is their aunt. She retired 12 years ago after 37 years'

service with the Ministry of Education. I wonder if the House would

make them welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are two guests of mine from Fort St. John: Mr. Henry

Litzenberger and Mr. Ivor Miller. I would like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us

today are a couple of friends of ours from the great Peace River

country. They have been active in the progressive political movement

all their lives. I'm sure the House will want to welcome Mr. and Mrs.

Bill Close from Dawson Creek.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm proud indeed today to introduce my guest. He's our

youngest son Scott, who is on a few days' leave. He's with Frontier

Helicopters, working in the northern part of our province. Would the

House please welcome young Scott Ritchie.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I've been asked today to introduce, in the gallery,

Malcolm and Todd Venier from Abbotsford, here with their mother Judy

and visiting their aunt Dulsie McCallum — all in Victoria, all welcome

today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries and

in the precincts today are representatives from each of the Gulf

Islands within my constituency — Hornby, Denman and Lasqueti. They are

here today expressing their concern outside on the legislative lawns

with respect to legislation that is before us.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, also with us today are several members, including the

Speaker, of the Legislature of New Brunswick. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 6, entitled "A 'Matter of Administration': B.C. Appeal Court Judgment."

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD:

My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The

minister has had 24 hours to supply us with the names of the

legislators of Arizona whom he said he met with. Will he provide the

House with the names? Has he decided to do that now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I took that question as notice. I'll

certainly be providing those particulars before the session adjourns, in the

very near future.

MR. MACDONALD:

A Mr. Walter Sterling, a K-Mart shopping centre developer and sometime

dinner guest of the minister, says that he first met the minister in

Scottsdale because the wives of both of them were active in the Junior

League. Mr. Sterling said that the meeting led to a spur-of-the-moment

invitation to attend a private informal meeting organized by some

Junior League members to discuss a local education issue. Is this the

meeting that the minister referred to yesterday? Can he tell us what

business was discussed at that meeting?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I cannot comment on the accuracy of any quotations attributed in the

press to Mr. Sterling. As I indicated yesterday, the meeting I attended

featured three or four members of the Arizona state Legislature. They

spoke on specific topics of their interest or specialty and fielded

questions. There was an opportunity for discussions with them.

Certainly we had some notice of that meeting and did not go to it on

the "spur of the moment."

MR. MACDONALD: What Mr.

Sterling said was that this was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and that

he, Mr. Sterling, and the minister went to this meeting. The minister

has charged over $1,500 to the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia — based on this meeting, eh? Did you just happen to go with

Mr. Sterling to this meeting? Did he take you there?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

As I indicated, it was not a spur-of-the-moment attendance at the

meeting. As I recall, we were made aware of it one or two days in

advance of its taking place. We planned to go, we did go, and indeed

the Sterlings were at that meeting as well.

DONATION OF XEROX COPIER

TO VANCOUVER JUNIOR LEAGUE

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the minister of careless affairs....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is correct, yes.

With

respect to the surprise gift of a photocopying machine to the Junior

League, when Mr. MacMunn, director of finance in the minister's

department, informed the minister that he, the minister, couldn't

bestow such tangible gifts, the minister replied by saying: "Surely

this is a case of the tail wagging the dog." Now, pray, who was the

tail and who was the dog? What did the minister mean by that comment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member could just read for me the full portion

or paragraph of that memo, and I'd be happy to answer the question.

MR. HOWARD:

In a supplemental way, could I ask the minister if he would recall that

the full context of that paragraph involved a reference to one Mrs.

Hyndman being president of the Junior League, and that perhaps that was

the rationale for the gift?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that would not be correct, since she was not.

[ Page 9032 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: She was just running for it.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

The notes say that she was a candidate for that office; that's correct,

Mr. Speaker. The minister is quite correct, for once in his life.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This sounds like debate; I do not hear a question. The member is out of order.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. On June 1 the Premier

took as notice a question I asked him as to whether the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs had discussed with him previously the

matter of making a refund of certain of his expenses to the treasury.

Is the Premier now prepared to answer that question and tell us whether

or not that refund was made after a discussion with the Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be answering that question in due course, Mr. Speaker.

RED HOT VIDEO LTD.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. On June 24, and

again on June 30, July 3 and July 8, a coalition of citizens and

community groups in North Vancouver and Victoria sent telegrams to the

minister concerning the distribution by Red Hot Video of films which

contravene B.C. guidelines governing pornography. Can the minister

confirm that he has failed to acknowledge receipt of any of these

telegrams or letters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN:

Can the minister tell us why no charges have been laid in the North

Vancouver case, in view of the minister's statement on June 22, and I

quote: "If we receive a complaint from the purchasers, charges will be

laid."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The complaint which the

member mentions is currently under consideration by senior officials in

the criminal justice division of the ministry.

MS. BROWN:

Is the minister aware that Crown counsel in North Vancouver has

indicated he will not be laying charges, although the material carried

by Red Hot Video is in violation of the guidelines? The reason he gave

is that the first court hearing would not be until November.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member's information is a bit stale. The matter has been taken

under consideration since the indication to which she makes reference.

B.C. HYDRO SUBDIVISION OF

SITE C AGRICULTURAL LAND

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, while he was

not answering my question, the minister did say that the Agricultural

Land Development Act stipulates that subdivision within the

agricultural land reserve has to be approved by the Land Commission,

something we all knew. In regard to Site C and B.C. Hydro, what action

has the minister decided to take against B.C. Hydro for contravening

this statute?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have done some

research on the member's question and I've had legal counsel looking at

the information that was provided to me. It appears that the

legislation governing B.C. Hydro has a

section in it which indicates

that no other act shall take precedent, while at the same time the Land

Commission says something similar. I've asked legislative counsel to

advise me on the best way to handle it, and how I could make

recommendations to my cabinet colleagues.

MRS. WALLACE:

Perhaps the member is not aware of it, but B.C. Hydro indicated, when

we questioned them on this, that they were using

section 114 of the

Land Title Act to deposit a statutory right-of-way relative to the

subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve, without the

consent of the Agricultural Land Commission. Inasmuch as what was done

was a subdivision, rather than the establishment of a right-of-way,

what action has the minister decided to take to prevent this class one

and class two land from being subdivided into less viable units?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, I am aware that the subdivisions as such were filed under a

statutory right-of-way. My information is that land registry has ceased

to register any of those items without reference to the Land

Commission. The member refers, if my information is correct, to actions

that took place some time ago, not recently. They came to the fore

during discussions at the Public Utilities hearing.

The

statutory right-of-way which Hydro used did affect a subdivision. We're

trying to get clarification as to the proper procedure for handling

such items, considering that we have two pieces of legislation in the

province, both of which appear to have sections that authorize the

actions taken by Hydro.

MRS. WALLACE: A question to

the Attorney-General. If he has been listening to this discussion,

wherein Hydro has in effect circumvented the law by using

section 114

right-of-way for a subdivision, has the Attorney-General decided to

undertake a review of the circumstances surrounding these land

registrations to ascertain whether or not they have been registered in

contravention of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I have not decided. If the member had listened to what the Minister of

Agriculture said in his response, the matter is being examined by the

lawyers.

[ Page 9033 ]

MANUFACTURED HOMES

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) some questions concerning the awarding of a $4.5 million

contract for manufactured homes to Alma Homes of Alberta in respect to

the Quintette coal development, and I have before me letters of protest

from the industry. In view of the fact that most of the six major B.C.

housing manufacturing companies were not invited to tender, has the

minister now decided to change the tendering arrangements that the

Quintette company is using in order that British Columbia workers,

businesses and taxpayers are protected and given the contracts on

northeast coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm always amazed at the socialists, who speak one thing and do another.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When the second member for Vancouver East was in the petroleum association he went to London....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question, as I recall it, came from the other end of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They went to London. They were going to build an oil refinery by British Columbia taxpayers out of London.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

However, let me answer the question. There were seven bids on the

contract including five bids from British Columbia: Atco, Manco,

Moduline Industries, General Homes and Glen River. The Alberta bidder

was the low bidder, beating out General, but their bid was made even

more attractive because it specified Gyproc ceilings — a strong plus

not included in the General Homes bid. Moduline Industries from British

Columbia came third.

The award of this contract is

consistent with the procurement policy of Quintette Mines, and as the

Minister of Labour ably said the other day, we're not going to build

picket fences between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia,

because if we build one they'll build one higher. I also want to point

out to the House that the province of Alberta, through its assistance

in the construction of the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, is putting

Alberta taxpayers' money in the province of British Columbia. By and

large, there has been great cooperation between the two sister

provinces. I also want to advise the House that in the past a large

number of trailers, commercial and otherwise, have been built in

British Columbia and found their home in Alberta.

Contrary

to what the opposition has tried to say, and contrary to press reports

that this is the first major contract to be let by Quintette for mobile

homes, there have been numerous 250-man camps supplied by the industry

in British Columbia plus the 1,000-man camp supplied by the industry in

British Columbia.

This bid, which was awarded by Quintette

to an Alberta firm just recently, represents only 7 percent of

Quintette's housing requirements for Tumbler Ridge. Already another

$1.2 million contract for double-wide fourplexes has gone to General

Homes of British Columbia.

I want to impress upon the

taxpayers of British Columbia and this Legislative Assembly that

business flows freely between British Columbia and Alberta, and

hopefully all provinces in Canada. It's not for us to establish picket

fences between these two friendly provinces. However, I do want to say

that this government and ministry is continually monitoring purchasing

in the resource industry, something that has never gone on before in

this province....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I sense that the House feels the answer is now too lengthy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to make sure that they understood the complete situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Hon. members, I'd like you to extend a very warm and cordial welcome to

Mr. and Mrs. Peter Cromie, who are in the gallery this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 4: Premier's office, $709,124.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman and members of the assembly, including the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), wherever he may be today, it's a

pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak to my estimates in

this Legislature.

Almost six months ago I attended, as

Premier of British Columbia, a conference of first ministers on the

economy. You will recall that for about a year, as chairman of the

provincial premiers, I had attempted to convince the Prime Minister to

convene such a conference. Unfortunately, Mr. Trudeau was preoccupied

with the constitution at the time. Our economy continued to

deteriorate, and it became necessary to resolve Mr. Trudeau's issue

before the premiers could convince him to turn his attention to the

economy.

Over the course of the three-day conference held in

early February, I put forward a four-pronged attack to bring down

inflation and interest rates, and get back on the path of sustained

job-creating growth. I would like to refer to my closing statement, if

I may, to refresh the memories of members of this House concerning the

details of the plan.

[ Page 9034 ]

First,

I urged all governments to control their spending, with the goal of

reducing and eventually eliminating borrowing to finance operating

expenditures. I did so in the belief that such borrowing spurs

inflation, crowds out the private sector and raises the interest rates

for, among others, small businessmen and homeowners in our province.

The

recent federal budget, with its anticipated deficit of $20 billion,

only serves to confirm the view that I put forward last February. By

its own definition, the federal government is now in dire straits, with

over 30 percent of its income being robbed from programs and going to

pay dead-weight debt, with the total accumulated national debt having

doubled in just the last four years. The philosophy of "spend more and

borrow more," which for all but one of the past 30 years has been

rejected firmly in British Columbia, has now been clearly discredited

for all Canadians to see, for it has saddled our country with a

permanent debt of staggering proportions and has left Ottawa and many

provinces precious little room to manoeuvre in the quest for economic

recovery.

Unfortunately the federal government has not yet

seen fit to follow British Columbia's practice in this area, choosing

to ask for restraint from everyone but themselves; but, to their

credit, Ottawa has at least begun to see the error of its ways. In

fact, one of the few big spenders still around is the leader of the

federal NDP — and perhaps also some of his provincial counterparts and

fellow caucus members — who in response to the recent federal budget,

urged Ottawa to stimulate the economy by undertaking measures that

would have added at least $5 billion more to the federal deficit. I

noted, however, that nowhere in his comments did he applaud the federal

deficit, which will inject $9 billion into the economy in the form of

additional deficit, or almost twice as much stimulus as he has

advocated.

Mr. Chairman, the unholy alliance of the Trudeau

government and the New Democratic Party since 1972 bears a heavy

responsibility, that will not be quickly forgotten, for having

invisibly mortgaged the future of our young people, who will have to

pay the bills for these spending excesses. I ask the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who is reputed, in some quarters at

least, to be a reasonable man, whether he supports the $20 billion

federal deficit and whether he shares the view of his former leader

that we should add $5 billion more to it.

Mr. Chairman, at

the February meeting I also recommended that we begin to earn our way

in the tough but conquerable international marketplace. I continue to

believe that we must increase our exports by enhancing our productivity

and by removing bottlenecks such as those afflicting the western rail

transportation system. As a nation we have the second-worst record of

productivity increases of all of the industrialized countries, and

since 1975 Canada has experienced no productivity increases at all.

What we must realize is that in the absence of productivity increases,

any wage gains, however small they may be, are inflationary. We must

also face squarely the proposition that to distribute wealth, you first

have to create it.

Thirdly, at the February meeting I urged

the federal government to convey a more hospitable attitude toward

foreign investment and to improve the climate for investment for

Canadians in particular. I did so in the belief that much of the reason

for our usurious interest rates was to prop up our dollar, which has

been rendered flaccid by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the

national energy program and other misguided policies at the national

level. In recognition of the fact that it would not be easy in the

short term to lower our interest rates to the levels we would all wish,

I put forward to my colleagues the idea of federal-provincial

development bonds as a tax-free savings and investment vehicle to

cushion the impact of high interest rates on homeowners and others and

to stimulate our economy. In its recent budget, Ottawa gave some

evidence of having adopted this in principle. Unfortunately it is only

studying the concept and has not made clear what role, if any,

provinces are expected to play, so we, for our part, Mr. Chairman, will

continue to work on our provincial bonds.

Fourthly, I urged

my fellow first ministers to undertake immediately large-scale

job-creating investments to strengthen those sectors that have the

goods and services, such as liquefied natural gas and coal, which are

in demand in international markets, and to stimulate employment for our

people. Unfortunately, since February major resource projects in both

Alberta and Manitoba have been cancelled, leaving British Columbia's

northeast coal as the only ongoing large, job-creating project in

Canada today. That project and the proposed LNG and petrochemical

projects have been encouraged by this government. It's clear that the

lesson to be drawn is that the world will not wait while we Canadians

sort out our federal-provincial difficulties, or while a new government

tries to renegotiate commercial arrangements. The window of opportunity

is indeed a narrow one. It does not wait for those who are capable only

of political posturing but rewards men of action, such as my colleague

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips).

When leaving Ottawa, I stated that in one sense I

was disappointed with the results of the conference, because no firm

actions were agreed upon to lower interest rates and inflation and get

our people back to work. However, I indicated that in another sense it

had been useful for first ministers to meet. We had the opportunity to

share ideas, to begin to develop a consensus that would ease the

practical difficulties facing our people. In fact, I was confident at

the time that eventually most, if not all, governments would come

around to British Columbia's view on economic recovery. I think we have

seen at least partial evidence of this in recent weeks and months.

However,

in the interim I realized — and so informed the other first ministers —

that as Premier of the province of British Columbia it was my

responsibility to take whatever measures we could within our own sphere

of jurisdiction. Despite the fact that the current recession is

worldwide in scope, and that the road to recovery lies largely beyond

our provincial borders, on February 18 I announced a comprehensive

restraint on government programs. I outlined some of the measures the

government would pursue to strengthen the economy. The program put in

place a 12 percent limit on government expenditures to apply to

municipal and local governments, post-secondary educational

institutions, school boards, hospitals, private societies performing

public functions and, of course, provincial government operations

themselves. Moreover, I announced the inauguration of a compensation

stabilization program to establish upper limits of 8 to 14 percent for

all persons working in the public sector.

Despite the fact

that our program was only a gentle application of the brakes, there has

been criticism. We expected criticism. In fact, we expected more of it

than we got. Restraint is never popular, nor is it easy to achieve. In

asking

[ Page 9035 ]

for

restraint, we are breaking old habits. It's like the football fans in

the first ten rows at a game. They inevitably stand up in the

excitement of the play and block the view of those behind. "If only the

other guy would restrain himself, then we could all see the game,"

they say. Does that not describe the current predicament that we

Canadians are in today. If only the other guy would restrain himself,

then perhaps we could all move ahead. Some of the criticism we received

has been sincere and legitimate, expressing real concern about the

prospect of layoffs and the loss of essential services. However, the

initial prediction that 3,000 to 5,000 teachers would be laid off as a

result of restraint has proved to be unfounded, as even spokesmen for

the Teachers Federation now acknowledge.

Some of the

criticism has been misguided. This is true of those who in the face of

the cruellest form of restraint in the private sector — namely, growing

bankruptcies, layoffs and unemployment — contend that we have somehow

singled out the public-sector workers. I'm saddened to observe that a

small number of critics have been cynical and hypocritical in the

extreme, sensationalizing excesses in spending that amount to hundreds

of dollars while, at the same time, opposing restraint on government

spending that over time will save the people of this province hundreds

of millions of dollars.

So although there has been some

criticism, broadly I have been extremely pleased by the number of

people who have written to me in support of our program and the

leadership that we demonstrated in showing the rest of the country that

it could be done. If I can be philosophical for a moment, much of the

legitimate criticism is the inevitable fallout of having come first.

Lessons have been learned, and it is incumbent upon a responsive and

responsible government to make whatever adjustments are necessary.

Mr.

Chairman, governments have a responsibility to lead rather than to

engage in political posturing and attempting to foment fear campaigns

to achieve political ends. By "leadership" I do not mean turning your

back on the rest of the people, as those on the other side of the House

have done, and then claiming that everyone is behind you. Governments

have a duty, particularly in these difficult times, to work toward

economic recovery, unlike those on the opposite side of this House, who

by their irresponsibility have demonstrated throughout this session

that they have no interest beyond their own political recovery.

Earlier

this year the opposition criticized the government and urged us to call

back the Legislature to deal with the economy. What have they spent

their time on since we called the Legislature back? Mr. Chairman, the

members opposite have no new economic ideas, no figures to propose on

what they would consider to be the appropriate level of restraint —

just worn-out, recycled dogma that they hoped they could somehow get by

on. So they have spent their time during this session seeking headlines

and acting totally irresponsibly, in the view of many observers of the

political scene in British Columbia.

Members of the

Legislature yesterday heard the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

announce strong measures that will control the kind of spending on

which the opposition ostensibly, in the name of restraint, has spent

all of its time, research and effort during this session. Would it not

be fair to ask, in the name of sincerity, honesty and consistency, that

the opposition now cease and desist from the declaration of war on the

taxpayer and join with the government in supporting measures that will

save our people hundreds of millions of dollars?

announcing the specifics of the program on February 18, I indicated

that the government had rejected advice that harsher measures be

introduced. This was appropriate in view of economic conditions at the

time and in view of the advice we had received from economists, both

within and outside of government. But our original guidelines were

appropriate for another reason: British Columbia at the time was the

first and only government to embark on such a program, so I do not

apologize for the limits announced on February 18. But I note that

since February there have been two significant developments. Firstly,

the national and international economies, and with them that of British

Columbia, have continued to deteriorate. Our country and province

remain in the grips of an acute worldwide recession. Nationally about

30 percent of our production capacity remains idle. The demand for

goods and services has diminished, and there has been a dramatic drop

in commercial investments and profits.

The hoped-for

recovery in the United States has not materialized, largely because of

the enormous deficit that is keeping real interest rates at abnormally

high levels, and growth in the U.S. is now expected to be negative in

1982. At the national level there is a lack of comprehensive economic

policies, with the recent federal budget making crystal clear how

worrisome our current predicament is. National growth is now forecast

to decline by 2.2 percent. The prospect is for continuing high interest

rates as a result of the enormous federal deficit and debt. Our

inflation remains high, and there is clear and present danger that

unless we get our cost structure down we will continue to price

ourselves out of international markets.

Our provincial

economy has weakened, along with the national and international

economies, and growth is now forecast at 0.4 percent. I might add that

if it were not for the tremendous development of coal, transportation

systems and ports taking place now in the northeast of British

Columbia, we too would be in a negative growth position in this country

today. That project is keeping British Columbia on the positive growth

side of the ledger in a country where growth is not taking place.

Most

troubling to me, however, is the growing number of unemployed people,

which reached 157,000 in June, and the growing number of bankruptcies.

There will be some members of the opposite side of the House interested

in electoral and not economic growth, who would like British Columbians

to believe that our economic problems are the result of the sins of

this provincial government — ironically, the one government in Canada

that is managed prudently and that has undertaken a multitude of

job-creating investments. I would ask the hon. members opposite: would

the market for our lumber be helped a great deal by provincial policies

in the absence of a resurgence of the U.S. housing market and worldwide

recovery? Would the members opposite suggest that international prices

for our ferrous and non-ferrous metals could be improved by provincial

policies" Do the members opposite realize that we cannot isolate our

province as an island in a cruel international and national economic

sea, and that the people of this province are too intelligent to be

fooled by posturing? The people of Manitoba were fooled, and they will

pay dearly for it. They will pay higher taxes this year and in the

coming year to service a 30 percent increase in the

[ Page 9036 ]

provincial

deficit and they will pay still higher taxes and have fewer jobs as a

result of the three cancelled megaprojects that the NDP said it did not

oppose but only wished to renegotiate. Well, we heard that before, but

I think that British Columbians will prove that they will not be fooled

by such hollow rhetoric.

The second major development since

February is that the national government, in its recent budget, as well

as some other provincial governments, has taken at least one leaf from

British Columbia's book and embarked upon restraint programs of their

own. As members of this House know, the Prime Minister has asked all

segments of society to participate in an exercise of national will — to

leave old quarrels behind and to work towards economic recovery and the

5 and 6 percent society.

With the economy continuing to

deteriorate, the hoped-for international recovery this year not

materializing and the federal government's invitation to join in an

exercise of national will and cooperation, it became clear to the

government that the restraint program announced on February 18 would

have to be modified. Accordingly over the past month my ministers and I

have been consulting with a wide array of business and

labour leaders and with representatives of various groups in the public

sector, including health professionals, teachers, school trustees, the

university community and individual public servants. One thing has

become strikingly clear in the course of these consultations. British

Columbians strongly wish to work together, to share and to cooperate in

the search for a return to prosperity and security — like the woman who

recently called my office to say that her schoolteacher husband would

be willing to take less of his 17.5 percent increase if it would allow

her daughter, who is also a schoolteacher, to be called back to work.

When

the going gets tough, British Columbians are like a family that knows

it can only succeed if they all pull together. This is why we have made

job sharing the essence of our restraint program. I've been impressed

by the willingness of British Columbians to take a little bit less so

that more of their brothers and sisters can keep working. I've been

convinced through these consultations that British Columbians are

prepared to participate in fighting and winning the economic war as

long as the solution is fair and equitable to all.

considering modifications to the restraint on government programs, my

colleagues and I have examined very carefully the program recently

introduced but not yet passed by the federal government, as well as the

view of those in business and labour with whom we consulted.

We've

come to the conclusion that Ottawa's program is deficient in several

respects. First, the federal program has significantly curtailed the

right of collective bargaining in the public service. In contrast, as I

stated on February 18, and notwithstanding some initial misinformed

criticism, including editorial opinion, under British Columbia's

compensation stabilization program collective bargaining in the public

sector will take place in the regular manner over a wide range of

monetary and non-monetary issues, subject to the limits to be enforced

by the commissioner.

Second, the federal compensation

program is in some respects unfair in applying rigid, across-the-board

limits of 6 percent and 5 percent. A federal deputy minister in Ottawa

earning $100,000 a year and his filing clerk earning $15,000 a year

will receive the same 6 percent increase. In contrast, British

Columbia's compensation stabilization program, by establishing limits

for groups rather than individuals, permits agreements that yield

greater percentage increases for lower-paid workers — in many cases,

women and minority groups — and lower percentage increases for

higher-paid civil servants.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be

about five minutes longer than my allowable time. I ask leave of the

House to be able to continue my statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Third, Ottawa's program, through an inflexible 6 percent and 5 percent

solution, preserves intact the disparities that have arisen between and

among various unions in the public service. In contrast, British

Columbia's compensation stabilization program allows unions that may

have fallen behind in the past to catch up with those which have done

better.

Fourth, the federal government's program, by simply

renewing existing contracts, preserves intact all those practices of

featherbedding and unproductivity that are the basis of the low regard

in which the public servant unfortunately is held in some quarters,

although not by me or members of my government. In contrast, British

Columbia's compensation stabilization program contains a special award

for productivity increases that are agreed to through collective

bargaining, and has a built-in incentive to ensure the economy and

efficiency legitimately demanded, and in many cases received, by the

public.

Finally, British Columbia's compensation

stabilization program has as its foundation the principles of

work-sharing and the preservation of a high standard of public service

concepts foreign to the federal program. In the course of my

consultations I have found that most public-sector employees believe

that public service goes well beyond questions of wages and benefits,

and is really about serving the public to the best of their ability.

The

decision whether to opt into the federal program, which is simpler and

would be more easily administered, is really one of whether British

Columbia should abandon its compensation stabilization program, which

is fairer and more equitable, has greater flexibility and preserves

collective bargaining, employment and services in the public sector.

Put in these terms the decision was rather straightforward. I'm pleased

to inform the House that the government has decided to go forward with

the compensation stabilization program, under the administration of Mr.

Ed Peck.

However, in view of the 6 percent and 5 percent

limits established by the federal government and the continuing

deterioration of the economy, I wish to announce that effective today

the basic income factor is reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent in the

first year, and is established at 5 percent in the second year. These

limits are adjustable either upwards or downwards, depending on the

impact of certain factors; namely, an experience adjustment factor

ranging from plus 2 percent to minus 3 percent in the first year, and

plus or minus 2 percent in the second year; and a productivity and

special circumstances factor with a range of 2 percent to minus 3

percent in both years. Thus, under the regulations, the range in the

first year will be from zero percent to 10 percent, and in the second

year from zero percent to 9 percent.

Members of the assembly

know that last week the government introduced legislation that will

roll back MLA and ministerial salaries to 1.9 percent, effective August

1, and will establish next year's increase at zero percent. Members

[ Page 9037 ]

this House are working people too, with bills to pay and homes to

maintain, but the government believes that elected members have a

special responsibility to provide leadership and serve as an example of

restraint and responsibility. So, too, do senior levels of the public

service, who, it will be recalled, have had no increase since October

1980, and had their salaries frozen by my announcement of February 18,

pending a report by Mr. Ed Peck.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to

report that the executive council has now received Mr. Peck's first

report, which recommends a 6 percent increase for deputy ministers, the

chairman of the Labour Relations Board, the president of ICBC and the

general manager of the Urban Transit Authority. The executive council

has concluded that while a 6 percent increase may have been appropriate

under the guidelines announced February 18, it would be excessive under

the limits I have announced today. Accordingly, this should not be

construed as a reflection on the dedication and commitment of deputy

ministers, who, as Mr. Peck reports, are paid less in relation to their

responsibilities than many other public-sector executives. The

government has approved an increase of 3 percent, which is near the

lower end of the newly established limits. Assistant deputy ministers,

who in some cases earn more than deputy ministers, will receive no

increase this year in order that the problems of compression pointed

out in Mr. Peck's report are not accentuated. The remaining public

sector employees whose salaries were frozen February 18 will be dealt

with in Mr. Peck's second report, which is expected shortly.

Senior

members of the public service have a responsibility to lead, not only

by dampening their compensation increases, but also through increasing

their productivity. Accordingly, effective August 1, all public

servants not covered by collective agreement will be expected to work a

full 40-hour week. As in the past, the compensation stabilization

program will incorporate not only enforceable regulations, but

voluntary guidelines for collective bargaining as well. The revised

guidelines establish criteria for changes in compensation, ranging

downward from 10 percent, and give a larger role to the commissioner in

assisting parties to reach settlements that preserve jobs and maintain

vital public services. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who

is responsible for the Compensation Stabilization Act, in the next few

days will issue substantially new detailed regulations and guidelines

for the revised program. In the interests of fairness, however, I wish

to make it clear that groups of employees who have finalized collective

agreements between February 18 and today will be treated by the

commissioner under the limits announced at an earlier date.

recent weeks it has become clear as well that the expenditure limits

established on February 18 are in need of revision, particularly in

view of the continuing economic slide and massive federal and

provincial deficits, which are one of the prime contributors to the

high inflation and punitive interest rates that are hurting our people.

It is evident to me and to my government — additional protests to the

contrary notwithstanding — that the limits established on February 18

for school boards, municipalities, universities and colleges were

generous and have been easily managed. These limits have already saved

the taxpayers many millions of dollars that would otherwise have been

spent on nonessential items. The taxpayer today does not have the money

to send to government, contrary to the view of the free spenders in our

society and in this House.

In the course of our

consultations over the past few weeks, I have been impressed by the

willingness, and indeed the desire, of public-sector employees and

employers to be part of the solution, to participate in economic

recovery and to share the available work and resources with their

fellow British Columbians. These consultations have above all revealed

to me the maturity and responsibility of those working in the public

sector. Their message has been clear: tell us what the new figure is

and let us get on with the job of working it out at the local level.

Accordingly, over the next few days various ministers of the Crown will

announce revised spending limits for the public bodies under their

jurisdiction, and will invite these public bodies to submit plans to

the government by September 1.

In husbanding our scarce

resources and in assuming our responsibility as servants of the people

of British Columbia, my government wishes to ensure, as its highest

priority, that this exercise in voluntary cooperation maintains the

highest possible level of employment and services that are vital to the

public, and will evaluate the plans submitted by September 1 within

this framework. As was the case for homeowners' tax relief that

resulted from the February 18 announcement, my government wishes to

assure business taxpayers that their voices have been heard, and, to

the extent practicable, we will ensure that dividends resulting from

this latest round of restraint will be shared with them.

Mr.

Chairman, members of this assembly may have noted that up to this point

I have excluded the health sector from my remarks, and I wish to assure

all members and the people of British Columbia that this has not been

an oversight. As scarce as our resources become, there are things of

value that we hold in common as a people that are not negotiable, not

subject to the bottom line and not merely a matter of dollars and

cents. Fat and frills must be extricated in all areas of the public

service; economy and efficiency must be the reigning philosophy; but

essential services must be preserved at all cost. Health care, the

lives and well-being of our people, is one such area. It is vital to

ensure that the health-care system, which is our highest priority and

accounts for more than 30 percent of provincial spending, operates as

efficiently and effectively as possible. I want to congratulate the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and his officials for their

continuing efforts in this regard.

In difficult economic

times we must distinguish between the essential and the desirable in

all our systems and services, including the health system. But our

people are decent and compassionate, and on their behalf as their

Premier I wish to give my personal assurance and that of my government

that the first-class quality of health care to which our people have

grown accustomed will not be compromised in any way. In the course of

my consultations over the past few weeks I have become convinced that

health professionals wish no less than other British Columbians to play

a

part in economic recovery, in work-sharing and in the preservation of

high standards of public services in this province. I also believe that

if we've learned anything from our initial experience with restraint

over the past five months, it is that while the people of this province

want and expect efficiency and economy, they are not prepared to

sacrifice vital services in the process and are prepared to participate

directly in the preservation of these services. Government too is

prepared to increase its participation in preserving a first-class

health-care system.

[ Page 9038 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. Premier. I must advise you that the time limit has

expired. Under standing orders I must ask the Premier to take his

place, unless leave is granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: May I have leave one more time?

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the Premier asked for five minutes and he's had ten.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members, I would advise all hon. members that the

time under standing orders has expired some time ago. A courtesy has

been extended from one side of this House to the other up to this point

in time, and I would call that to the attention of all members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will now take the floor for my time.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Clearly the time under standing orders has elapsed. The Chair has no

alternative, hon. members, but to recognize the next speaker on his

feet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, because of the significance of the statement that the Premier

is making and because of the state in which all of our economy and our

people are at this present time, I'm sure that the statement that the

Premier is making is wanted to be heard by the people. I'm wondering,

Mr. Chairman, if it could be considered by the Leader of the Opposition

and the members of the opposition that in addition to the 40 minutes

usually allowed, perhaps the Premier could continue as a Premier's

statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that

unfortunately is not a point of order. Leave has already been asked.

General assent — we know we cannot give leave in committee — has not

been granted. Hon. members, the Chair therefore has no alternative

under these circumstances but to recognize the next speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

On a point of order, I was criticized by the Leader of the Opposition

for making the last important statement on the economy outside the

House. Once more I ask leave to conclude this important statement, or I

shall be forced to conclude the statement outside the House again.

MR. HOWARD:

On that point of order, the Premier spent a great deal of the time

allotted to him within the 30 minutes attacking the opposition and not

dealing with the economy of the province. By generosity and courtesy,

without anybody saying anything, the Premier went 10 minutes over his

30 minutes and then embarked upon something else. I think that should

be taken into account. His time has expired. If he can't organize his

time better than that, it's indicative that he shouldn't be Premier any

longer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has

now entertained points of order on the same matter. The standing orders

before us are extremely clear. There is a time limit. That time limit

has expired. Points of order have been raised asking for further

assent. That has not been granted, and it does not appear that it will

be granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you — for the House's interest — could ask

the Speaker whether or not he would canvass the records of this House

to see whether or not leave has ever been refused the Premier of the

province to make an important economic statement.

MR. BARRETT:

In light of all our motions for emergency debates on unemployment and

requests for extended time — none of which has been accepted — I ask

leave of the House to allow the Premier to continue his statement, in

spite of his request for only five minutes.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, do we have general consent to continue?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If I might continue — and perhaps members will recall the point where I

was broken into in my remarks — the government is also preparing to

increase its participation in preserving a first-class health-care

system. Because of the savings that accrue to hospitals as a result of

the revised compensation guidelines, the accentuated focus of the

commissioner on the preservation of employment and public services, and

other measures to be announced over the next few days, I'm satisfied

that if properly managed, sufficient funds will exist to preserve jobs

and enhance the quality of health care in this province. To ensure that

this intention is translated into reality, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) will send a team to each hospital to smooth out by fall

the rough edges exposed in the past few months, and to make sure that

efficiency, economy and, above all, patient security are the

foundations of our health care system. Our objective is to distinguish

between the essential and the non-essential. Our target is to ensure

that waiting lists for urgent and emergency, life-preserving services

are reduced to the absolute minimum.

These are difficult and

challenging times, but those of us in this assembly have not chosen

public service because it is the easy road. Rather, on behalf of the

people of British Columbia, the people we serve, it is our

responsibility to show leadership, to maintain a steady hand at the

helm, not to panic in times of crisis and not to seek glib and

quick-fix solutions to complex problems. Our people are strong, our

institutions are vital and our resolve unstinting. Our children and

grandchildren will took back on us 20 or 30 years from now, as we've

looked back on our forefathers who lived through the Depression, and

they will judge us as we judged them. I would hope that they'd conclude

that we've succeeded in putting aside old quarrels, unproductive

divisions and petty differences, and succeeded in forging new bonds and

alliances through sharing burdens and available resources and by way of

a new level of cooperation that saw us through our temporary

difficulties.

[ Page 9039 ]

There

has never been a recession that didn't end; of this we can be sure. Our

province is rich in the resources of its people, its location and its

commodities. I believe we will be the first province in Canada to

recover once the worldwide recession comes to an end. With foresight

and planning, we have put in place the infrastructure and projects that

will ensure renewed prosperity with worldwide recovery. A recent report

predicted that our forest industry will see unprecedented demand and

prices by 1984. Our mines will be active with coal as a new component,

and our tourism industry will achieve a new vitality with B.C. Place

and Expo 86.

Let us not lose our resolve or our natural

optimism, but commit ourselves to cooperation and a search for economic

renewal in the months to come. Over the next few days various ministers

will flesh out the details of this first element of the government's

program of economic recovery and will ask for unprecedented levels of

cooperation from all of our people. Over the next while the government

will bring forward additional measures in the areas of housing and job

creating investments and will seek this same level of cooperation.

Premier of the province, I'm confident and certain that our invitation

will be greeted by cooperation and determination by all members of the

British Columbia family,

MR. BARRETT: What we

witnessed today is a statement from the Premier of the province, who,

in my opinion, has touched on a level of indifference and cynicism that

has rarely been met in this House before.

We have just

finished four months of extensive debate on a budget and the estimates,

during which opportunities were made available for cuts in superfluous

spending, related to the kinds of things mentioned yesterday by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), by every single minister. In

every single instance in that four months' time.... Not once was a

single cut accepted by the government, which is wallowing in luxury

itself.

To come in in the dying moments of the session and

announce that the government is now interested in restraint and that

there will be revised spending limits is to say what this government

has known all along: it just wanted to play politics with the issue.

When confronted with the request for cooperation that the Premier calls

for, it rejected every single motion of cooperation by the opposition.

Last year this went on as well: $82 million worth of expenditures in

travel, publications, office furniture and advertising were proposed by

the opposition, in asking the government's cooperation in cutting back

its vast expenses. In every single instance they continued to vote

themselves huge increases.

The Premier can't bring himself

to rise above the bitterness that he seems to feel it necessary to

bring into this chamber at a time of crisis, even when we're faced with

such a time of crisis. To spend that amount of time — it was to have

been a profound statement — in bitter comment about the federal

government and the personality of the Prime Minister, let alone the

opposition, is hardly holding out the olive branch and gathering

together the Canadian family to deal with the problems we face.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, at the turn of the century in 1898, the first socialist member

ever elected in British Columbia sat in this chamber. What were the

debates in 1898, when this chamber started? The debates were upon the

gap between the super-rich, the working people and the poor. What was

it that was being debated by that first socialist, Parker Williams? It

was a fair access to the riches and the treasures of this province by

the ordinary people of this province, not the huge barons of industry,

as they were known then. Personnel have changed and numbers have

changed, but the essence of the debate has not changed. When the

private corporations find that their profits are threatened, when their

mergers seem to be in danger in terms of being financed by private

savings from the Canadian banks, who is it that they assault? Who is it

that they say is at fault but the ordinary working people and the poor

who are responsible for the breakdown of the private enterprise system?

find it ironic that these halls and this chamber should echo again with

the same basic, philosophical debate that took place for the first time

some 84 years ago. It is the rich that make the poor pay again. Not

once did the Premier say a single word about cutting profits. Not once

did the Premier say that those corporations that have sucked the

treasures out of this province and made huge profits in the past should

be asked to be socially or economically responsible for the squandering

of our resources. Not once was there a statement that the Crown

corporations would stop the gouging that is taking place by massive

uncontrolled spending, particularly that of B.C. Hydro. Not once was

there a statement calling upon the rich and the super-rich to bear a

burden on this. Not once was there a criticism of the banks and the

usurious interest rates, which that Premier supported in 1978 as

federal policy, that led to this.

We've heard a speech today

from the Premier saying: "Don't blame me for the federal government

adopting my policies. Don't blame me for Ottawa doing what I told them

to do in this financial paper in 1978." We heard the Premier of this

province stand up and meekly attempt to dance away from the fact that

his right-wing economic policies, which are a carbon copy of those of

President Reagan in the United States, have caused the very problems

that we have in the province of British Columbia. What is the record of

this administration? It is a record of an administration that is geared

towards millionaires, multimillionaires, and offshore customers rather

than bargaining for a proper return and value-added from our resources.

The

Premier touts today the giveaway policies of this government that will

allow Canadians and British Columbians the unique opportunity of paying

welfare to Japan to please take our coal. This government sitting

across there closed the only car-manufacturing plant in western

Canada that would have been capable of building those railcars to carry

the coal to port. Who lost jobs because of Social Credit action in

closing that railcar plant? British Columbia working men and women, who

pay taxes to keep the Premier and his entourage in the luxury they're

accustomed to. In his office alone there was an overrun of $150,000 for

travel this year. The sultan of British Columbia comes in and announces

today that he wants restraint on the peons. Pharaoh Bill comes in with

his new conscience and says: "We're short of money."

I'm

going to give the Premier an opportunity today to test whether or not

he really believes in the cuts. I'll come to the motion cutting back

office expenditures, advertising and travel — similar to every single

motion on every other vote, which they have turned down up until today.

If he wants cooperation, let him vote for a cut in his office.

[ Page 9040 ]

you want to know what's going to happen? Let us examine the record. But

first I must make some political comments. I may be excused for

responding politically.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't talk politics in here.

MR. BARRETT:

Don't talk politics now, especially when the government's in trouble.

Now's the time to be nonpartisan, because if we're political the

government might be defeated.

Do you recall when there was a

world recession in 1974-75? Did you ever hear a Socred or that Leader

of the Opposition stand up and say: "Oh, my goodness! The poor NDP is

suffering at the hands of a world recession. This is no time to play

politics. This is a time to cooperate and love"? No. He was the one who

blamed the New Democratic Party of British Columbia for the worldwide

recession, which was just a pimple — a single acne spot — compared to

the disaster we're faced with internationally today. What does he get

up today and say? "Don't blame us for the world downturn." I never did!

I never will! You're not competent enough to have any impact on

anything in the world, let alone a recession.

Let's take a

look at this government's record of debt — deadweight debt that the

children and the children's children and the children's children's

children will have to pay because of Social Credit. When the Premier of

this province assumed office, the debt in British Columbia was $4.25

billion. This little frugal, cautious government, husbanding its

resources with care, that says it will not leave debt for the future,

has managed in six short years to double that debt and bury it in the

Crown corporations. The debt in 1975 was $4.25 billion. Under Social

Credit's restraint, in six short years the debt went to $9,531,000,000. I and my colleagues are surprised that in his vitriolic,

bitter, personal attack on the Prime Minister he neglected to mention

how much of a debt he's run up. Can you imagine his reaction if Pierre

Elliott Trudeau came out to British Columbia and made a public speech

saying: "I think your Premier should be chastized for doubling his

debt"? Do you know what the Socreds would say? They'd say: "Oh, Mr.

Prime Minister, don't mix in provincial politics." If it's good enough

for the Premier and he has a perfect right to do it — to criticize the

federal government, it would be wise for the Premier to understand that

he's criticizing the federal government for doing exactly the same

thing he's done here in British Columbia in terms of debt.

The

Premier says we have to show some measure of restraint in terms of

budgeting. Quite right. Every single critic in the official opposition

has proposed restraint cuts, and every single one of those restraint

cuts — as, a matter of record in the Journals — has been turned down.

Look at the record of this government's growth. I want you to listen to

the government's own figures of its own record of growth and how it's

out of control. This government has been bureaucratized and committed

to death. In 1976-77 the total budget was $3,000,600,000. In 1982-83

the budget is up to $7,689,000,000. Total increases under this Social

Credit administration have been $4,247,000,000, or a cumulative

increase of 123 percent in spending by a government that is completely

and totally out of control. The figure of 123 percent makes even the

banks look respectable when it come to gouging money out of people

right across this province. I've gotta tell you: as anybody knows,

you've got a long way to go before you can make the banks look

respectable; but he's done it.

He gets up and gives a pious

talk about showing this kind of restraint, and hoping that the private

sector and the public sector will follow his example. Well, I want

restraint, and I hope that the private and public sector which also

want restraint will not follow his example, because every single time

we voted for a specific restraint, he voted against it — he led the

vote. It was $82 million bucks last year and over $55 million this

year. He stands up and makes those Ontario-inspired rolling phrases

about homilies at football games being the way to solving our economic

problems and tries to sell that claptrap to the people of British

Columbia on that basis.

We're paying Kinsella $64,000 a

year; and if you want proof of the amount we're paying him, who else

could afford to be in the first ten rows of a football game at today's

prices other than Kinsella, who's gouging the money out of the

taxpayer? Maybe the suggestion came from Hollywood Heal, the man who

got paid $13,000 by this government to move his furniture out to

British Columbia. Talk about bringing coals to Newcastle — we've got

more warehouses full of surplus furniture under this government's

purchases than any other place in North America, and they spend $13,000

to have him bring his furniture out.

Nine hundred dollars

for a makeup job on the Premier — cheap at half the price; nine hundred

bucks to look pretty on television. But we've seen a new Premier today.

We've seen a new image today, carefully moulded, carefully couched. The

Goldfarb polls say: show leadership. The Goldfarb polls say that people

are fed up with politicians, so step above it and on your way up kick

everybody that you're going past. I found it an interesting performance.

The

Premier is a good learner. Just write a script out for him and he can

read it well. His timing is a little wrong — just a little five

minutes, asking the House for courtesies I have never seen Social

Credit give the opposition. But far be it from us, the representatives

of the humble working poor, to allow those who are born into office to

be confined by the rules of this chamber. Oh, no, far be it from us,

the cloth-cap representatives of the working class that must bear the

burdens of private enterprise's failure.

I know today that

it is the fault of that $950-a-month clerk buried away in the bowels of

government; she has caused the collapse of the private enterprise

system in this country because of her profligate ways in asking for a

raise to pay her mortgage or feed her child. Does she not know that the

needs of the private banking system and the private corporations are

more important than food for her child? Does she not know that when the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) announces the

$55-a-month cut for a single mother on welfare, her earnings may not be

much more than what she got on welfare? Why, shame on the poor damsel

for being born poor and born to the life of a clerk! We now call upon

her to sacrifice her lifestyle so that the big corporations can survive

this international downturn and the cabinet ministers can go to Arizona

and say: "I bumped into somebody; I can't remember his name. But I'm

sure competent. I represent the government, and if I could only think

of his name.... I knew that if I put my finger on the right place on

the map, I'd know where to land."

That's how cabinet trips

are being justified. You know the old Norris cartoon about the little

old lady with the hat pin. Can't you see them all now with the new

restraint measures in a big globe like that scene of Charlie Chaplin in

Modern Times when he was referring to Adolf Hitler and bouncing

[ Page 9041 ]

that

globe? Can't you see them all in there in that globe with the little

thing over their eyes and a hat pin, saying: "Ping! Arizona. Here is

where I've got to go. I'm sure to bump into somebody. This is the way

to plan restraint, plan good government, plan control of public funds.

Boy, am I glad I missed Broadway; I don't want to get into the same

mess that the other guy got into when it came to Sugar Babies ."

came in here, and he was serious when he delivered that speech. That's

the thing that really got me: dripping with sincerity, above politics,

a little podium for the notes all written out, which is against the

rules. After all the years in this House you'd think that a little

extemporaneous comment would be acceptable, but instead it's all

written out. Even the bitter parts are written out; put that in too.

And then he delivers it as if it was a tome from Solomon, saying that

we're going to ask that little lady clerk to save the international

private corporations.

In the old days they were far better,

far more honest. They said: "Let the private sector have what it wants,

and let the public be damned." Today they're saying: "Oh, we're not

only going to damn the public, but we're going to make them pay for it

as well."

You have yet to table in this House for scrutiny

by the public all of the bids on the LNG proposal. Was that picked out

in the same Hyndman manner of a pin stabbing in the dark and landing on

Dome? Is that how it was chosen? Don't you think the people of British

Columbia have a right to know what's going on with their resources and

have you table that material right here in the House?

It's a

sellout of resources. It's the same thing that's been going on in this

province on the backs of the poor taxpayers since the inception of this

province. For one brief time we had this mild socialist reform

government — oh, very mild compared to international standards; we were

so polite. We never seized anything like that government, which seized

B.C. Hydro and messed that up. We bought some companies; we bought them

to keep jobs here in British Columbia. What did they do with those

treasures? They privatized them, they BCRICed them, they gave the

people of British Columbia what was to be a lesson in private

capitalism; and now the final lesson is at hand. First you give a

little bit away as a loss leader; second, you buy something that

already exists and not create one new job; third, you let the small

investors of British Columbia lose their shirts; fourth, you open up a

law that you promised and you swore and you stated in this House you'd

never do, to allow the big private corporations to come in and swoop up

those treasures just before another election.

Do you know

what a humble wag with a cloth cap suggested to me on the street? That

humble wag suggested to me that the government is doing that just to

open the coffers for campaign funds, because those corporations are

going to gouge in on those assets. I asked that wag if he was a civil

servant, and he wagged on.

You're not kidding anybody. This

is the rottenest, stupidest, dumbest government that has ever fronted

for private enterprise in the history of the province of British

Columbia. They run up our individual debt, not the large corporations.

may ask leave for time. Do you think they will graciously grant me

time? Where is the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) now that we

need him? He always says no. He's got a big gramophone inside his body:

"No, no, no." We'll see what happens.

Going back to this

very serious tome that was delivered by the Premier: it was a doom and

gloom message. Instead of leadership, hope, inspiration, instead of

saying, "My God, this is British Columbia, and we're going to fight

tooth and nail to keep up our standard of living; we're going to fight

tooth and nail to see that no one moves back; and we're going to fight

tooth and nail to see that we get the best from our resources," all he

had to say was: "Cut back on the ordinary people. Suffer, you peasants,

because the private corporations have run away with the ball." Those

are our resources that should be providing jobs to us, not the Japanese.

This

government has driven up the individual debt of every poor citizen of

this province, young and old, middle and tender. In 1975, the per

capita debt in this province was $1,800 under Social Credit; that per

capita debt has been driven up to $4,960. That's just enough to buy a

Japanese car to keep the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development of Tokyo happy as he exploits our resources for Japan. You

talk about cynicism. You talk about a polished Hollywood performance. I

say that it was a grade C movie on a grade A budget, considering what

we pay PR people to write it.

Let's get down to some real

problems. People in this province who work hard and don't give a fig

sitting down at home to measure their income and outflow, and

discovering that they're short at the end of the month. People in this

province who have spent 20 and 30 years as industrial workers and who

thought they had security from the private sector not only have lost

their jobs, but their pensions as well. The elderly of this province

who have paid and pioneered in the development of a health care system

have long lineups to get into hospital. And all we had today to address

those problems were platitudes and cutbacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to sent out a team.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes. he's going to send out a team to discover the problems in

hospitals. When the head of the B.C. Medical Association — not me, but

the head of the BCMA — says that people will die because of the

cutbacks, they respond that they're going to send out a team.

I have two minutes left, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to feel a little sense of security. Could I please have five minutes extra?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, a courtesy was extended earlier in this committee. I

would ask that the same courtesy be given to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. Would the committee give that assent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. BARRETT:

Mark it down. It's the first time it's happened. This is the new spirit

of love, friends. It was given with a sense of cooperation and

graciousness, and that's the last time.

We were treated, I

think it was, to about 48 minutes worth of a script right out of a

1940s movie: "Gary Cooper Goes to Victoria" — to clean up Washington. I

repeat: did he announce today that those people who've lost jobs will

get a chance to go back to work? Did he announce today that he will

abide by the laws of this province in terms of collective bargaining, ?

One cabinet minister was already rebuked for messing around with the

labour laws in this province.

[ Page 9042 ]

MR. HOWARD: Convicted of unfair labour practices.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, and here is the Premier of the province talking, outside of

negotiations and collective bargaining that are going on freely, and

announcing the terms of those negotiations. That's hardly showing the

spirit of love and cooperation. That's hardly showing the kind of

mature leadership that says: "Folks, I want you to know that I'm going

to be breaking the law a little bit." Do you think those laws were

accomplished in this province without a struggle'? Have you ever heard

of Ginger Goodwin? I've never heard of a martyr for private enterprise,

but I can give you a legion of martyrs for the rights of working

people. Ginger Goodwin was shot by the police of this province while

fighting to establish a law of collective bargaining. We don't have any

statues to Ginger Goodwin, but we have statutes to Ginger Goodwin. We

have statutes to every other man and woman in this province who gave up

comfort and security for the right of free men and women to be

protected by law in order to sit down at a table in collective

bargaining.

I'm not opposed to freedom. Any time a

government interferes with freedom it is attempting to play Big

Brother. We have fought too long for those freedoms in our society to

allow anybody to come in with a Hollywood speech and attack those

rights.

MR. LEA: Or from Ontario.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, or from Ontario.

was prepared today, because I'd received the hype that we would be

getting a profound statement about "gathering in British Columbians,"

to believe that we would get a profound statement saying that the free

enterprise system is failing right now, that we would get an admission

that those multinational corporations and that private sector, so

vaunted to be able to provide a stable economy, have failed. I thought

we'd have an admission by a Premier who is committed to Reaganomics, as

he outlined in 1978, that our policies have been wrong. I regret that

our policies are wrong. We have to make some changes and try new

directions to help our people.

Last March we offered 26

specific proposals for employment of the people of British Columbia.

The Premier finds it necessary to make snide remarks: "What have you

got to offer?" I think I sent you a copy, Mr. Premier, earnestly

prepared and made available, As a matter of fact, we tried on three

separate occasions in the last four months to have a special debate on

unemployment. Then the Premier stands up and says that the opposition

never debated the crucial economic issues. Who was it, I pray, who

refused permission three times for an emergency debate on unemployment

in this province? Tell me who blocked attempts seriously offered three

times by the opposition to have a debate by the legislators on an

approach to solving problems for people who are begging for solutions?

know, and I agree with the Premier, that not many people really give a

fig about the vagaries of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), except those of us who are in the chamber —

and we know how much it means to us. But he's still sitting there and

he's making that judgment. They would have liked, appreciated and

welcomed an opportunity to hear some specific, concrete debate in this

chamber on jobs, and three times the government turned down that offer.

come in today and give that little speech and somehow think that you're

going to wash away your responsibility, and that you're above

politics.... Social Credit is saying to the ordinary people: "Pay

more taxes, pay more on your hydro bills, pay more fees, pay more this,

cut back here." But there's not one mention of an attack on a private

banking system that is gouging usurious rates out of people, not one

mention of the huge profits made by corporations in years past, and not

one mention of our loss of control over our resources throughout the

disaster of BCRIC. Blame it all on that poor little clerk earning $950

a month, and tell her for her comfort that the $65,000-a-year boys are

only getting a 3 percent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six.

MR. BARRETT: Six percent. That's no answer. That's no solution. We expected a lot more and a lot better.

really don't need to prolong this thing. I've spoken to the House

Leader about this. We'll probably be on the campaign trail within six

months, and we'll be exchanging these pleasantries in front of the

public. But why don't we just test the mettle of this government right

now, here, at this moment. I'm going to put a motion for a cut in the

Premier's office, and we'll see whether or not they want to cut the

fat. I move that vote 4 be reduced by $22,000 related to superfluous

travel, publications and office furniture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE:

It's certainly my pleasure and desire to stand to take my place during

this debate and speak against this nonsense amendment, similar to what

we've been watching and witnessing all through this session. But before

doing so, I wish to draw the attention of the public — and I will

certainly be making sure that it becomes public in my constituency —

the fact that our Premier, delivering one of the most important

speeches of this session, was denied the right of extra time by the

Leader of the Opposition and one or two others of his gang. I think

it's interesting to note that during that little exercise not all of

his colleagues were in support of the action that he took, which became

quite an embarrassment to him. This would indicate to us the truth of

what we have believed for quite some time, that that party on the other

side of the House is in total shambles and having difficulty keeping

everyone together.

Noting the usual funny and jovial remarks

of the Leader of the Opposition — and believe me, I found it really

very funny — I couldn't help but think to myself: imagine a man such as

that being the leader of this province in the times we're now

experiencing. I think that would not only be a joke, but it would also

be a terrible disaster.

He talked about the travel of our

cabinet. Well, I'd be quite happy to talk about some travel. Of course,

it's necessary for me to go back to when he was in office and make that

comparison. All I can do, as I look at some of these records, is to

repeat the old Scottish saying: "Oh, to see ourselves as others see

us." Talking about travel, it was November 13, 1974: "Cabinet Ministers

on a China Tour." This is to do, Mr. Chairman, with the Leader of the

Opposition's remarks in respect to travel. It goes on to say: "Barrett

leaves Friday

[ Page 9043 ]

morning

for Tokyo and will arrive in Peking Monday afternoon. But no precise

itinerary is available for his travels within China." He just happened

to decide that he was going to go to China, visit there and see what

happened. He was pressed for an answer as to why he was spending so

many of the taxpayers' dollars on travelling overseas, so he came up

with the response: "He hopes to set up talks."

I can recall

a day or two ago here, during some of his remarks, when he was

criticizing one of our members for not having everything set up before

going there. How hypocritical can you get? He went all the way to

Peking hoping to set up talks. What's interesting is the fact that he

brought along some of his buddies. They are as follows: the

Attorney-General of the day, Alex Macdonald, and the Health minister of

the day, Dennis Cocke; and all three members were accompanied by their

wives. I'm not saying that their wives didn't pay their own way, or

their husbands didn't pay for them. That's not cleared up in here at

all.

In addition to that we had Emery Barnes, the NDP member

for Vancouver Centre. He was chosen to join the group, for what reason?

The reason given here is: "His constituency includes one of the largest

Chinese communities in Canada." That is supposed to justify the

horrendous expense — the tremendous number of dollars — required to

bring this troupe to China. It goes on to say: "Quon Wong, father of

the Attorney-General's executive assistant, will join the group as an

interpreter." It goes on to tell us that Mr. Cocke was travelling with

the group to study acupuncture in China. I suggest that if they are a

party that practises responsible spending, they would not send an

insurance agent, which I believe is his profession, to study

acupuncture, but rather they'd send along one of the doctors out of the

system.

We ask why Mr. Macdonald was chosen. It was because

of his long association with the Chinese community in Vancouver. They

talk about travel and waste! It's absolutely disgusting and

hypocritical, to say the least. I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is wrong

for me to call them hypocrites, and I won't do that. But certainly the

description is very fitting indeed as you sit and listen to some of the

statements being made, and then look at the record.

I'm

sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the chamber. It

seems to bother him when these things come back to haunt him.

Here's

another one. Speaking about travel, from June 18 to June 26, 1975, the

Leader of the Opposition and his group rented from Daimler Hire Ltd. in

London, England, at a cost to the B.C. taxpayer of $811.64,

chauffeur-driven limousines. What was the purpose of the trip? The

purpose of the trip was public relations and cultural activities. How

can you, Mr. Chairman, convince the taxpayers of this province that you

would be a good alternative to a Social Credit government, that you

could do the thing that should be done in this province and bring in

some responsible spending, when your record already demonstrates total

irresponsibility and disregard for the office of the Premier? Mr.

Chairman, the cost of those taxis — and those were Mercedes-Benz cars,

I believe — converted to today's dollars would represent a total cost

of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,600.

He also talks

of the high living. I looked up a voucher that shows that while he was

in office he spent one day in the Pierre Hotel in New York at $400 a

day. If you convert that to today's dollars we're looking at an

$800-a-day hotel room. How hypocritical! How deceiving! And how very

hard to accept as you sit here and listen to all of the claptrap that

comes across in respect to government spending.

Then he

talks of profits. He considers "profit" to be a dirty word, something

that's illegal. He somehow doesn't understand that profits from

business, whether it's the private sector or the public sector running

the businesses, are necessary in order to acquire and replace equipment

and to create the employment needed. Somehow they feel successful

business people should be considered illegal, and he stands here and

talks about how he was looking for love and sympathy during the 1974-75

recession. He also talked about how he got into business when he was

Premier. But he didn't seize those businesses. No, not at all. What he

did was seize the taxpayers' dollars. That's what happened. He took the

taxpayers' dollars and got his government into business.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Then

he talks about the resources of this province and how this government

is giving them away. Mr. Chairman, the people of this province will

always remember the deal that he attempted to strike with the Prime

Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. What was the deal, Mr.

Chairman? He promised the Prime Minister of Canada that if he would

nationalize the provincial resources, the socialist government of

British Columbia would be prepared to turn them over to him. Absolutely

disgusting!

He quotes people in the health system who have

made wild claims, such as that people are dying because of cutbacks.

There are no cutbacks. Certainly our government has put the lid on

increases in hospital spending and on spending throughout the health

system, but there are no cutbacks at all. If we look through the

records, all that we have had from this opposition — and particularly

from the Health critic, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — is

that people are dying because of cutbacks. Mr. Chairman, I consider the

entire debate of the opposition and the attack of the opposition to be

one in which they have been riding the backs of the sick, the elderly

and those who are less fortunate in this province. It is the only way

they have been able to attack this government on our health program.

The largest number of dollars ever has gone into this health program,

the best health program in the world — and they come along and say that

people are dying because of cutbacks.

I spoke the other day

in the Health ministry's estimates, and I talked about how the

responsibility of the MLA was not to ride the backs of the sick, and

not to use those who have a problem in getting into hospital when they

need to, but rather to go there and attempt to assist them. I mentioned

one case of mine where this person, afraid to go to the member for New

Westminster in case she might have her name dragged through the press

and her problem made public.... I told him how, in that particular

case, I contacted the hospital administrator and asked to have the

doctor responsible write me a letter and give me all of the reasons why

this person couldn't have her surgery as required, rather than being

told that it was going to be four or five months. It so happened that

that lady was in for her surgery within a matter of weeks, which proved

to me that here we had a situation where one of our professional people

was playing politics, along with our opposition. This is the sort of

attack that becomes very disturbing and heartbreaking when you consider

the number of people out there — senior citizens, sick people — who

[ Page 9044 ]

really and truly need help, and don't need to be used for political gain.

Then,

of course, whenever one analyzes just what has been taking place, it's

easy to understand, because they came into this session ill-prepared

under their leader, not expecting to be here long, but rather expecting

to see an election. They couldn't attack our programs, they couldn't

offer anything constructive, so what did they do? They found the most

emotional thing that they could pick up.

I want this House

and the people out there to know that this is a dynamic government led

by a dynamic Premier — a man who has vision not only for the province

of British Columbia but for all of Canada. Like with the criticism that

was extended when the railways were being developed through this great

land, the day will come when the people of British Columbia will say:

"It was great that we had a man such as Bill Bennett as the Premier of

this province, or we wouldn't be where we are today."

It was

our Premier who led the provincial premiers to a fair conclusion on the

constitutional debate. While that was going on — that was a tremendous

responsibility that he had — he still continued to give the leadership

that this province expected and deserved. It was our Premier who, on

February 18, announced the first restraint program as it should apply

to government. We did, as our Premier has already said, expect very

severe criticism of our restraint program from all over the province.

The most severe criticism we have got is from the opposition members,

who, in the short time that I have been here, have done nothing but

play games with every estimate, coming in here with nonsense figures

and recommending restraint in every session. We didn't get that great

criticism that we expected, but what we did get was the Prime Minister

of Canada following our lead. It was the Prime Minister of Canada who

decided: "It looks like that's the way to go, and that's what we're now

going to do. We're going to take the lead of the government of British

Columbia." What else did we get? We got other provinces following our

lead. Yes, it was the Premier of our province, the man for whom they

are now recommending that we cut his office expenses, who gave that

leadership in the entire area of constitutional debates and government

spending.

I'd like to make a little comparison here of

leadership. I'd like to talk briefly about some of the accomplishments

of our Premier in respect to the economic development of our province.

Let's look at it. We've got northeast coal, Tumbler Ridge and the coal

terminal development up there. The grain terminal is going now. So are

the liquid natural gas plant, B.C. Place, the stadium, Expo 86 and

light rapid transit. These are tremendous accomplishments, considering

the times we are in. It must be understood that these ideas or projects

do not come to mind overnight. These have been in the planning stage

for a long time. Can you imagine where this province would be under

that socialist party?

Consider the economic developments led

by the Premier of our province and greatly assisted by his cabinet,

particularly the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who has taken a terrible amount of flak from the opposition

because of his aggressive and successful approach to developing our

coalfields. Those are exciting projects, ones that are going to bring

tremendous wealth to this province. Without them, the unemployment

figures would be a great deal worse than they are.

I would

like to return to the socialist term of office, and make some reference

to their economic development program. This is the program that the

Leader of the Opposition referred to when he claimed that they did not

seize businesses, as is thought. What they did was seize the dollars of

the taxpayers to get ourselves into such things as Railwest. I believe

Railwest lost us somewhere around $8 million. I believe that was about

an $8 million blunder. He used taxpayers' money to buy out Can-Cel and

Plateau Mills. This is a new approach to socialization. This is not

nationalizing as we expect the socialists to do it, but this is the way

they went about it.

They bought out Panco Poultry, plus all

the farms. There's an interesting twist to this one; and I could

elaborate a little more on it. The Leader of the Opposition was being

critical today of our Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for not

divulging information in respect to the liquid natural gas plant.

Nothing was ever divulged about this particular purchase of Panco

Poultry. At that time the producers, the people who supported and

needed that plant, and who were at the mercy of that plant, wished to

purchase it. They didn't want the government to own it. They wanted to

own it. They made their offer to purchase this business, and what

happened? The Leader of the Opposition, as the Premier of the province,

on his own accord — I don't believe there was any cabinet discussion or

policy decision at all — and in his usual off-the-cuff way increased

the price over what the producers were prepared to pay for that

operation, and took it from under their noses.

That was the

first blow given to the poultry producers of this province under their

economic plan. The second blow was that the poultry producers who

supported this plan were told: "There's a new game being played now.

This plant is owned by the government. We have control over the poultry

industry in British Columbia." What did they do? They set the price and

conditions under which they would take their product. For weeks and

weeks farmers sat with product that should have gone to market but

couldn't, because the government of the day wouldn't take it. The NDP

government of that day refused to take this product, because the

farmers were asking for a fair price. The only reason they were doing

that was because it was now under government control and management.

They knew they could not pay the prices that the private sector had

been paying. They had to chop the farmer's prices down to survive, and

that's what they attempted to do.

The records of the

superboard of the day will show that the member for Comox, who is

sitting here quite embarrassed and is snickering away, was a member of

that board, which demanded at the time that the producers of this

province take what they were imposing upon them and sign the contract,

against their wish and their unanimous decision. It demanded that they

do what the government said that they should do.

Mr.

Chairman, they bought out Kootenay Forest Products and Ocean Falls.

They built Swan Valley; they didn't buy that one. Here is a real dandy,

when you're talking about economic wisdom; here is an opportunity for

the government of British Columbia to get into new food processing. So

what did they do? They told their bureaucrats to move ahead and build

this plant, which was going to specially process food for the

marketplace. They didn't do any market research, none whatsoever. They

merely said: "Build the plant, and whatever it's capable of producing,

we will be able to market." I don't have the figures in front of me,

and my memory

[ Page 9045 ]

doesn't

serve me too well on this particular portion of it, but there were

millions and millions of dollars poured into Swan Valley, and it never

once got into the marketplace. Here was a great socialist dream: "We're

going to build a plant. We're going to control not only the land of

this province, but we're going to control the food — the essentials of

life."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Did you say that Panco was a turkey?

MR. RITCHIE:

Panco was in the turkey business. Yes, it was a turkey. As I recall,

someone once asked me what the reason was for the NDP government

getting into the turkey business. The only thing I could think of was

that the leader of the NDP government felt that he had to have more

turkeys under his control.

What else did they buy, Mr.

Chairman? They bought Imperial Tours, and then they went on to buy B.C.

Parlour Car Tours. I didn't follow those things, but they tell me that

they were real downers. That's their economic approach. That's how they

would turn this province around.

Then the Leader of the

Opposition touched on their labour record. I would say that their

record as far as labour is concerned is as dismal as their record in

economic development. I believe that the reason for that is because of

the way their party is so badly fractured. We see it all the time, and

we saw it here today whenever our Premier asked for extra time to

speak. The leader and two or three of his mud-liners said no and the

more responsible ones were mad at them. You could see that. We can see

the way the party is fractured when it comes to labour. When I look at

some of the comments that have been made in this House.... For

instance, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was talking about

collective bargaining. This is the same member that does not believe

that the people of British Columbia should own their own homes. The

idea of free collective bargaining is to allow the employee to bargain

for all they can get, and once they believe that they have everything

that the employer can afford, he said they should then go on strike.

How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Chairman? Two minutes? I'll speed it up.

Then

we have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I'd forgotten

about him because he's been away from this House so long. Here we have

a member who, Mr. Chairman, is on a five-week vacation. I'm not sure

whether the leader sent him on it or whether he decided to get out of

town himself, but it's interesting to note that he's over there

receiving full pay for the time that he is in Europe, I believe, when

he should be in this House — even more so whenever his partner from

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is unable to be here due to health

reasons. What did he say, Mr. Chairman? He said that they should be

careful in supporting the concept of free collective bargaining. "Lauk

agreed that the NDP long-term goal is a planned economy. He said: 'This

would be inconsistent with collective bargaining.'" In other words, one

member says, "Free collective bargaining is bargaining for all you can

get until there is nothing left, and then going on strike," and the

other member then says: "We cannot have free collective bargaining

because we wish to have a planned and controlled economy."

Mr.

Chairman, I should mention very briefly that I'm in full support of our

provincial approach, our government's approach and our Premier's

approach to restraint. I'm not at all in favour of what is being done

in Ottawa, because I believe that the approach that is taken there only

widens the gap that already exists. It creates problems, and for that

reason our government's approach is a very responsible and fair one.

It's going to allow those at the bottom of the scale to close the gap

between them and those at the top, who are the ones who really set the

cost of living through their buying power.

And then, of

course, being a very strong free enterpriser who believes in sharing

with the employees, I believe that productivity becomes a very

important part of our program. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our

province — indeed our country — is suffering more from low productivity

than it is from high wages. It's of great interest and encouragement to

me to realize that here at long last there is a government with a

leader who has the courage and the conviction to bring in some improved

productivity standards as part of our program.

Mr. Chairman,

I'll wind up by saying that the approach of this government in tough

economic times is one of "let's work together, let's work harder and

let's share." That makes me very proud indeed to be part of this

dynamic team and totally opposed to this stupid, frivolous amendment

brought in by this nonsense opposition.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to follow that member. I do so

maybe to correct a few statements he made. His lack of speaking to the

motion, I guess, goes without saying. I don't think that there was

once, other than at the very end of his speech, when he even said

anything about the motion, and the red light had already been on for a

moment or two.

So, Mr. Chairman, what he did speak about,

rather than defending the Premier's office overexpenditure and that way

speaking to the motion.... He spent all of his time making

inaccurate statements — and now he's going to cut and run — directed at

the NDP, and particularly me. One charge that he made is that I've been

riding the backs of the sick.

MR. RITCHIE: That's right.

MR. COCKE:

The fact of the matter is that that's an absolute prevarication; its

totally wrong. The fact of the matter is that we have a rotten

situation before us at the present time, brought about by restraint.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I just love these cut-and-run politicians. Away he goes, back

to his office, putting his feet up. This person who was just telling us

a moment or two ago how he believes in hard work — the fact of the

matter is that he sold that feed business of his, put his feet up and

came into this House in semi-retirement. I don't see him working. He

talks about how he helped somebody in New Westminster to get into

hospital. The fact of the matter is that politicians shouldn't have to

help people get into hospitals; the beds should be available. As far as

I'm concerned, that is a very severe criticism of the government right

off the top.

He spoke about a China trip that my colleague

the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the then Attorney-General, and one or

two of us made. The trip was paid for — the entire time we were in

China — by the government of China. Not a nickel did the people in B.C.

have to pay for that trip.

[ Page 9046 ]

for our wives, one or two of whom went with us, let the record show

that we paid their way. When we were in China everything was laid on

and had been laid on for months.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Limousine?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

What book? There was no limousine. For heaven's sake, it was all

provided by the Chinese government. What a sheer crock of nonsense! If

the government can't tell the truth, then we've come to a pretty pass

in this House.

That trip was very worthwhile. We met with

the minister of trade for China, and had long discussions with him. As

Health minister, I visited a number of hospitals and medical centres

throughout China. We came back with a much better understanding of

where we could go in terms of our relationship with that great nation

on the Pacific Rim. Those were planned, properly organized trips. Mr.

Chairman, I hope that that member doesn't try to leave the impression

that they were anything but that. Incidentally, that was the only trip

outside of this country that I took as Minister of Health.

would like to tell you about Railwest for a second. He concluded that

Railwest was a real loser. Yes, we put it together. I'm not sorry we

did. Were Railwest in place right now, it would be a very profitable,

job-creating industry. Oh, it lost $8 million, says the member. Who ran

it for the last period of its time? The Social Credit government, which

wanted to put it down and did. He talked about Swan Valley and what a

loser it was. It was a loser because the Social Credit government took

over and let it founder.

We bought Col-Cel. What a crime!

Columbia Cellulose of New York wanted to sell out their two divisions —

north and south. Weyerhaeuser made an offer on the profitable south end

but no offer on the north. Our Minister of Forests at that time said to

Weyerhaeuser: "Buy it all or none." Weyerhaeuser said no. Under those

circumstances, we were put in a position in which we had to conserve

5,000 jobs in the north, among other things. Therefore, for the huge

sum of $2 million upfront, we bought one of the most profitable

enterprises, which we called Can-Cel — Canadian Cellulose. In its first

year it made over $50 million for the people of B.C. Further to that,

those 5,000 jobs were conserved. That's the way we treated the economy

in 1975. What do we see in 1982? A government whose only answer to our

economic problems is squeeze, squeeze, squeeze and make them worse, all

in the name of restraint. Nobody argues that there should be good

economic policy, at this time or any other time, but particularly in

times of hardship.

Then that member went on, and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who one would think would take

life seriously — of all people in this province, the one who should be

most serious.... What comment did I hear him make about Panco? "It

was a turkey." Let me put the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) in a position where he can take a better perspective. He was

there. He should have known better. He was in the Fraser Valley at the

time. Panco Poultry was not up for grabs as far as the growers were

concerned. They couldn't purchase it. They said so. Mr. Cohen, the man

who owned it, came to our government and said: "I've got to sell it off

for real estate, and I'm closing down the plant. We're not going to

keep it going." What did we do? There were 450 jobs at stake, and also

the agricultural business in terms of their having a processing plant

available in this province. They could have sent them on to Alberta.

But no, we wanted it to be here and wanted to conserve the jobs.

That

was done. It was profitable from the outset. It was profitable until it

was sold by the Socreds for a big profit. Who did they choose to sell

it to? Cargill, one of the most notoriously grasping corporate

enterprises in the North American agricultural business. They were

going to keep it going. "Don't you worry your pretty little heads, you

British Columbians. Everything will be all right." All right, my foot!

It's gone, and its jobs are gone with it.

No wonder we're in

the plight we find ourselves in today. It's a government without any

concern whatsoever for planning. The member for Central Fraser

criticized the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who

said....

MR. RITCHIE: Where is he?

MR. COCKE:

Incidentally, there is another falsehood. He said the member for

Vancouver Centre is away on full pay. He knows full well that the

member for Vancouver Centre gets docked $250 a day for every day he's

away from this House after July 23. That's going on right now.

MR. RITCHIE: It hasn't been deducted yet. Full pay and expenses.

MR. COCKE: Are you going to move a resolution that it shouldn't be. Is any government member going to...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you?

MR. COCKE: Of course not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that when that member stands up....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

What do you mean, upset? I am upset when I hear people stand up and

make notoriously incorrect statements. "Full pay," he said. He, the

Premier and the Minister of Finance know perfectly well that he gets

docked.

MR. RITCHIE: Has he been docked yet?

MR. COCKE:

Has he been docked yet? There is only one way that he will not be

docked, and that is if the government moves a resolution asking that he

not be docked. I can tell you that will happen when cranberries grow on

the dome.

MR. RITCHIE: After what he did to the Bank of Commerce investors.

MR. COCKE: Poor, poor Bank of Commerce.

also talked about the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He

quoted the member for North Island as having said: "Negotiate all you

can, and then go on strike." I'd like to see that member put that on

the table in this House.

[ Page 9047 ]

MR. RITCHIE: It's in Hansard . Don't you read?

MR. COCKE: Totally out of context and totally wrong as usual. He was given a job by the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to come to

order, and I ask the member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Central Fraser Valley was given orders to get up and

take up half an hour while the Premier was in a press conference

downstairs. It strikes me that he could have made some statements in

defence of his Premier's expenditures. We're asking the government to

put it on the line. You say you want a restraint program, you want to

economize; we're asking public servants and the health people to

restrain themselves. Now's an opportunity for the government to prove

that they really mean it by telling the Premier to reduce the spending

in his office — the office in which expenditures have absolutely

skyrocketed over the last few years.

What else could we ask?

Just a very simple statement showing that you understand that restraint

is for everyone. That includes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the

Premier's office. It's little enough to ask. When we're asking the

health community to take an economically impossible position under the

circumstances, it strikes me that we can ask no less of the Premier's

office.

MR. HOWARD: When leadership is involved in

virtually anything, there needs to be a tone and pattern established

and a course of action set out. There needs to be emphasis on whatever

that leadership is pointing to. More than anything, there needs to be

precept and example by those in a position of leadership. When that

happens, those who supposedly are being led may follow. It implies that

the leadership at the top show that what it is seeking to do, and to

have the populace do, be established by the examples set for it. A

leader who intones the concept of leadership but does not follow it

himself can't expect people to believe that he is truly leading in the

proper direction. A leader who over a period of time sets one example

and then makes a 180-degree turn in another direction cannot expect to

be believed immediately with respect to his 180-degree turn.

We have some examples of leadership in this province from this

Premier and this government that have set a tone, a pattern, an example

that has been followed. It has also resulted in some incongruities — in

other words, situations where the Premier says a certain thing which he

claims is leadership, but does something entirely opposite. The example

comes to mind of his advocacy to the federal government a few years ago

that the rate or percentage of increase in government spending should

be 1 percent below the inflation rate. This Premier went back to Ottawa

and said to the Prime Minister of Canada that the rate of government

spending should be 1 percent below the inflation rate. As an example,

if in a province the rate of inflation was 10 percent, then the rate of

increase in government spending should be just 9 percent. Those are his

words in a formal document which he presented to the government of

Canada. After going back east and telling the federal government that

this is what should happen, he came home and ordered his Minister of

Finance to increase government spending in this province by 20 percent,

which was then double the rate of inflation. We saw an example of the

Premier talking out of both sides of his mouth, a Premier trying to

emulate the ancient god Janus, looking both fore and aft — the

two-faced god who could look in both directions and say different

things from different faces. That's what our Premier did. He went back

east and said, "Keep the rate of government spending below the rate of

inflation," came back home and made it double the rate of inflation in

this province. That was just a few years back. In the fiscal year

1980-81 that was the rate of government expenditures over the previous

year — a 20 percent increase.

1981-82 there was another 20 percent increase, and his cabinet

ministers followed suit. His cabinet ministers thought: "That's the way

to go, man. Here's our Premier saying we should increase our government

expenditures by 20 percent a year over the year before." And they tried

their best to accommodate him. One of them went to New York — a

limousine, Sugar Babies and all that. It has been dealt with to some

extent in this House as well as outside. But he followed the Premier's

advice and figured he should spend more money out of his ministry than

was actually coming in. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman), brand-new in the cabinet at that time, followed the

Premier's advice, followed the Premier's actions, and thought it was

best to spend all sorts of money.

The Premier also went back

east and said to the federal government: "In tough times you can run a

deficit — it's okay." He qualified it somewhat, but he did say to the

federal government that even with a reformed, less ambitious fiscal

policy, it will be necessary for governments to run deficits in

slow-growth years, but that these must be specifically balanced by

offsetting surpluses. Then over a five-year period you should plan to

balance your deficits with your increased income. That's the old

Keynesian approach to fiscal matters. That was the tone the Premier set.

also went back to the federal government at the same time with the same

document that had been enunciated on so many occasions, and said to the

federal government: "Your high interest rate policy is the way to go.

We support what the Bank of Canada is doing. We think that's the thing

to do — increase interest rates, make them as high as you possibly can,

because that's monetarism, and that's the way to go." The Premier has

not yet recanted from that particular position,

So that's

the kind of example the Premier has set for this province:

(1) advocating high interest rates, having them accepted by the federal

government, and then turning around and saying that the federal

government is wrong; (2) advocating restraint in government spending and

then coming home and doing just the opposite; (3) advocating deficits

at the operating level and now saying it's the wrong sort of thing to

do. He's taken a 180-degree turn. The difficulty with the 180-degree

turn, Mr. Chairman, is that he forgot to tell the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. He forgot to tell the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He forgot to tell the

Minister of Finance. He forgot to tell those Ontario types that he

hired. I don't know whether the person who is leaning on the Premier's

chair is from Ontario or not, but one Patrick Kinsella certainly came

from Ontario. He forgot to tell these guys: "Look: we've got a

different course of action out here." He's got the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs in trouble. He's got the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, otherwise known as Broadway Bob, in

trouble.

[ Page 9048 ]

And

he's got the Minister of Finance in trouble. He's got the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the-champagne-for-breakfast girl in

trouble. He's got all of them in trouble, because he forgot to tell

them that he's embarked upon a different course of action. That, I

suppose, is what politics is. The difficulty is that the Premier

doesn't understand it. He thinks he can juggle and manipulate, and that

people have short memories. But people have long memories and they

know wrongdoing when they see it.

They know, for instance,

says the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)....

I can't understand why the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing didn't

go along on that trip to Arizona that his seatmate, the Minister of

Consumer Affairs went on, because the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs told the House the other day that he went to Arizona

to inquire about housing. I'm sure the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing feels upset that he wasn't taken along on that binge to

Arizona, because, it dealt with housing matters.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'll

get back to the Premier. The first year he came into office as the

Premier of this province, 1976-77, he set the example by increasing the

Premier's office expenditures by 70 percent over the year before.

That's this Premier. He wanted to live it up as high as he possibly

could. In 1981-82, not too long ago, the increase was 30 percent. We've

seen an escalation in the amount of public funds which the current

Premier of the province of British Columbia believes was necessary for

his own high standards of living and travel. That set the tone and

pattern for this government to squander every conceivable penny of the

public's money they could get their hands on.

The current

Premier has spent on his office in the seven years he's been in office

— personally, individually — more than twice the amount of money that

the preceding Premiers — the late W.A.C. Bennett and the person who is

now the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), who was the

Premier in the period of 1972-75 — spent in 25 years. This Premier, in

the seven short years he's been in office, has squandered and spent

more than twice the amount those two combined did over a 25-year period.

Look

at the pattern of activity he set that was followed by people working

in the Premier's own office, out of his office and under his direction.

We all know about the Kinsella furniture escapade, in which this

hotshot from Bill Davis's operation in Queen's Park came out here and

attempted to show us peons and peasants who live in British Columbia

how the thing operates back east, and how he got caught up short on his

extravagance with respect to furniture.

Let's see what this guy Kinsella, a confrere of the person sitting in the

chamber right at the moment, I understand, in some way or another.... They

talk with each other, and so on. This is what our friend Patrick Kinsella did

on November 23, 1981. This is why we want to cut back on the Premier's estimates

this year, somehow or other to atone for the monetary, financial abuses of this

hotshot from Ontario. On November 23 he rented a limousine here in the city

of Victoria, I'm told, from some group called Classic Limousine Service.

It seems to be a division of something called Sybarite Investments Ltd. What

did this limousine do? This high profile, hotshot political friend of the Premier

is not interested in running the affairs of the Premier of the province of British

Columbia, but is more interested in his own high living and the combination

of straight, absolute, partisan, rotten Socred politics. Let's see what

this guy Kinsella did.

hired a limousine on November 23. One of the things the limousine was

supposed to do, which apparently it did do at 7:30 that evening, was

pick up somebody at 2345 Cedar Hill. The bill was charged to "Mr. and

Mrs. Kinsella, deputy minister to Premier, Mr. Bennett's office." Just

in case there was any doubt as to who was the Premier, I suppose, he

put in that it was Mr. Bennett's office. After the pickup of a couple

of people, this limousine at $35 an hour went to the Harbour Towers.

Then they went to Government House. Then they waited for some long

period of time. I don't know what went on on November 23 at Government

House, but that's where they were. Following that, whoever it was who

was in this limousine — there were two passengers — went to 151 St.

Andrews, No. 404. The limousine was ordered by one Susan Cutler, who, I

understand, at that time worked in the Premier's office and was the

secretary to Mr