1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

79 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

B.C. Systems Corporation annual report, 1982-83.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority financial statements.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority audited financial statements.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 79

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report, March 31 –– 1983.

Hon. A. Fraser –– 79

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report –– 1982.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 79

Milk Board annual report, December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 79

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 79

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 79

Oral Questions

Removal of Spetifore land from ALR. Ms. Sanford –– 79

Prosecution of heroin trafficking cases. Mr. Segarty –– 79

Elimination of Heritage Advisory Board. Mr. Hanson –– 80

Employment-bridging assistance program. Mr. Nicolson –– 80

Interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 80

Victoria Convention Centre. Mr. Blencoe –– 81

Throne speech debate

Mr. Lockstead –– 81

Hon. A. Fraser –– 85

Mr. Macdonald –– 88

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 91

Mr. Cocke –– 95

Mr. Campbell –– 99

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Environment annual report, 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 101

British Columbia Railway financial statements, December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 101

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this

afternoon we have some of our province's most talented and successful

athletes. In fact, within their ranks are Canada's top international

competitors. These young men and women are the winners of this year's

$2,500 Premier's Athletic Awards, which are used to help offset the

costs of training and allow each of them to pursue their education here

in British Columbia. With us this afternoon are: Janice Mason, a rower

from Victoria; Allison Eades, a track and field athlete from Burnaby;

Sandra Stapleton, a badminton player from Vancouver; David Wilkinson, a

track and field athlete from North Vancouver; Anita Botnen, a gymnast

from West Vancouver.

In addition to these outstanding athletes, there are six other

Premier's Athletic Award winners. Unfortunately these individuals

cannot be here today, as they are competing and training around the

world. Those winners not able to attend are: Hugh Fisher, a member of

the national kayak team, from Burnaby; Lisa Roy, a rower from Victoria;

Tricia Smith, a rower from Vancouver; Gerry Sorensen, a skier from

Kimberley; Roberta Barker, an archer from Victoria; and Debbie Brill, a

high-jumper from Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, the athletes in the gallery are joined by their justly

proud families, and I would ask the House to join me in wishing this

very special group of British Columbians best wishes and good luck as

they pursue their interests in amateur sports.

MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon is a very

well-known citizen of Burnaby, Mr. Norman Kelsey, and I would ask the

House to bid him welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery today are

three university student leaders: Mr. Brian Stevenson, president of the

University of Victoria Alma Mater Society; Donna Morgan, executive

officer of the Canadian Federation of Students and a student at Simon

Fraser University; and Stephen Learey, chairperson for British Columbia

at the Canadian Federation of Students. I ask the House to bid them

welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a

constituent of mine, a lady that I've known for many years, Miss Mary

Ann Ruiter. Mary Ann has been affiliated for several years with one of

the better newspapers in the province, Houston Today , and I would ask the House to make her very welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Also in the gallery today is my cousin, the

Very Reverend Ronald Shepherd, Dean of the Anglican diocese of

Montreal. We don't see him in Victoria very often. Would the House join

me in welcoming him.

MR. REE: In the gallery today are Mr. Alan Wilkinson and Mrs. Trudy

Wilkinson. Besides being the mother of David Wilkinson, who has won one of the

Premier's awards, Mrs. Trudy Wilkinson is also a member of the same PEO

sisterhood as my wife is. I would ask this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the B.C. Systems

Corporation for the fiscal year 1982-83; the audited financial

statements of the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing

Authority; and the audited financial statements of the B.C. Educational

Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

Hon. A. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food for the year 1982; and the annual report of the

Milk Board for the year ending December 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the tenth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the year 1982.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the forty-eighth annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the year 1982.

Oral Questions

REMOVAL OF SPETIFORE LAND FROM ALR

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. In view of the historic decision of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District to reject the sacrifice of agricultural

land in Delta for the benefit of the corporate speculators, has the

government decided to rescind order-in-council 3381? That

order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, was the one passed in 1981 which removed

the Spetifore land from the agricultural land reserve against the

wishes of the Land Commission.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: In view of the sordid history of this particular

piece of property, has the minister decided to hold a public inquiry

into the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Spetifore land

from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I submit the question is argumentative and, hence, out of order.

[2:15]

PROSECUTION OF

HEROIN TRAFFICKING CASES

MR. SEGARTY: My question is to the Attorney-General. In view

of the recent court decision by County Court Judge Leggatt dismissing

heroin traffic charges on the grounds that the use of writs of

assistance by the RCMP is unconstitutional, has the Attorney-General

decided to discuss with the federal Solicitor-General legislative or

other changes to ensure the protection of our young people from

victimization by heroin pushers is not undermined by procedural

technicalities?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the member, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the prosecution of

[ Page 80 ]

drug cases is not a matter, unfortunately, that

comes under the province. It comes under the federal Attorney-General,

but the law enforcement part of drugs is something that I do have

responsibility for. I'll certainly be discussing the Cuff case and the

procedures that are going to be followed, to ensure that there are

proper methods of search and seizure in drug cases arising out of that.

MR. SEGARTY: On a supplementary, will there be an appeal procedure, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Member, you gave me about five minutes' notice of this question, for which I thank you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Only five.

I am not able to tell you if an appeal has been launched, because it

would be an appeal launched by a federal prosecutor. I'll bring that

information back to you.

ELIMINATION OF

HERITAGE ADVISORY BOARD

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary.

The Heritage Advisory Board of the province consists of 12 eminent

historians, including Dr. Margaret Ormsby, Dr. Charles Humphries and

Martin Segger, who wrote a book about this building. Why have you fired

this board?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The board wasn't fired; it was rescinded.

The advisory board essentially will be replaced by the Heritage Trust.

The Heritage Trust, as it stands, will be beefed up. The heritage

conservation branch of my ministry has grown with professionals over

recent years. We have a variety of additional historians and

archaeologists in the ministry. Really, the Heritage Advisory Board did

a useful role while it was in place, and now that particular role will

be taken over by a beefed-up Heritage Trust, and in conjunction with

the heritage conservation branch they'll fulfil that role

satisfactorily.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this board is unpaid. There is no

cost to the province other than a very modest travel budget for these

people to visit various parts of the province or come to Victoria. Dr.

Margaret Ormsby wrote a history of British Columbia. Have you not

decided to have the Mr. Tozers, the Mr. Dan Campbells and others do the

writing of B.C. history instead of the professionals who would do it

voluntarily out of their own academic excellence?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I won't respond

to those facetious and cheap political remarks from that second or

third member for Victoria. I want to tell you that as an advisory board

to the minister, they don't write history books for me.

EMPLOYMENT-BRIDGING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources. In view of the fact that the EBAP program expires on June 30

and that the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has conveyed to the

provincial government his willingness to continue the program, which

over and above the payment of unemployment insurance benefits

contributes $3 for every British Columbia dollar, why has the minister

decided not to continue participation in the program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for the question

because we have just announced the cessation of this program today. It

was a federal-provincial program shared by the two governments, and it

was intended as a short-term job creation program. The

employment-bridging assistance program, which began a year ago April,

and which for the first six months met a tremendous amount of criticism

from various sectors in this province — whether from unions, from the

private-sector management people or from the media — in spite of that

criticism has been truly the most successful in this nation. It has

provided more jobs in the province of B.C. than all of the other

provinces put together.

The decision was made in March to extend this program to the end of

June. That extension has been met. We then were asked to extend it

further, and it was not until late yesterday that we heard that the

federal administration was ready to extend it for those next three

months.

In assessing the need at this time, we feel that the program met the

greatest need in the greatest time of need in the province. It was very

successful. It has provided the target which we set out a year ago last

April of exceeding 100,000 man-weeks of work; in fact, it has created

113,000 man-weeks of work.

In spite of its success, we feel that the timing now is such that

the forest industry's recovery, albeit slow — the total economic

recovery, albeit slow — is better done in the private sector, and we

will not be putting forward the almost $4 million needed between now

and the end of September to extend the program as was requested.

We make this announcement with regret, Mr. Speaker, but we believe

that the moneys — we have to be very cautious in this economic time —

will be better served in other areas.

MR. NICOLSON: In view of the fact that a contribution of $3.9

million for provincial participation would probably generate over $11

million of federal money, why has the government decided that bringing

in these federal dollars is counterproductive to the economic interests

of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Our decision was not based entirely on

whether or not we were to get federal funding. It was based on the

capability of the funds here in British Columbia.

INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Eleven months ago, in July 1982, mortgage interest

rates in Canada began their slide from 20 percent to the current 11

percent, and bank profits since then have been enormous, in part

because homeowners and businesses are locked into 20 percent mortgages.

Yet banks routinely refuse to renegotiate 18 and 20 percent mortgages.

Has the minister taken any steps, either in consultation with the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) or with his federal counterparts,

to try to protect the public interest by curtailing this usurious

practice?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the taking of steps, I have in the past months met with representatives of the

[ Page 81 ]

banking industry, and I know that in a number of

cases they have set up their own management committees where they can

deal with the complaints of consumers or mortgage holders where they

have felt they've had a verbal agreement that they could renegotiate

their mortgage at a later date, and some of those complaints have been

dealt with fairly. The matter of legislating it: no, there have been no

moves in that regard, bearing in mind, of course, that banks come under

federal legislation.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate that banks come under federal legislation.

I would recall to the minister that the spread between the prime

rate and what the banks pay on deposits was 0.9 percent for December

31, 1980, and at the end of April was 4.9 percent. Has the minister

taken any steps...? Has he discussed with the Minister of Finance or

with his federal counterparts any method by which this spread might be

reduced?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

VICTORIA CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier. On April 14,

1983, at a rally in Esquimalt, the Premier committed $11 million

towards the construction of a convention centre in Victoria "to be

prepaid" — I use his words — "from hundreds of millions of dollars of

profits from the B.C. Place development." Has the Premier decided when

these funds will be made available to the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know what the member is talking about. On April 14 I was in Terrace.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question. The Premier has

gone on record as saying he is prepared to fund this convention centre.

I ask again: is he prepared to submit funds for this particular

convention centre?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I recall no such commitment.

MR. BLENCOE: In view of the high level of unemployment in

Victoria — and I would remind the Premier that between April and May of

this year Victoria experienced an extra 2,000 people on the

unemployment rolls — and in view of the incredible amounts of money

going to Vancouver for project funding, does the Premier agree that

Victoria needs and deserves a shot in the arm for the construction of a

convention centre in Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty

with the member. I think the proposal he's talking about — B.C.

Development Corporation — may have been made during the election

campaign by someone who wanted to become Premier and didn't. My

position and that of this government has always been that public

facilities will be built out of the profits generated from British

Columbia Place and that every community in British Columbia will

participate. B.C. Place is not being financed out of the tax revenues

of this province; it is being financed against future earnings from the

property development. Given the computer projections on the rate of

development, various inflation factors and the revenues we would

achieve in developing the projects, that money could flow in a very few

years and be available for other provinces. However, should delays take

place because of regulations from the Vancouver city council, then of

course those moneys won't be available. I have said many times that

it's in the interest of every community to see the speedy development

of British Columbia Place, because they can share in the profits that

will be generated over the 25 years of development, amounting to

millions and millions of dollars.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster said

"nonsense." It's not nonsense. That's the member who criticized the

stadium, who's been against ALRT, who wants to bring back streetcars. I

want to tell that member for Victoria, the bold planning of this

government in developing B.C. Place offers not only tremendous

development in downtown Vancouver, but hope for development from those

profits for every community, including Victoria.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

[2:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I suppose we should open in the traditional

way, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to see you in the chair. I have the

opportunity of congratulating you personally on your election as

Speaker of this House. Let me congratulate as well the Deputy Speaker,

the member for Prince George South, and all members of this House,

particularly the new members. It's really a learning experience for all

of us. I'm sure they'll very much enjoy their short four-year stay here.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The remark from across the floor suggests that

I should give up my cigarettes. The fact is, I think I'm going to have

to. Aside from the health situation, the way this government is

increasing taxes on tobacco and other refreshments, we'll all have to

give up those little pleasures shortly, I'm sure.

I really don't know where to begin with this throne speech. It has

been fairly specific in some areas. It is certainly a self-serving

document for the government. I guess in very general terms the

political objectives suggested by the philosophy as outlined in the

throne speech include reducing not just the size but the

responsibilities of government, both in terms of public service and

economic leadership — something the Premier, by the way, refers to as

"downsizing." I guess we'll know what he means by that during the

course of the budget debate. It also includes arbitrarily defining the

boundary between the public sector, which in the throne speech is

defined as being bad, and the private sector, which in the throne

speech is defined as being good, turning a blind eye towards

unemployment and the fight against inflation, and dismantling the

rights of workers to protect their living standards in the name of

investor confidence.

It is obvious that the monetarist economics of the Fraser Institute

have a stranglehold on the political imagination of the Premier and his

cabinet. The monetarist vision of politics

[ Page 82 ]

is distrustful of democracy. Indeed it defines

democratic institutions as part of the cause and not part of the

solution to our economic malaise. It actually promotes the use of

massive unemployment, together with attacks on the rights of working

people. Many of your people agree with attacking working people, Mr.

Member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty).

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That is your philosophy. Don't deny it. I've

listened to your speeches over there — speech after speech attacking

the working people of this province. That's what you believe in.

The government's strategy seems to be to promote recovery by

bolstering business confidence and stimulating private investment. They

are committed to assist investors by transferring the costs of the

current recession to the working people. Their plan is to redistribute

income away from working people toward the private sector. In other

words, what they are saying is: "Rob the poor; give it to the rich."

Accordingly, we are promised changes to the Labour Code, which will

make it easier to undermine the bargaining power of working people and

thus facilitate wage rollbacks and those kinds of things. Downsizing of

government means more cuts to public and social services, which in turn

provides more room and resources for private-sector expansion.

Similarly the privatization of public services and Crown corporations

means lower living standards in exchange for more corporate profits.

The government is abandoning its responsibility to ensure that

economic development occur in a rational and balanced fashion by

surrendering all essential decisions to the private sector. That is

what they are saying in that throne speech. They are prepared to

abandon the future of this province's resources to the whims of the

quick-buck artist. That's what we'll be seeing in that budget when it

comes down and in legislation coming down the tube in this House later

this fall — possibly the summer, for all we know.

To the unemployed and those at the lower end of the income scale who

will suffer most from Socred social reorganization, they offer only

their feeble belief in the trickle-down theory, which is that when the

rich get richer some crumbs will fall off to the low income and the

poor people, maybe. That's what it is all about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

During the course of my presentation, I want to discuss for a moment

or two the mismanagement of that government — the past mismanagement.

There has been a great deal of mismanagement. The government admits to

its own mismanagement in some ways. I have obtained figures from the

government's quarterly financial reports and the provincial budgets for

1976 to 1982, and I have compiled a list of figures. I am not going to

read out this whole list, but I will give you the bottom line figures,

Mr. Speaker. As of December 31, 1975, the total debt including the

Crown corporations of this province was $4,425,100,000. At the end of

March 31, 1983 the total debt of this province — once again including

the Crown corporations — was $14,178,400,000. At the end of 1975 every

man, woman and child in fact in this province owed approximately $1,800

on our provincial debt. Under the Social Credit government that figure

has increased to over $5,000 owed by each man, woman and child in this

province, debt brought about by the Social Credit government. And they

call themselves managers. What really disturbs me is that they have

four years ahead of them to increase that debt, and that debt will, I

predict, double, if not triple, over the next four years under Social

Credit government mismanagement.

I recall very well, when that government came into power in 1976,

that they promised this province would never incur a debt in any fiscal

year. Yet in the last three years, possibly the last four years,

they've not balanced the budget and there has been a debt. Right now —

we don't know for sure, but we'll know next week when the budget comes

down — the debt for the last fiscal year is estimated to be somewhere

around $1.4 billion, if they tell us the truth about the debt in the

budget.

There have been more small business failures in this province over

the last year, under Social Credit mismanagement, than in any other

province in Canada. We've had one of the highest unemployment rates in

all of Canada, with some exceptions in the maritime provinces. I could

talk about many areas in British Columbia — Port Alberni, Kamloops,

Prince George. In one of my communities, Powell River, the unemployment

rate is 24 percent at the present time, in spite of the sharp upturn in

the logging industry over the last three or four months. That's

unacceptable, and they're not doing anything about it except dropping

programs that could help some of those people. They're abandoning those

programs. Plant closures? Lots of them. Some of my colleagues discussed

some of those closures in this House yesterday. The major pulp mills in

my riding have had long-term shutdowns, and one pulp mill has been shut

down permanently by this government; that is, of course, Ocean Falls.

When this government shut down that operation in 1980, they promised in

writing that a new industry would be located in that community within

six months. Here we are in 1983 and they have made no decision with

regard to the future of Ocean Falls. People are still living in that

community in hopes that something will happen there.

I see the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)

is in the House. I know that minister is speaking next, so he may have

the opportunity to reply to the matter I'm going to raise. It's quite a

serious matter relating to transportation and to that community.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation decided many months ago not to utilize the Queen of the North

to call into that community once every second week, and subsidized a

private carrier. I want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to the

subsidization of private carriers where the situation warrants, but in

this particular instance — the subsidy, by the way, was $60,000 — the

private carrier service is inconsistent. Food and freight rates have

tripled and it is not being utilized. In fact, in some cases it is

cheaper to fly certain staples into the community than to utilize the

present carrier with the high rates. I understand that after the

contract was signed the freight rates were substantially increased.

I can understand the corporation's thinking on this matter, because they claim it was costing $200,000 a year for the Queen of the North

to make that extra side trip to Ocean Falls. That figure, by the way,

is not correct. It is on a weekly basis, and the residents of Ocean

Falls would have been satisfied to have that vessel call once every

three weeks, thus reducing the total to $75,000 as a cost to the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. If you add the fares, there were $49,000 worth of

fares out of Ocean Falls on that vessel last year, which would have more

[ Page 83 ]

than made up the difference. However, it was a bad

agreement. So what I am asking the minister, because he happens to be

in the House — one of the few who are in the House at the present time,

by the way.... I know he's speaking next and I'm asking the minister

now, as I have in writing, to meet with the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible to

this Legislature for the Ocean Falls Corporation, and with the chairman

of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and discuss with these

people the future of that community and how transportation services can

be improved to that community. We have a lot of problems with

transportation to other areas — Bella Coola, Bella Bella, places like

that. I'll leave that discussion until the transportation estimates.

But this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, must be resolved very quickly

on behalf of the residents of Ocean Falls.

[2:45]

The throne speech talks about privatization, and it's a pretty sure

bet that portions of ICBC are going to go down the tube. Once the

private insurance companies have the monopoly on certain classes of

insurance, the rates will go up and B.C. dollars will once again start

pouring out of the province — no question about that. We don't know

about the liquor control branch. Certainly portions of the liquor

distribution branch will be privatized — so called — and once again

there is the possibility of British Columbia dollars leaving the

province.

We don't know where the government is going to go. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, we know that they would go as far as they could. If they

thought they could get away with it politically, they would privatize

hospitals. I know they would. But I don't think they'll go quite that

far. They'd like to. They'd like to privatize B.C. Hydro, but they know

they couldn't get away with that either, so they probably won't — maybe

portions thereof, but they probably won't. They would like to privatize

the B.C. Ferry Corporation. After all, the government last year paid a

subsidy to the corporation of some $43 million, reduced from the

previous year by 25.1 percent, thereby reducing services to many

communities on the coast of British Columbia. I must, at this point,

say that I am impressed with many of the senior management people

within the corporation. Under the circumstances, I think they've done

an excellent job, considering their subsidy had been reduced by 25.1

percent.

How about the B.C. Petroleum Corporation? What's going to happen to

that? We're pretty sure we know. That's going to be turned back to the

private sector. We know you'd want to do that if you could, and I think

you will. I think you'll turn the B.C. Petroleum Corporation over to

the private sector and let those oil companies reap their windfall

profits, so they can take those profits and invest them in other parts

of the world. You're a sell-out crowd. You sold us out in northeast

coal, you sold us out in southeast coal, and you're going to sell us

out every chance you get. You know you will.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Of course you will.

The Motor Carrier Commission. Is that going to be disbanded, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker? Deregulated?

MR. REID: You can count on that one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: How high can you count?

So you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? If they do away with the

Motor Carrier Commission, that means the large international trucking

companies will come in here, as they did when this happened in the

United States — undercut the local carriers, drive them out of business

and double and triple freight rates all over the province. That's the

net result of what we're talking about. I'd like to hear from the

minister when he plans to do away with the Motor Carrier Commission in

the province of British Columbia.

We haven't heard from the government on how far they intend to cut

back on silviculture, site preparation, tree-planting — all these kinds

of things — within the next year. I know that throughout my riding

there are literally hundreds of people not working at the present time

because funds have not been forthcoming to the regional offices at the

time of year when tree-planting, thinning, site preparation — these

kinds of things — should be happening. They are not happening because

the local regional offices within the forest region have not received

the funds or permission — I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) over there; I hope he's listening — to proceed with these

projects, and as a result literally hundreds and hundreds of people who

could be working on these much needed projects now are not working.

I understand that minister is going to be speaking this afternoon as

well. So we would like to hear from him that he is putting another $250

million this year into that much needed program, along with the money

the federal government will be supplying for these programs, hopefully,

in British Columbia this year.

On the social side of things, as mentioned in the throne speech, I

guess there will be cutbacks, reductions in staff and these kinds of

things. Once again, it will be the health care and the social services

that will be hit by the government's so-called restraint program. I

just want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in some areas of my

riding, because of understaffing, it takes two weeks for an individual

to see a Human Resources officer, unless it happens to be an extreme

emergency — and who defines that, some girl at the front desk? I don't

know. I know that I've helped literally....

Well, I was going to say hundreds, but I'm sure it's not that many.

I've made appointments for many, many people because they could not get

in to see a Human Resources officer because of a lack of people in some

of these offices. With the high unemployment rate we have now, and more

and more people coming off UIC, what are they supposed to live on for

two weeks while they are waiting to see a Human Resources officer?

These are the kinds of things that affect people. But this

government doesn't care. It's quite obvious when you read the throne

speech that their emphasis is not on people, not on social programs. A

government that should be elected to serve all of the people is

actually, by definition in the throne speech, going to serve a very

small segment of the people, and that's their rich friends. That'll be

about the size of it.

We can obviously expect increased user fees in our hospitals — no

doubt about that. It's okay for someone making a couple of hundred

thousand and millions of dollars a year; they can probably afford to

pay $20 each day for a hospital visit. But if you're on a low income or

UIC, or if you have a large family — whatever — it makes a great deal

of difference. This government, I predict, will increase user fees.

Education cutbacks. There'll be further cutbacks.

[ Page 84 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Where?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There will be further cutbacks.

HON. A. FRASER: Tell us where. Tell us how many dollars.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay.

HON. A. FRASER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was about to give you some examples, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope that will satisfy that loud and boisterous

porcupine member for Cariboo.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. minister will have the opportunity to enter into debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The fact is that I happen to have in my possession....

I see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) in the House;

I'm very pleased to see you here, because I have a letter for you. The

Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) wants to know of a specific

program where cutbacks have taken place. Here's one recent example. I

have a letter here addressed to the Minister of Education; it's a copy

to me. It's from the Citizen Advocacy Society in the community of

Powell River, which deals with handicapped people. I'll send a copy of

this letter over to you, Mr. Minister, when I'm finished.

"Enclosed please find a copy of our presentation which

was given to the regional board of Malaspina College, Powell River. We

are very concerned about the future classes for the mentally

handicapped adults as citizens of our community. Their lives have been

greatly enriched by the education received on this campus, and we

seriously question the curtailment or abolishment of programs such as

this. We ask that you take this matter into your most immediate

consideration."

Then they go on to explain the program.

Basically what this government has done is cut off education

opportunities for handicapped people at the community college level.

That is what they've done.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hear the member over there say: "Not true."

So, my dear friends in Powell River, the people on the Social Credit

side are calling you a bunch of liars. Well, I would prefer to believe

my constituents rather than you over there, I can tell you that.

Just so that it's on the record, I'm sending a copy of this letter

over to you, Mr. Minister of Education, and I hope that you'll do

something about it, and at least answer these people; they have not yet

received a reply from you.

The list goes on and on. However, I do want to talk about a couple

of other items. As a matter of fact, over the last three or four years

one of the big issues in the Powell River area has been the proposed

natural gas line to Vancouver Island, which became a major issue in the

campaign. A lot of things were said by a lot of people that were not

necessarily true. Finally, after that issue was raised many times in

this House, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

Hon. Mr. McClelland, who would not talk to anyone or listen to reason,

decided that Hydro was going to supply Vancouver Island with natural

gas. Because the minister took that position so adamantly, one day when

that minister was out of town the Premier of this province said, "No,

there will be public hearings," and a new Minister of Energy was then

appointed. The Public Utilities Commission was commissioned to listen

to submissions; they suggested that recommendations be presented to

cabinet in October of this year. It's three years behind schedule, but

that's fine; we finally got the thing off the ground.

I raise this matter today because of the inconsistency in statements

made by people in the Social Credit government. During the course of

the campaign the Premier made two separate visits to the community of

Courtenay, on Vancouver Island, with the view, I guess, of unseating

the candidate there, but as usual he was unsuccessful. So we've still

got a good member in this House to represent the Courtenay area. On

Friday, April 15, the Comox and District Free Press reported:

"Both Premier Bill Bennett and provincial Energy minister

Brian Smith have said that there was a commitment from the federal government

and that he had received assurances from Ottawa that there will in fact be a

federal subsidy forthcoming from Ottawa for that project."

A week later, on April 20, he repeated, more or less, that statement. Once again the Premier was quoted:

"Premier Bill Bennett said Saturday that he has a

personal commitment to assist in obtaining federal funding for

construction of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island from Ottawa."

Then we have a two-page letter from, of all people, the federal

Minister of Energy, Mr. Jean Chretien, relating to the matter of

federal government subsidies to natural gas lines. It's from the

federal Minister of Energy, dated April 5:

"I have made it clear to Mr. Smith that no specific

financial commitment to the pipelines from the federal government would

be made until my officials have had an opportunity to review in depth

the economic, financial and engineering aspects of the proposal."

He concludes this lengthy letter, which has been made public — the

press have copies, if anybody is interested; it's no big secret — by

saying:

"The federal government wishes to review carefully the

economic benefits of large-scale projects like the pipeline to

Vancouver Island before committing itself to a course of action."

[3:00]

Clearly the minister is saying that there is no clear commitment.

Once again this government was caught not telling the truth. Yet the

Premier and his henchmen went around Comox, Vancouver Island and all

through my riding telling people that they had a clear-cut commitment.

Now who do you believe? Do you believe the Premier of this province or

the federal Minister of Energy? I'm inclined not to believe either one

of them.

[ Page

85 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I believe I heard the member refer to some of us over here as "henchmen." If he did, I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. However,

the Chair also noted that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

indicated that members in this assembly might not be telling the truth.

That is an unparliamentary reference. I'm sure if the member has made

any such reference to another hon. member the member for Mackenzie

would withdraw.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I certainly withdraw. I was attempting to

point out a discrepancy between the public statements made by the

Premier during the course of an election campaign, I presume for

election purposes, and the signed correspondence from the federal

Minister of Energy, who said something quite different. You can make up

your own mind as to who is telling the truth. One or the other is not

telling the truth, but I don't know which one it is. You can make up

your own mind. I've made up my mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members in this House are honourable, and I'm sure the hon. member knows it. I thank you for your explanation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There are a number of other items we'll get

to, probably in the debate on the spending estimates. That'll probably

take us well into November or December, but we'll see.

There is a severe problem developing in the Bella Coola valley

relating to flood control. I want to take this opportunity to thank the

previous Minister of Environment. Although the total funding for flood

control had been expended last year, the minister went to Treasury

Board because we had an extremely serious situation developing. In

jeopardy were 60 homes, schools, stores, these kinds of things, and the

minister came up with $200,000, in effect saving portions of that

community from flooding. I really appreciate that. However, that's only

the tip of the iceberg. What we require is a further $1.5 million of

diking and rip-rap in that community. If we have even a 10-year flood

cycle — it could happen this year or next year, but I guarantee you it

will happen at some point — the cost to the people of the province will

be a great deal more than $1.5 million for flood control. So I'm asking

for it now, because we don't know when we're going to get to these

estimates. I've had discussions with the minister and other people in

the ministry, and the engineers in the ministry certainly agree that

this work has to be done. Again, I mention it now so that it is on

record that these funds are needed to save large portions of settled

areas in the Bella Coola valley.

Also, while we have the Minister of Transportation in the House, I

would once again ask that minister — to give him time before we get to

his estimates — to seriously consider financial assistance to the

Campbell Island proposed airport facility, a facility that is required

and that the federal government is prepared to share in costing.

HON. A. FRASER: Wrong island.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, the right island. Campbell Island. I know

what island the minister is thinking of and I wish he was on it right

now. I'm very clear: airport assistance to the 1,200 people living on

Campbell Island, not the 42 people living on the minister's island.

I know he's a bit of a pork-barrel minister, but he's not bad to deal with.

We also require the continued reconstruction of Highway 101, which

the Social Credit government abandoned when they became government to

pour money into Kelowna and places like that. Continued reconstruction

of Highway 101 is a must. If you have any respect at all for the lives

of people, you'll make a commitment during the course of your budget to

continue the reconstruction of that highway up the Sunshine Coast. I

don't want to hear about band aid patching, a bit of black and pothole

filling. Don't tell me that; I don't want to hear about it. I want

continued reconstruction of Highway 101 and equality in my riding. If I

had 25 percent of the money the minister spends on his own riding we'd

be well away.

Is my time running out? I hope not; I've got a lot more to say.

I've discussed ferries briefly so I won't get into that again. My

critic role has been changed and I'm really looking forward to

discussing mines, petroleum resources and these kinds of things during

the course of the estimates with the new Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum.

I thank you for your patience. Oh, I do have a closing statement; I'm not finished yet.

The extent to which the Socreds are prepared to fulfil the grim

promises of the throne speech will I suppose be revealed when the long

overdue provincial budget is presented next week. It seems all too

likely that the extreme right-wing rhetoric will be translated into

extreme — unfortunately — right-wing reality.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I want to congratulate you and

the Speaker on your high appointment and wish you well. You know that

I'll never give you any difficulty. If you can control the other 56

here, you won't have any problem at all. Best of luck. I would also

like to pass on my good wishes to all MLAs elected, new or old, but

more specifically to the new. Somebody said yesterday that this is an

exclusive club, and you're certainly welcome. I wish you all well.

One of the delightful things about what has happened since we were

here last is that we had a great election on May 5. I've sat here since

last Thursday and listened. and you'd think the socialists across the

way had won the election, so I'm going to spend the next half hour

telling them they got soundly defeated on May 5. For the record, when

the Legislature was dissolved on April 7, 1983, there were 31 Social

Crediters and 26 NDPers. I've got that in the record; I don't have to

repeat it. The existing situation, up to about 4 o'clock, is 34 Social

Crediters and 22 socialists. We'll have to wait until later on today,

but certainly they are very gratifying results, to say the least. After

sitting and listening to that diatribe from over there since 1979, it

is very gratifying to see that very little of that filters through to

the general public, who make the final decisions.

Just in reference to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who

just sat down, I'm very unhappy that he's been fired by his leaderless

party. They haven't any leader, but he reshuffled his critics. The

member for Mackenzie was my critic, and he got booted. I don't

understand that. I would

[ Page 86 ]

tell him — I know he's gone — thinking of his

riding, and particularly Bella Coola and Hagensborg, that there's a

petition out now to add that part of his riding to the Cariboo riding

that I have the honour to represent, because of his inability to

represent them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm sorry, but that is an

unparliamentary remark — someone's inability to be here. Would the

member please withdraw it.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, sure, I'll withdraw, but you know, it's what's going on.

However, getting back to myself, I'm highly honoured to be

re-elected as the MLA for Cariboo. I hear a lot of people saying

they've been in public life a long time, but I'm really delighted to be

back and to thank the voters of the Cariboo. I have now won five

general elections, and I really had a tough fight in the last election.

I had four opponents. I hear about these MLAs who get elected from

these postage-stamp ridings, but I had four run against me: the NDP,

the Liberal Party, the Green Party and the Western Canada Concept. You

know, when it all ended up I got the largest majority I've ever got

since I've run for public office. As a matter of fact, the four who ran

against me shared the 30 percent that I didn't get; they divided it up

pretty well equally, too.

But I'm highly honoured. As a matter of fact, for the information of

the House, this is my thirty-fourth consecutive year in elective office

in British Columbia — consecutive is what I'm proud of, Mr. Speaker.

Before the other side says, "Well, it's time you quit," I have no

intention of doing that either.

Let's get down to parties in the election. For your information, the

Social Credit Party received almost 50 percent of the popular vote. The

NDP received almost 45 percent of the popular vote. Sixty percent of

those elected as MLAs were Social Crediters and 40 percent elected were

NDPers or socialists. Even the ones who are here are fortunate to be

back, because all their majorities — at least 15 of the NDPers here —

fell substantially between the 1979 election and the 1983 election.

MR. MACDONALD: What?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, including you, Mr. Vancouver East. Your

own majority fell from 1979 to 1983. Fifteen out of 22 of you fell. I

just make this observation: if we could have delayed voting day from

May 5 to May 9, we'd have practically eliminated the whole bunch of

them over there.

While the press gallery is so full and attentive, I also want to

convey our party's thanks and my thanks to them for the great assist

they gave us during the election. I realize that we didn't have a very

competent opposition, but the press really helped a lot. It would have

turned out to be a landslide if we'd just had three or four more days.

[3:15]

Why did this happen in our great province? I'll tell you why. You

can give all the credit to one man. He sits right down here. He's the

Premier of British Columbia and the leader of the Social Credit Party.

He had our party organized and we had a whole complement of excellent

candidates all over the province. We also presented proper policies to

the people. The main policy that we had was restraint. I want to share

with you that I had the honour to go with our Premier to the first

ministers' conference in February 1982 when he put restraint from all

levels of government on the table. Do you know that he couldn't even

get a seconder at that time? He came right home and on behalf of the

government announced the restraint program on February 18, 1982. That

takes guts, and that takes leadership.

During the election campaign all we heard was continued restraint,

stop giving the public funds away because we haven't got any more funds

to send you to give away — that's why we differed from the socialists

sitting on the other side — and also to get government off our back.

The other thing was that there's always a lot of fun in a campaign. It

was certainly great to see all of our candidates with a uniform policy

that we could face the public of British Columbia with. But the

socialists were a great one — a dandy. I'll give you a few examples of

how they fell on their own sword.

We had a new policy coming every day from a different NDP candidate.

I think the one I got the biggest kick out of was when their candidate

in Delta said that they were going to stop the Annacis bridge. That

bridge jumps from one bank of the river to an island and then to the

bank on the other side. He even said publicly that if it was only built

as far as the island, they'd stop it there — right in the middle of the

construction. Those kinds of messages get through. Then their candidate

for Omineca said that their secret deal to bring back the royalty was

policy, and their leader called him a liar. That was great stuff. Then

we had my old friend, who is long gone, and we've got a good friend

here now saying that ALRT was going to come to a stop. Boy, that was a

dandy! These made the differences to our voters, and with our strong

leadership, the battle was all over.

I'd like to make a prediction here today that we and our leader, the

Premier, just re-elected with a new mandate, which will take our

leade.... We will be government for at least another four years. I

really believe that our leader will exceed the term of office of his

great father, who was Premier of this province for 20 years. The end of

this will be 12-odd years, and I don't think he'll have any difficulty

winning after that because I fear — I don't fear, but I hope — the

socialists have pretty well had it. They are going back to revive the

Regina Manifesto this weekend. If they bring that stuff back, that will

put them in purgatory for another 25 years.

I would be remiss if I didn't say something about the riding I have

the honour to represent, the great Cariboo riding. It's the third

largest riding in British Columbia. I heard the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) say what an arduous task it was to drive 130 miles from

Courtenay to Victoria. I want to tell her that in my riding it takes a

jet aircraft an hour and a half to go from south to north. It's 400

miles long and 400 miles wide, and absolutely full of people who know

how to vote — continuously, properly and consecutively since 1952.

They've never wavered and they never will. In the Cariboo we don't do

any complaining. The recession has been tough on Cariboo, like any

other part of B.C. or Canada. It's affected everyone.

Forestry is the main industry. We have a large beef cattle

production. We have mining and tourism. I've said this before in this

House, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to say it again: you didn't hear

any crying out of the Cariboo because of the recession. I want to tell

you something else: all our mills continue to operate, at a reduced

rate. They didn't lock up and throw the key away under tough

conditions. They kept on going. There are two pulp mills in my

hometown, and they have never missed a shift since 1981. Not one shift!

So I am

[ Page 87 ]

amazed when I read and hear particularly the

socialists over here crying about the pulp mills and sawmills in their

riding. Maybe it's because it's socialist. In the interior, in my

riding, I want to take my hat off to the forest industry, whether it's

sawmills, loggers or pulp mills. They have run right through — at a

great cost to some of them — and now they are getting some back because

the lumber prices have recovered somewhat.

I think we should remember these things. Where all the cry babies

are and what's going on.... There are people not making any noises but

carrying on and maintaining their payrolls. It can be done in our

province. It has been done. I welcome any of these people from the

lower mainland or Vancouver Island to come up and we'll show you how. I

can't understand why an area of the province can maintain their

payrolls and other areas just lock up.

Back to the election campaign. I don't seem to be able to get off

that for some reason; as a matter of fact, I wish we were still

campaigning. Not a great deal has been said....

Referring to the throne speech, they referred there to jobs, and

that of course is the biggest responsibility we all have. I notice that

the other side again have not said anything about the jobs this

government has created and is creating right at the present time. I

would like to refer to B.C. Place — they condemned that. But what is

that? It's creation of jobs. This is why you got defeated so well on

May 5. The member for New Westminster comes in — the health critic —

and scares everybody that is sick. Even he lost in the last election

from the majority he had in 1979, so not too many listened to his guff

either.

MR. COCKE: I did not. I gained.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, you did, eh? You're looking at the wrong record.

MR. COCKE: Six hundred votes, Alex; try to get things straight.

HON. A. FRASER: You get it straight. You are using socialist arithmetic; I'm using proper arithmetic.

Expo 86 is getting on its way. That's all jobs. ALRT, that they shut

down on television one day: that's jobs and that's going ahead, in

spite of the big issue the press are making about the cracks in the

concrete. I think that will be overcome too — that horrendous issue.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, northeast coal — let's deal with that.

Northeast coal provides lots of jobs: 6,000 or 7,000 work there right

now, and we'll end up this fall or winter with 2,500 to 3,000 permanent

jobs. The socialists are going to shut all that down too.

Now I want to lead into — it wasn't talked about a lot — the

stepped-up highway and bridge program that's going on now. It started

this year, replacing bridges and building new ones in new locations

such as the Halston and the Annacis. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to

build the Annacis bridge. The socialists tried to peddle a line that we

had dropped it. We haven't dropped it, and you'll be happy to see that

structure up for 1986, Mr. Speaker.

We're rebuilding existing roads and building new ones. We're

building the Coquihalla — a four-lane limited-access road from Hope to

Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops — and we're busy boring that.

We're building a new road to north B.C. that will tap the Mackenzie

River basin. That will be open in 1984. We've been working on that for

two or three years.

A new road that my colleague here, the member for South Peace River,

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

Phillips).... We're building a brand-new road through the jackpines

from Chetwynd to Tumbler Ridge. We're building it, and we're going to

have it open — seven new bridges and 95 kilometres of paved two-lane

road into Tumbler Ridge before freeze-up 1983.

At the present time this program — the stepped-up highways and

bridge program — has 8,000 people at work who wouldn't be working if it

hadn't been for the stepped-up highway program. Where are those people

from? Sixty-five hundred of those are from the private sector and are

all good B.C. contractors at work — they're not from anywhere else. Let

the Leader of the Opposition say that we create contracts to bring them

in from Alberta or California. These are all B.C.-owned and -operated

contractors who have got this work. What do we get out of the

stepped-up highway program as citizens? We get a better highway system

and a safer system, and we supply jobs to our citizens. I understand

that with these 8,000 jobs, another 24,000 are created on a secondary

level, such as in cement plants and steel fabricating and so on. But

those are the experts that say that.

I don't want to stop at that regarding creating work on highway and

bridge programs. I don't want to miss Highway 99 — we keep on improving

that. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) is

concerned. We have made improvements there. We have more to go.

[3:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There was an

article written in March, I believe it was, Mr.

Speaker, saying that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) and I were liars. By the way, it wasn't by a reporter; it was

by a columnist, and there is a real difference between those two

categories, I'll tell you. The hard-working press reporters — there's a

real difference between them and columnists, because the columnists

just write figments of their imagination. I just want to say on behalf

of the Minister of Human Resources and I.... We were called liars. I

just say to this columnist: "Go out and ask these people who are at

work who is a liar and whether they would have been at work...." Just

go and ask them. Go and ask some of the bulldozer drivers, the grader

operators, the truck drivers, and so on, and see who's the liar —

whether we were going to have this program and anything would come of

it.

I'd just like to make a few critical remarks about Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: The B.C. Buildings Corporation that you set up — tell us about that.

HON. A. FRASER: I just want to make a few broad remarks.

You're right, our government said we would look at Crown corporations,

boards and commissions. I want to tell you that you'd better believe we

will. They are living too high off the hog, Mr. Speaker. They have to

be told that we've got restraint going on, and they are being told that.

[ Page

88 ]

I don't see why, when the Premier of our province sits at a $70

desk, the president of a Crown corporation could have an $8,000 one.

That doesn't add up to me. That's what I say. We've got to take a look

at all these things and really tell them that they are a part of

government, not a little corporation out there by themselves.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want you people to get

too loud over there, because you've all spun your wheels in the

election, and you got defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, you know, we elected 60 percent of the

MLAs and we're entitled to make 60 percent of the noise around here.

They lost over there. They think they won, you know. That's the real

irony of the whole thing: they think they won. They say if you repeat

it and repeat it and repeat it, finally somebody gets the message. And

that's what I'm trying to do today. You confine me in my time, or

otherwise I would like to go further into that.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens and the taxpayers of this province told us

to get better control on public spending, for the simple reason that

they haven't any more money to send us. That's what it's all about.

Governments have no money. The only money they have is what they take

away from the citizens of the province in taxes and levies of different

kinds. They get it all from the citizens.

They also said in the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, that we've got

too much government. I agree with them completely. They said: "Get off

our backs with your silly rules and regulations." And this government

is going to carry out the message we got from the voters.

We're now coming slowly out of a severe recession — slowly but

surely. If we are careful with public funds, full recovery will happen

in due course. Our government is going to assist in any way possible to

speed this up. All our policies were discussed in the election

campaign. They were approved by the majority of the citizens of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Fifty percent, they were. Mr. Speaker, that

member from Westminster will always take the side of socialist

arithmetic, never the kind he was taught in school. Fifty percent, and

I would remind that member that your popular vote dropped from 45 to

44, and some of it dropped so far for some of the members in this House

that they're very fortunate they're here at all.

I guess I'd like to end now. It must be nearly my time to finish. As

my colleague the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said

yesterday, the socialists are going back to rejuvenate the Regina

Manifesto....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Waffle.

HON. A. FRASER: The Waffle — yes, that's right. Well, it's all the same thing.

I'd like to close on this note. This is what Churchill said about

socialism. Churchill said that there are two places in the world for

socialism: one is in heaven where they don't need it, and the other is

in hell where they already have it.

MR. MACDONALD: I join first with the other members who

expressed to you their condolences upon your election as Speaker, and

the same to the Deputy Speaker. I want to say that I enjoyed very

greatly the speech that we have just listened to here in the House by

the hon. Minister of Highways, talking about his big majorities. I

don't mind saying I think a lot of that minister — although not as much

as he does. May I not take him as a model, and just shift my brain into

neutral and let my tongue idle along this afternoon?

I know there was an election this year, but I want to say something

about the scheduling of sessions, in a serious vein, for a moment.

Traditionally there was a time in British Columbia when the Legislature

would meet at the end of January and a budget would be brought down in

February, well before the end of the fiscal year. We have seen a

departure from that old tradition, which is most unfortunate: budgets

coming down after the fiscal year, as happened this year, are a

scandal. At this point I think we are entitled to begin to restore

respect and order for our assembly in British Columbia and get back to

some kind of orderly planning of sessions and not hold them in the

middle of summer, so members and the people will know when they're to

start.

I have the feeling that we are under a one-man government in this

province, and that with the assistance of two or three advertising

public relations hacks the rest of the people, cabinet, Legislature and

the people of British Columbia are being manipulated. Sure, you won the

election, but they understood what I am saying out there. In many of

the ridings that have been won in this House the people out there

didn't very much like what was happening out there, even though you won

some of their votes.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you doubt that. You don't remember your

canvassing; I do. I have had a change. I was the critic for the

Attorney-General's ministry; I requested and received Intergovernmental

Relations. If I can possibly manage to do so, I'll have to match wits

with the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), but it will give me a chance to step back a little bit and be

a little more reflective, I would hope, in what I have to say in this

assembly. I also said I would be perfectly glad to have a change of

seat; this one is a little too close to the door. But I'm still in my

old seat and glad to be back. In the critic's role I was attacked by

Les Bewley and Allen Garr. It makes me think I must have been doing

something right. You know, cant from the left, cant from the right,

volley and thunder. Oh well, I'm content to sit here and participate.

I miss so many good MLAs who lost their seats in the democratic

process, and I greet the new ones. I don't see the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), whom I used to train in handling IWA

grievances many years ago, sitting in his place. When I think of that,

I think I must have been a lousy teacher. He's setting out in this

House to take a buzzsaw to all the social legislation of the province

of British Columbia. I don't know whether he'll stop when he comes to

women's suffrage; he'll probably think about that one too. He's off on

the wrong foot. Kicking labour is politically popular sometimes, but in

the case of that member it's like kicking his own dog. That's where he

got his rise in life; for a while he did a very good job, before he

began to go on this business, which the Premier started up for

political reasons, to find a whipping boy.

[ Page 89 ]

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). I

mention one name, George Mussallem, and say that this place went more

smoothly with George's presence among our ranks, It was a more

enjoyable place in which to carry on our work, and we all miss him. I

thought it was a thoughtful speech. The hon. member finished up by

talking about housing. He said that we need new initiatives; we

certainly do. We're glad today that the GVRD turned down the Spetifore

application with respect to that farmland, but it is also a case-type

of how not to create housing for the people of British Columbia. It's

Social Credit housing a la carte, but it's not affordable housing for

the ordinary people of this province. Ten thousand people are going to

be accommodated. If you look at the title of that Spetifore farmland,

which was just modestly priced property, when they got it out by

cabinet decree the mortgages registered against it were $163 million. I

don't say all that money was advanced; I say that promoters and those

who benefited by the exclusion from the land reserve have already made

a nest egg. With that kind of financing behind the project to create

housing for the people of British Columbia, what do you think they're

going to have to pay for it? It would have to be a rich,

upper-middle-class suburb. That's not the kind of housing we need; we

need cooperative non-profit housing.

I don't see the Minister of Science and Technology in his place, and

I'm sorry about that. He does attend here, but a little bit like the

fellow who answered the questionnaire — infrequently. I always enjoy

his speech; I never get bored with it. But when he goes through this

"you were rejected by the people in '52," he never mentions the time he

was leader of the Liberal Party and was rejected by the people in 1966,

1969, 1972; he then folded his tent very quietly and crept into a warm

bed with his sworn political enemies. He doesn't tell you that in that

great speech. He doesn't give you facts or figures.

The latest thing among the rich and privileged is the terrible state

France is in today with a socialist government. That's the traditional,

conventional wisdom. Nobody tells us what their unemployment rate is

compared to ours, or their inflation rate. It's true that President

Mitterrand of France is running into rabid opposition from entrenched

selfish interests who are trying to get their money out of the country,

deserting it without any kind of patriotic impulse. He's running into

opposition from semi-fascist students who object to his broadening and

democratizing the French educational system.

[3:45]

Let nobody think it's easy to be a socialist; it isn't, The tide's

against us at the present time, for that matter. Reagan is going to be

re-elected in spite of the grinding of the poor in that country. It

isn't an easy path. But when you look throughout this world, which you

can't expect that particular minister to do, at some of the other

countries that have only begun to approach social democracy — Sweden;

Germany; Denmark, without any resources at all to speak of, except

farmland; Austria; devastated and cut back by the war — you find that

their living standards have been creeping up and surpassing, year by

year, those in North America, where we have never been devastated by a

war and have boundless raw materials. Don't tell me that socialism is

not the wave of the future.

It's 50 years since Franklin Delano Roosevelt — this is a subject of

mockery in right-wing circles right now — closed the banks and gave his

inaugural speech. The common man, in terms of living standards and real

freedom, never in the history of mankind made the kind of progress and

gains that happened in that 50-year period. Now new solutions have to

be found, and we have to progress further in terms of a planned

economy. We have to think in terms of the distribution of incomes, and

we have to think in terms of creating wealth as well as seeing it

fairly distributed. We cannot continue staggering, as the western world

is doing, between periods of inflation and unemployment, and between

periods of both. The death of democratic socialism has been greatly

exaggerated.

I regret, in the Speech from the Throne, the references to the

public service. We've built up, in British Columbia, a very good public

service, of which we should all be proud. The privileged buzzwords that

occurred time and again in that Speech from the Throne, and

particularly the word "productivity," are a signal to people out there

that the public service of British Columbia is fat and lazy. That's

what they said during the election campaign, and I suppose the polls

told the Premier that was good politics. I don't know whether he shared

the polls with the other members of his party; not very much, I would

think.

When I take my car — infrequently — through the motor vehicle

testing station, and see those people working among the exhaust fumes,

hard and capably; when I go into a land registry office and see one of

the finest systems in the world working with a dedicated group of

hard-working public employees, I resent that they should be pilloried

without a word of appreciation in this Speech from the Throne.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — and I am reverting maybe

to a philosophical vein just for a minute — said that socialism's answer

to depression was to spend our way out. If that's the image people out there

have of us then we're in really serious trouble. To some extent it is the

image, but it isn't democratic socialism in any sense whatsoever. As I've

said before, we believe that you must plan — including levels of income. When

you take that public service and you single it out for special discriminatory

restraint, and you leave at large the level of rents, profits, speculative profits,

speculative gains, bank profits and all of the other income matters within a

country, then they're entitled to say that you're being unfair. They're

also entitled to say that what you are doing is not going to solve the problems

of the economy of Canada or the problems of North America.

I want to say something by way of a personal opinion on what to me

is a very important matter. I'm expressing my own opinion on the

matter, because we've had time to do a lot of thinking since September

1, 1982. I'm speaking for myself. The Legislature passed a resolution —

it seemed very harmless at the time, but I abstained from voting — on

the matter of property rights and the inclusion of property rights in

the Constitution of Canada. It's my opinion that that was a big mistake

on the part of this Legislature. "The enjoyment of property" are the

particular words that are being sought. The inclusion of those words in

the Constitution of Canada would be a roadblock for unborn generations

in terms of achieving a social democracy with fair shares in the

country of Canada. It would place legislatures, which seek to do

justice throughout the community, at the mercy of lawyers and the legal

system. It would take from provincial jurisdiction, which we sitting in

this House now have, in terms of property and civil rights as a

provincial matter, and we would lose them to a considerable measure to

federal courts or to courts generally — it doesn't matter.

[ Page 90 ]

The history is rather strange. What happened in that resolution was

very, very political. As my colleagues pointed out at the time, the

B.C. government in 1978 said that the constitutionalizing of any rights

— and this was when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being

debated — was not necessary. These words were used in the British

Columbia submission: "It is our view that these rights can best be

assured through appropriate legislative action." I heartily applaud

that sentiment, but the government of British Columbia changed its

mind. It has never brought in what I support, which would be a fair

expropriation legislation in terms of homes and other matters that are

required to be brought into the public domain for the general good.

We on this side of the House would support that legislation. I drew

it up, as a matter of fact. It's a very good bill and I left it in my

desk when I left as Attorney-General. It's a long, long time ago that I

left as Attorney-General, but my successor must have lost or shred that

very good bill. It's time that it was brought back. Of course, this

momentous change is supported by the Canadian Bar Association, and that

should occasion not too much surprise to the members of this House or

the table when you consider all of the cases which have been fought in

terms of the existing personal rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. It is supported by the Real Estate Council of Canada.

They support entrenchment. Of course they support entrenchment, and so

does everyone in this country support entrenchment who was born lucky,

rich, shrewd or shifty. But it should not be supported by the ordinary

people of Canada.

Let me give you a little more of the history on how close we are to

having a legal strait-jacket placed upon some of the legislative

freedoms that we exercise through this House. In 1981, during the

debate over the patriation package, Trudeau agreed with the Tories that

property rights should be included, and but for the opposition of Allan

Blakeney and Edward Broadbent, who rejected that package, they would

have been included in 1981. In March 1983, just two or three months ago

at a conference called on aboriginal rights, British Columbia attempted

to shoehorn in the question of the property rights. But the native

Indians of Canada, for whom the conference was basically called, had

too much sense to allow that to happen, and they said in no uncertain

terms — and I agree with their sagacity in this respect — that the

inclusion of constitutional rights of property would negate in part

their claim for aboriginal rights. And they are against it.

More recently, in April 1983, the Tories stampeding for property

rights had the agreement of Prime Minister Trudeau that if there would

be a one-day debate in the House of Commons, the matter could be

approved by the federal Parliament. That action was saved only by the

bizarre sequence of events which made the Tory motion one of

non-confidence, and it was voted down. But I say that putting these

rights in the constitution, making them justiciable — to use that word

— has very scary implications.

I'll just give some examples. The Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in introducing that resolution, quoted one

James Wilson, who was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

and a Supreme Court judge. But he forgot the history of the United

States. In interpreting property rights — as the right of people to do

what they want with their own property — the United States Supreme

Court, at the behest of factory owners, struck down child labour laws

and minimum wage laws as an interference with the factory owners'

property. Zoning laws too, here in the province of British Columbia,

that are necessary for the protection of areas, could very well — and

would — be interpreted as attacks on property rights. If the proposals

we make on this side of the House that.... When there are zoning

changes that create great capital gains as a result of the upzoning,

those capital gains should revert to the community. Such action would

be in dire jeopardy if we had property rights in the constitution.

I've mentioned the problem with native aboriginal claims. Let me

give a current one, though. In the province of Ontario at the present

time they've got nursing homes which treat their patients — chronic or

convalescent — very badly in terms of the food and the services, so

much so that the province of Ontario is considering putting them under

trusteeship for the protection of their patients. Such a move might

very well be struck down under property rights.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Recently, the doctors of British Columbia said they had acquired a

right to extra-bill, that this was their option vouchsafed by a

previous contract. They argued, with a very fancy lawyer in the Supreme

Court of British Columbia — a lawyer who knew how to keep his meter

running — that not to have that option was a deprivation of property

rights. Now he lost that particular argument. But if that matter

becomes embedded in our constitution — although this particular example

is a long shot — this is the kind of argument and court case you're

going to have to fight through on what is essentially a policy decision

to be made by this Legislature.

Rent control obviously depreciates the value of property.

Deprivation of property rights? You'll have that argument, and that

argument may succeed.

The Family Relations Act, which we passed in this House, whereby a

wife who may be doing the work at home is entitled to — by one

precedent — a half-interest in the law practice developed by the

husband, which could not have been developed if he was not having that

home life....

That's a fair and equitable provision that we made in this

Legislature. But it's an interference with the property rights of the

husband. Such legislation as the Family Relations Act would be in dire

peril and, unquestionably, one of the arguments of the lawyers would be

that you're acting contrary to that constitutional provision.

[4:00]

I could go on and give many other examples. Prince Edward Island has

laws — which our member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is advocating in this

chamber — limiting absentee ownership of the land. That's an

interference with property rights, though. Legislatures would want to

do it if their heads were screwed on right, but the courts would strike

it down.

There are many other examples, so I conclude what I'm saying on this

point by saying that we ought to think again. I think we ought to think

again, and I think it's only fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that members on

all sides of this House are probably ready to think again on this

subject. Why should we put shackles on legislative action to do justice

out there in the community? What we're talking about here is not a gas

pedal; it's a brake. We should not shackle ourselves for the benefit of

a great many constitutional cases — cases that will affect, Mr.

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), every department of

government.

[ Page 91 ]

So let me pass on and talk about a few of the other aspects of the

Speech from the Throne. I don't like phrases such as "downsize

government." I don't know whether they....

They sound.... It's like the word "privatization." It sounds kind of

cruel and cold. And it is. You know, we've been very proud of the

social services that we've built up in the province of British

Columbia. We've got a record under different administrations, a great

deal of it under Social Credit administration, but which goes back to

John Hart and Boss Johnson and many other people. We've got good social

services. We should be proud, within our means, to be able to extend

them.

Sometimes you can run into very false economy. For example, at the

present time there's a transition house for women who, instead of being

confined for the whole of their term to the women's unit in Oakalla....

The wardens try to make it as comfortable as possible, but it becomes

kind of a buzz-shop for crime, and doesn't prepare them for

rehabilitation. Transition houses are being shut down. There's an

experiment in the judicial system in Vancouver East called the Cedar

Cottage community accountability panel, whereby young people in trouble

with the law could be referred out of the justice system by prosecutors

or judges to a group of parents in the community who would take that

young boy or girl in hand. Their success rate was phenomenal in terms

of saving somebody from finally going into a very serious life of crime

and ending up, as far as the community is concerned, with extensive

jail, prosecutors' and court charges. It was successful, but it's been

cut off.

Mr. Speaker, there's a point where you cut down your social services

and you pile up other social costs. You cut down some of those services

— and I've given an example — and you have to build more jails. I would

hope that this House would not accept the philosophy of the Reaganites

and the Thatcherites that we don't need these social services. That's

the buzz that comes from rich and privileged circles. They don't need

health services; they can pay for them. They don't want to be part of a

universal plan. They don't need all of the other social services. The

only things on which they are unanimous in terms of what the state

should expand and promote are police services and armaments. But we say

that there is a duty upon democratic governments.... We say it also in

the terms of the Catholic bishops, who said: "Don't put the wants of

the rich first; put the needs of the poor first." That's what we're

saying. And when you talk about downsizing government instead of

enlarging responsible democratic power, you're cutting off the poor.

You're making a society where there is not equal access to opportunity,

where the rich will grow richer and the poor will grow poorer.

Let me finish off with the reference in the Speech from the Throne

to "providing employment is no quick fix," or words to that effect. You

know, up until now in this province we've always said that government —

again, within our means — should be an active innovator of job

employment opportunities for people out there. Yes. That's been

accepted as one of the legitimate functions and moral obligations of

government, and to turn your back on it and say it's a quick fix is to

turn your back on a whole generation, particularly of young people.

It's to accept in Canada a level of unemployment, even if this

so-called prosperity comes back, of about a million people all the

time, and among young people coming out of schools an employment rate

that will be 20 or 25 percent, with a permanent subclass of young

people who will never be able to grow up into a job, who will go back

at night to a home that is poor. That will spill over into lack of

educational opportunity — I don't know why it does, but it does. It

will spill over into lack of job opportunities. We will have

established a permanent subclass of unemployed people. I say that this

Legislature has an obligation to all of the people and all of the

children in the province of British Columbia, not just to the rich and

powerful. I say that we do not need a society in British Columbia where

wealth accumulates and youth decays. And I say....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I listen to this chatter back there and pay no

attention to it, Mr. Speaker. Some of these matters do not sink in in

all quarters. Others think about them, at least.

Mr. Khrushchev, not too long ago — the late Mr. Khrushchev, of the

kitchen debate; he never took out an NDP card, as far as I know — said

that communism would bury us. Do you remember that? He was talking

about the western world. If we're going to protect our society and

prevent communism from burying the western economy, there's no use

thinking in terms of piling up additional arms. The world is now

spending $750 billion a year on arms and the arms race, and it's not

giving us any greater security; in fact, it is taking it away, because

it is weakening our economies and our people. That is what Khrushchev

had in mind. So I say, Mr. Speaker, as I take my place, it's time to

think in terms of a democratically socialist, planned economy that not

only seeks the promotion and creation of wealth and will not accept

idle men, idle machines and hungry bellies, but also turns its back on

a society that is becoming what we're seeing happen right here today —

a paradise for the rich, but a purgatory for many of the poor. If we

want to save a strong economy that through its example will give the

lie to Khrushchev, then we've got to start changing the kind of

thinking that was exhibited in that Speech from the Throne.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, may I join previous speakers

in congratulating you on being appointed Deputy Speaker and the Speaker

on being appointed to that chair.

May I also congratulate all of those members on both sides of the

House who succeeded in the last election and all of those people of all

political stripes who had the courage to run for public office in the

provincial election, because it does take courage to try to represent

the people of the various parts of the province. I accept the results

of the election. I think that the people of British Columbia sent a

message to the government when they elected this party and our able

Premier to lead this province for the next five years. I feel that if

we carry out the message sent us by the people of British Columbia,

which is quite clear, we can be assured of being the government of

British Columbia for much, much longer than just the next five years.

Since early this year we have been having cries from the opposition

to call a session of the Legislature. We had cries prior to the

election being called and immediately thereafter, so we have a session

of the Legislature and right now we have about the best turnout of the

opposition members that we've had for the sittings yet. I see six such

members opposite, which is less than one-third of those who were

returned to these chambers by the people of British Columbia. Now if

there was such an urgent need for a session, why then are they

[ Page 92 ]

not attending the House and debating and bringing

forward the proposals which they would like to see carried out? The

fact is that during the election and as a result of the election they

realized that the policies which they had been talking about were not

really very popular with the people of British Columbia. Had they been,

those members would be sitting here and we would have been sitting

there, but that's not the way it turned out.

The people of British Columbia, in re-electing the Social Credit

government in the election held on May 5, were telling us that they

agreed with the policies that we want to put forward and have been

putting forward. I think one of the messages they also told us is that

we haven't been going in that direction far enough or fast enough

during these last eight years. They want us to really get out of the

way of the doers in the province and let them get on with the job of

expanding the economy of B.C., thereby creating many more new

opportunities for the people of B.C. They have rejected the socialist

philosophy of trying to spend your way into prosperity and solve all

problems by simply taking more money away from the taxpayers and

creating make-work jobs in the province. This was the major platform

brought forward by the opposition during the election: the government

should try to spend its way out of the election, create all means of

activity in B.C. and control the lives of everyone in the province.

The first statement made by the opposition in this sitting of the

House was when a motion was moved to amend the number of select

standing committees appointed by the government. What they did then was

to try to bring forward a special committee to look at ways of taking

over the banking institutions in Canada. If you look at the Waffle

Manifesto or the Regina manifesto of that party, you will know that

their ultimate philosophy is to control all banking institutions, all

means of production and all land and thereby control every aspect of

the lives of everyone in British Columbia. They want to bring that

forward again. I took that motion for amendment, on opening day, as an

indication of the fact that they do want to move even further to the

left, if that's possible, than they are right now. They refuse to

accept the fact that the people of British Columbia have....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll ask the hon. member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to come to order. If the member would not

reflect on a motion that has been defeated, perhaps we can continue

debate in order on the throne speech; the House is so advised.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My reference was not so much to that

motion but to the philosophy behind it: the fact that once again that

party wants to revisit their Waffle Manifesto and to begin to control

all aspects of the lives of everyone in society, the basic move towards

which would be the control of the financial institutions of the

country. They won't get that chance, because the people of Canada are

not socialists; the people of Canada simply want to have a chance to go

out and improve their lot. The people of Canada don't mind the unequal

distribution of wealth, because to them that is far better than having

an equal distribution of poverty, as would be brought forward by the

socialist philosophy in Canada.

[4:15]

They complain about kicking labour. We have proposed and will be

bringing forward legislation to change some of the things that have

been happening between labour and management in B.C. in the industrial

relations field. It's not kicking labour at all. What it's trying to do

is to give those people involved in labour a little bit of democracy

within the system in which they work. If the people opposite would look

at the results of the vote in the last election, they would find that

the people involved in the labour movement in British Columbia support

those kinds of moves. You can take my riding of Yale-Lillooet as an

example: those communities with the highest percentage of people

involved in labour unions provided me with my greatest support. These

people know that unless the companies that they work for can make a

reasonable profit to justify the massive capital investment required in

the mining and forest industries in that riding, unless a return can be

made, they will have no jobs. But the philosophy of the opposition is

that if the people have enough courage to invest their money either in

a business of their own or in the productive machinery of the nation,

somehow that is evil; if a profit is returned to them, that is evil.

The only way you can accumulate the capital needed to continue the

development of our country is to have profits — much more substantial

profits for the entrepreneurs and the doers than we have been able to

have in the last number of years. Trade unionists recognize that: they

recognize the fact that if your business is bankrupt you have no job at

all; they recognize the fact that for too long governments have been

moving further and further into the way of the private sector doing the

things that have to be done.

One of the main themes of the election was the creation and

maintenance of jobs in British Columbia. It is hoped that we are now

emerging — and I believe we are — from probably the most difficult

economic time that people in the western world have experienced since

the days of the Depression in the 1930s. Times have been difficult for

everyone. Over this last year and a half to two years we have brought

forward some programs that have assisted people and industry in getting

over this difficult time. Those times are now behind us. We have to

continue to allow the investors at least to recover the losses incurred

over the last number of years, so that the next time a recession comes

— and another one will come, because we do live in a cyclical economy —

and we have those tremendous debt burdens built up through corporate

losses hanging over our industry, then that industry will not survive.

That is why our Premier, this party and this government will be

insisting that constraint in government spending will become a

permanent way of life in British Columbia. We're not simply talking

about a short-term program that may appear to be popular with the

people of B.C. during difficult times; we're talking about permanent

restraint and permanently moving the government out of those things

that are better done in the private sector.

Getting back to job-creation endeavours, that main platform of both

parties during the election, I guess when the opposition, the NDP, did

their research they realized that people were concerned about jobs, and

they wanted to climb on that bandwagon as well and tell the people just

how they would create jobs. Of course, their platform was that the

government would create all the jobs by spending taxpayers' money. They

criticized us for having the foresight and taking the initiative to get

things such as our northeast coal development underway before the

recession started. The howls and

[ Page 93 ]

screams that I got from my opponents in my riding

during the election was to the effect that the government should not be

putting any money into that area of British Columbia because that money

would best be spent — and I emphasize the word "spent" — in enhancing

other programs that take place in B.C., such as education and health

care and other things. They said: "You cannot invest government money

in the infrastructure in the form of roads and communities, rail lines

and hydro lines in order to create permanent and ongoing prosperity in

British Columbia. You must, instead, take that money, spend it now and

then somehow magically have additional revenue coming to you years down

the road." That's not the way our society works. That's not the way our

system works. They, of course, object to the basic system we have — the

free enterprise system which encourages the best from everyone. They

would rather have us spend the money now to create short-term,

meaningless jobs and not worry about the future — mortgage our future,

They were against northeast coal, Mr. Speaker, and therefore against

the thousands of jobs that have been created not only up in the Tumbler

Ridge area, where the mines are being developed, where the railway is

being built with tunnels through the Rocky Mountains, where powerlines

and highways have been built and where a new community is being built

which will employ and house thousands of British Columbians, with good

wages for many years to come.... They are against that and therefore

against those jobs and opportunities for people. They are also,

therefore, against the provision of a brand-new seaport at Prince

Rupert on Ridley Island, because for some reason you are supposed to be

able to get Canadian products to market in ever-increasing amounts

through the rather strangled seaports we have in the lower mainland.

That northeastern coal development not only has economic benefits now

in the form of job creation during construction, but it will also

provide a flow of revenues to government over the years, and through

its development a major new seaport on the west coast of Canada, for

all of Canada, which will help to serve the rapidly growing Pacific Rim

part of the world. Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim is British

Columbia. We are making sure that Canada has that gateway and at the

same time encouraging the development of our resources for the benefit

of our people.

Of course, the word we get is — what is the phrase? — "Japan gets the coal, we get the hole." How silly. "Leave

it in the ground for future generations." I've been hearing that as

long as I've been in this House, and I heard it for many years before I

arrived here. Strangely enough, our mining industry, both in coal- and metal-mining,

seems to be able to replace that resource many times over as it is mined, because

they have an opportunity to make a profit, and if they make a profit, they explore

for and find additional resources. And this is the same thing that future generations

of British Columbians will do, just as we have done. If that type of philosophy

had been believed and acted upon by provincial people 30 years ago, we would

be out of ore now, because there would have been no incentive to continue to

find it and mine it and produce it, not only for the benefit of the people of

B.C. but also for the benefit of all the people in the world that need and use

our resources.

Mr. Speaker, each of the things we have done in terms of

government-inspired projects over the last several years, that have

been primarily carried out by the private sector and have created many

of the jobs that have helped carry us through this recession, was

opposed by the opposition — not only the opposition here but also our

recent opposition on city council in Vancouver. The people who say that

they are for jobs have been against all the job creation programs that

we have. They've been against every power development program that has

ever been brought forward in British Columbia. You can't name one that

has not been objected to by the opposition in B.C. at some point. The

only time that they weren't actively opposing power projects was during

those three dismal years in B.C. when they were the government. Then,

all of a sudden, power developments were okay. The one that happened to

be going at the time was the "1880" dam at Revelstoke, and that was

okay — they happened to be the government. Ever since then, and before

then, they have been against the development of power. Yet at the same

time they are for the development of jobs, they are for manufacturing

in B.C., they are for all of this secondary and tertiary industry and

the jobs it creates, but they don't want to have any power to provide

those jobs. You can't have one without the other.

The last member who spoke, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), went into quite an exposition about the rights of land

ownership for citizens in Canada. That's very interesting to me. He

brought in the fact that the native Indians in Ottawa were somehow

against having the right in the constitution for the people to own

land. I don't personally believe that it's everybody's right to own

land. I believe it's everybody's right to be able to work toward the

ownership of land. I don't think they should receive it for nothing. I

don't think anything of value should be received for nothing. But I

think every British Columbian, every Canadian, has the right to work

toward the ownership of land and has the right, if he's frugal and does

well, to obtain and own land. That is the philosophy of this government,

Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, the situation in this House could be

somewhat different now. I think we would probably have 40 seats here

versus perhaps 17 there, had it not been for a commitment and a promise

made by the Leader of the Opposition during the election. That was the

promise that that party, if elected to be the government, would settle

all the aboriginal land title claims in British Columbia. That promise

cost us dearly in votes from native Indian people. But I think that was

a cruel hoax to play upon the first citizens of British Columbia,

because they believed that if that party were elected they would in

fact settle the aboriginal title claims. But they can't. They won't.

They didn't make any attempt to do it during those three years they

were the government. That cost us, I'm sure. It's the only reason the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is here today — that promise made by the

Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure we would have had a different member

for Atlin had that promise not been made.

You cannot settle those claims, because no government in British

Columbia, now or ever, has recognized the aboriginal land title claims.

Our candidates were straightforward enough to tell the native people:

"No, when we are government, re-elected in British Columbia, we will

not recognize aboriginal title claims." There are many other aboriginal

rights that we are more than willing to talk about, and many of them we

already recognize. Many of the aboriginal rights of native people as

claimed are recognized by this government. But if you were to attempt

to settle the aboriginal title claims in British Columbia, you would

need a province with an area of about 120 percent that of British

Columbia today, because there are many overlapping claims. Some of the

most highly

[ Page 94 ]

developed areas in British Columbia, such as West

Vancouver, would all have to be returned to the native Indians. Well,

that title claim is not recognized by us. Had we followed through with

that cruel hoax upon the native Indians as was done by the opposition,

and said, "Oh, yes, we'll do that too," it wouldn't have been true, but

I'm sure the results would have been somewhat different than they are

now.

The people of British Columbia believe that the private sector is

the engine that drives our economy. That's why we were elected

government. We believe in downsizing government. That's what we're

doing. We have, over the years, allowed too many regulations, too many

overlapping areas of responsibility to develop in government, which

makes it almost impossible in many cases for those who are willing to

invest, to develop our resources, to develop our manufacturing sector,

to do many things in B.C. — it makes it almost impossible for them to

get on with the job. So not only must there be a downsizing of

government, which is our plan, but there must be a realignment of some

of the overlapping bureaucracies and responsibilities not only within

government but in some of the Crown corporations that report to

government.

I listened with some dismay to some of the remarks which have been

made here since this debate started. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) said: "Your party" — referring to the government — "has an

obsession with inflation." Well, yes indeed, we do have an obsession

with inflation. She seemed to think that you don't have to worry about

inflation because as long as it's going, we'll have more people working

and everything will be fine. But as our inflation outstrips that of our

competitor nations, our competitive position in those world

marketplaces deteriorates, and if we don't pay attention to inflation

and the cost of doing business in British Columbia, then we are going

to have a recession the likes of which we have never seen before,

including those times in the 1930s. If our producers cannot produce at

a cost that is competitive in the world, our producers will not be

purchased and we will have no employment in this province.

[4:30]

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — it is in the Blues,

which I read; I'm sorry I wasn't here when she spoke — went on and on

about the need for me to sit down and meet with her and a bunch of

politicians up in her area to work out something on the Chemainus

sawmill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the best possible thing we can do

is not to have politicians involved in that at all. I'm convinced in my

own mind that had politicians not begun interfering in the Chemainus

situation some of those people could perhaps be employed at that plant

today. When the permanent closure of the mill was announced, I met with

workers at the plant, and I met with the management of MacMillan

Bloedel, and I urged them to get together to see if there was a way

that they could operate that plant, even on a reduced basis, with

concessions from both sides, in a profitable manner. I told them I

would not insist on them, or anyone else, running any plant at a loss.

I think that would be irresponsible.

The company came forward — and there were some very good meetings, I

understand from reports I received, between the local employees and the

local management of the mill — and a proposition was made to the

employees by the company that seemed to me to make quite a bit of

sense. Had that been carried forward I'm sure you'd have some operation

going there today, but it required concessions on the part of the

employees and concessions on the part of MacMillan Bloedel, and

required a sharing of the risks, so to speak. The concessions made by

the employees, if the plant turned out to be profitable, could be

repaid to them. I know that had the local employees been allowed to

make that decision, without the small-p political interference from

both the union hierarchy and other politicians in the area, something

would have been worked out. The people there wanted to see something

happen, but politicians began to stir the pot up and set each other at

each other's throats rather than to sit down in a cooperative manner.

As a result nothing happened, so the mill is now permanently closed.

My hope is that the company can now, with that effort of operating

the old plant behind them, come up with a way of permanently providing

employment there with a mill that is competitive in the international

marketplace, because that's where they sell their products. If they

can't do that they shouldn't do anything. If they can't do that, I've

said — and I will repeat here — that I will take steps to make sure

that an opportunity to put that wood to use is provided to other people

in the private sector so that some employment can be maintained there.

The Leader of the Opposition is one of the politicians who stirred

this pot in a negative manner during the election. He said his

government would come in and put $50 million in: "We'll provide a plant

for you." Well, that's not the way we have to spend government funds.

If a plant cannot be established by MacMillan Bloedel that can operate

profitably during the economic cycles, then we shouldn't have a

MacMillan Bloedel plant there at all. Somebody else could perhaps do

it, and will be given that opportunity.

I'll make a couple of other comments on things that very clearly

demonstrate the difference between that party and our party in

philosophy. I've said that we're wanting to downsize government to get

government out of people's way, to have a more efficient, more

productive public service. I don't subscribe to the fact that all civil

servants are lazy; there are some who are lazy, just as there are some

lazy people in the private sector. I simply subscribe to the fact that

we have, over the years, allowed government to come in to do more and

more things that can best be done in the private sector, and I intend

to pursue the privatization direction, as I have in the past, even more

in the future.

One comment made by the Leader of the Opposition during question

period the other day strikes me as being an expression of how that

party feels the public service should be. He said, referring to the

appointment of Mr. Tozer as government agent in Kelowna — and I quote

from the Blues, the afternoon sitting on Monday, June 27: "There are

people who have spent 30 years of their lives waiting for jobs like

this." Anybody in any organization that spends 30 years waiting for a

job has no right to have a job at all. If there are people who have

been working hard, learning, producing for 30 years, applying for that

job, I'd say yes, they have to be considered, and I'm sure they were in

the appointment of that job. Anyone who has spent 30 years anywhere

waiting for a job should be fired right now.

My riding of Yale-Lillooet is quite a varied riding; I think it

expresses in a small way the general economy of British Columbia. We

have a large forestry sector in my riding and we have the capital of

mining in B.C. in the Highland Valley, plus other mines in other

communities. We have a large beef producing industry; we have a large,

healthy and viable tourist industry; and we have small manufacturing

plants in

[ Page 95 ]

that riding. Things have been tough there as they

have been in other parts of the province during this last couple of

years, but, you know, I didn't have anybody from anywhere in that

riding at any time over this last couple of years blame the provincial

government for what was happening. In fact, they were very pleased with

the way the provincial government, through its administrative

procedures, was helping the private sector survive the recession.

In my riding I have five school districts, four regional districts,

incorporated municipalities, and over 40 communities of various sizes.

I did not get great criticism from any of the five school districts, or

the regional districts, or any of the five hospital districts about the

necessity of restraint. They all recognized the need for that, and they

all recognized, as we do in the provincial government, that we have

allowed government spending to get somewhat out of control. There is a

need for efficiency and there are things that can be done more

effectively without reducing services. I know that in my five school

districts, as in the rest of the province, their expenditures have gone

up each year, even during the recession.

Although the odd member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation complained

bitterly, because they thought they deserved to be treated better than

the average person in society, I've had no complaints. In fact, I think

the results of the election demonstrated the real philosophy of the

people in my riding: they are free-enterprisers. The vote they provided

me as a candidate this time was substantially higher than in the

previous election. They recognized that it's not the government's fault

that we had a recession; they also recognized that the direction in

which we are going in trying to downsize government, to get the

government out of people's way, is the direction in which they want to

go. Many people who in previous years had not voted for me did so this

time — not for me so much as for the party I represent, its philosophy

and for good government, which goes without saying.

One member said that the only reason we got elected was because our

right-wing propagandists had softened the gullible public; that's as

close as I can quote it. I think that anybody who says that is saying

to the public of British Columbia: "You're dumb; you can't make

decisions for yourself; you can't believe that things are right; you

can't establish your own philosophy." They said that the only reason we

won was because the public was gullible to believe a lot of right-wing

political propaganda. Well, I don't think that's true at all; I think

the public of British Columbia are probably the best-informed anywhere

in the free world. They made their decisions in the full knowledge of

what was happening; quite frankly, I believe they were right. The years

ahead of us will tell and will prove to them that they were right in

selecting us as the government. They were right here just as they were

in Saskatchewan when they rejected the socialists. They were right here

just as they were in Great Britain recently, where they rejected

socialism. In spite of a tough political medicine that the Prime

Minister of Great Britain had to deal out over the last few years, the

public recognized that those government-owned industries that were

bankrupting the country, since turned over to the private sector, are

not only no longer costing the government money. They are also being

competitive in world marketplaces and are producing products of much

better quality than anything they ever produced under

socialist-government ownership.

The people of B.C. elected us to carry forward a program of freeing

the private sector and allowing it to get on with its job in providing

opportunities for people. As expressed in the throne speech, that is

the direction in which we are going, I support everything that was

expressed in the throne speech. I intend to remain a part of a

government that carries forward with those ideals and plans.

MR. COCKE: I wish to add my congratulations, along with the

other members, to yourself and to the Speaker. I would also like to

congratulate all those new members in our assembly. I would like to

congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor, not for the content but for the

delivery. You see, Mr. Speaker, the content of that speech was written

in the Premier's office, and I'm afraid that I must not extend my

congratulations that far. The expectations have been met. It's a

disastrous history and we will continue with that same disastrous

history; there's more to come. I think that we have to admit that there

is no question about who won the election. I will say this: we had it

all fought for us again by the Minister of Forests, who used about two

minutes of his speech this afternoon on the throne debate, when he

should be telling us what he's going to do in order to assist a very

fragile industry. Instead, he stood there and reworked the election in

his own image. I would say to those who are gloating, and one does

gloat in this business: don't gloat too hard; don't forget that it was

three against one: the Liberals, the Tories and the Socreds. A very

unholy coalition, I must confess, but nonetheless that's what that

group over there represents. There are a few of the old Socreds around

— not too many left now. There are some very, very interesting Tories

whom I've been listening to through the back of my head, and there are

also the Liberals, who cut and run. Three against one, and we didn't do

all that badly under those circumstances. I can read it no other way,

Mr. Speaker.

I certainly am not going to discuss the methods or conduct of the

last election. It's of no great significance now. I would, however,

like to say to the Minister of....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not what Yvonne said.

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, one of the best speeches so

far from the opposition was the person who ran against the candidate

whom Yvonne was working for, and I'm quite happy to admit that.

I'd like to say to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that he continues to bore the House to

death with his history lesson and his forecasts. It's so funny when it

comes from that member, the member who sold out in front of everybody

in this province, the former leader of the Liberal Party, who came over

there for a mess of pottage. He was the most outspoken critic in this

House — and I sat and listened to him by the hour — of everything that

Social Credit and Conservatism stood for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He saw the light.

MR. COCKE: He saw the light. Sometime, for those new members

over there, may I suggest that you go to the library here and borrow a

book called Politics in Paradise .

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[4:45]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to speeches like

[ Page 96 ]

the one given by the Minister of Forests, I fear

for us all because really what he said to us is that we have no plans

for the future other than these new words that sound so great. We have

new words in our dictionary: "privatize, " "downsize," all nice little

catchwords that don't mean a darn thing as far as I'm concerned and as

far as everybody else is concerned. Absolutely no content. I say this

to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to my colleagues here: people who

make no plans for the future will live to regret their past, and we'd

better remember that.

The Socred coalition, in every word that I have heard to date and

every word that I have seen, are the Today Gang. Anything to get

through the day. Anything to manage to hold on to whatever we can do,

but just for today. No future plans, no nothing. For an example, we

have before us now restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Good idea.

MR. COCKE: Good idea. We'll discuss restraint. We'll talk

about restraint in the next few minutes. We don't see any kind of

government restraint with respect to their own good. We don't see any

restraint on getting farmland out of the agricultural reserves. We do

see restraint, however, in reforestation, in silviculture. What did the

Minister of Forests say to us today in this House about plans for

reforesting? He talked a little bit about mining in the Highland

Valley, and that's cut back dramatically. No, he said nothing about

reforestation, about silviculture. But that's where we see restraint.

The future of our province still depends, despite the Minister of

Science, so very much on the future of our forests, and we are

neglecting our forests in such a way as to jeopardize for generations

that fount of riches. There are lands all over this world.... China at

one time was a great forested country. Now it is a desert in many of

its regions because of the fact that they just cut and ran and didn't

know any better. But that was generations and generations ago. You hear

about the great forests of Lebanon — the cedars of Lebanon. They are

all gone.

MR. REE: What about B.C.?

MR. COCKE: And they are going fast, too, because of the way they are handling it.

Another resource that is suffering from restraint is the children of

our province. We see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) cutting back on children's services in the name of restraint.

We see her deputy announcing policy about those children's services. I

suggest that if we neglect that resource we are neglecting the most

important resource that we have — the future generations of British

Columbia. The long-term damage caused by this kind of stupid,

thoughtless, mindless restraint will cost us forever.

We have problems in health care, which is another area suffering from restraint. It's a great day to get a cold.

MR. REE: The health system will fix you up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this — I'll

deal more with health care in a few moments — that what the opposition

has done, and did during the campaign, was to enunciate exactly what we

saw. It will be dramatically shown within weeks that we were dead

right, despite the fact that I was called a liar by interesting people

in our province.

We will see the back-pedalling, and we will see the kinds of things that we predicted come to the fore.

I want to talk a little bit a