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 )

MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 19

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Blood alcohol tests. Ms, Brown 19

Appointment of Tony Tozer. Mr. Hanson –– 19

Mr. Barrett

Pay increase by order-in-council. Mr. Stupich 21

Throne speech debate

Mrs. Dailly –– 21

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 25

Mr. Skelly –– 29

Mr. Pelton –– 31

Ms. Brown –– 33

Mr. Reid –– 37

Mrs. Wallace –– 41

MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1983

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to bid

a very cordial welcome to two cabinet ministers from our great sister

province of Alberta: Hon. James Horsman, Minister of Federal and

Intergovernmental Affairs, and Hon. Fred Bradley, Minister of

Environment.

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

good friend of this House and of British Columbia, Mr. Ron Price, whose

father was a long-time member of this Legislature. He ran for the

Social Credit Party in Vancouver-Burrard in 1975. I'd ask this House to

bid him welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have in the

gallery today a group of young students who are members of the Cowichan

Indian Band and who are this year graduating from the Lake Cowichan

Secondary School. I would ask them to stand as I name them: John

Wilson, Jonathan Joe, Carl Williams, Sharon Joe and Francine Alphonse.

They are accompanied by Dawn MacIntyre-Just and Ron George, their

home-school coordinators. Please join me in congratulating these guests.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would ask the House to welcome a very

good friend of our government and a constituent of mine. He's Pastor

Wiebe of the Sevenoaks Alliance Church.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is a group of mothers

who belong to a group known as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They are

accompanied by the president of their Vancouver chapter, Sally Gribble,

and also the president of the Victoria chapter, Jan Greenwood. I'd like

the House to join me in recognizing their presence.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome

today Larry Kuehn, president of the BCTF, and Doug Smart, first

vice-president of BCTF. We have just concluded our second meeting since

I have assumed this portfolio — the second meeting of many to come. I

would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General. In October

of last year this assembly unanimously passed legislation to require

blood alcohol tests for accident injury victims suspected of drunk

driving. That was Bill 69; I think the minister is aware of it. In view

of the recent information that approximately 1,000 cases a year would

require such a test, at a total cost of only $35,000 to the government

— less than five desks, incidentally — can the minister advise the

government why on Wednesday the 22nd, in an interview on television, he

stated that the government was not prepared to proclaim this piece of

legislation at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. I have stated several times, and again today, that I would be

recommending the proclamation of the mandatory-blood-testing bill, but

that bill is part of a package of three bills — another Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, and amendments to the Offence Act — and they must be

dealt with together as a package. I will be making recommendations to

them as a package, but my recommendation on the compulsory blood

testing is clearly that it will be proclaimed and that we will be in

the forefront in Canada with that kind of legislation.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY TOZER

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Finance. One of the most important positions of public employees in

British Columbia is that of the government agent. The government agent,

as you know, relates to all government ministries and represents the

government to the public in all areas of the province. It's a career

job, based on merit and open competition. Can the minister advise why

the appointment of Tony Tozer as government agent in Kelowna did not

follow normal procedures for the appointment of such agents, and will

he confirm to the House that this appointment was done on instructions

of the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the second part of the

question, the Premier and I did indeed discuss this particular

appointment. I will, at the appropriate time in the weeks ahead,

indicate to the Legislative Assembly the proposals I have with respect

to government agents. I cannot give a time when that will occur. The

whole position of government agent is under review. We want to retain

government agents as an important extension of government throughout

the province. I will be speaking later about that.

MR. HANSON: As the Minister of Finance would be aware, this

is cause for considerable concern among the career public employees —

your own employees. Can you advise us when the Premier contacted you

with respect to Mr. Tozer's appointment to this position?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question has some difficulty inasmuch as

I disagree with the

preamble.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister deny that the Premier

contacted him and asked that Mr. Tozer be hired?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that in answering the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in the first part of his question, I

indicated that the Premier and I did indeed discuss the position of

government agent in Kelowna. The answer is yes.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell this House whether or not,

during his period of tenure as Minister of Finance, any other

appointment to this position of government agent was discussed with the

Premier?

HON, MR. CURTIS: I discuss a lot of matters with the Premier,

and indeed we have spoken of positions relating to government agency

offices throughout the province on more than one occasion over the last

three years at least.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister inform this House whether or

not names were mentioned and designated in

[ Page 20

conversations, prior to this admitted conversation

with the Premier? Were any other government agents mentioned by name

prior to appointment in conversation between you and the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question intrudes into an area of

confidentiality between a member of cabinet and another member of

cabinet, but I did attempt to assist the present Leader of the

Opposition when I indicated that the Premier and I have discussed the

position of government agent on a number of occasions.

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: Since the Minister of Finance chose to break a

confidentiality, admitting that he discussed Mr. Tozer, is he not now

prepared to admit that other names were discussed? Or is this indeed

the first time such a travesty of the civil service has occurred here

in the province of British Columbia? The job description of a

government agent says: "The role of the government agent is unique in

that it has no comparative position in Canada. The incumbent is

required to have an intimate knowledge of the statutes of British

Columbia." Can the minister assure this House that Mr. Tozer gained an

intimate knowledge of the 70 statutes outlined in the job description —

it takes most people 20 years, experience in working up through the

ranks to get to this position — in the brief period of time he has had

in the public service?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have no hesitation in commending to this

House the qualifications of Mr. Tozer for the position to which he has

been appointed, government agent in the Kelowna office.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell this House how many other

competitors there were for that posting in Kelowna?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would have to take that as notice. There

were several others; I cannot be precise as to the exact number. I can

report back.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister recall the names of any of the

other applicants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I do.

MR. BARRETT: Can you tell us some of those names here and now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That would fit under the heading.... I would

be quite willing to come back to the member with the precise number who

applied for the position, which ones were considered for the position,

and other details associated with that.

MR. BARRETT: My question to the minister was: can he tell the

House some of those names now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've taken it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: I submit that the minister doesn't remember one

single name of any other applicant and that this is the only name

discussed with him for this job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: This is the first time in some thirty years...

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question, please?

MR. BARRETT: ...that the normal practice of non-political

appointments through the civil service take place.... We have an

admission today that this is broken. I want to know....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, as we know, we will have an opportunity for a wide

scope of debate in the very near future. This, however, is not that

time, and we must stick with the rules that bind us all in this House,

particularly at question period — rules with which the Leader of the

Opposition, I am sure, is very familiar.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the

definition.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time in 30 years that a

non-political civil service post has been made political, is it a

signal that it is now permanent government policy to name people to

high civil service posts on the advice of the Premier, who should not

even be discussing names — and they have never been discussed before in

the history of British Columbia — in such competitions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that that

member, who has served briefly as Premier of this province, would admit

to not discussing names of candidates for positions within government.

Of course names are discussed, and the member knows that. It is a

travesty, sir, to attempt to use question period to suggest otherwise.

Clearly, in the course of carrying out day-to-day responsibilities, all

ministers discuss names of appropriate individuals for a variety of

positions. What an admission for the Leader of the Opposition, a former

Premier, to suggest that this does not occur! Indeed, for it not to

occur, I think, is for us to be very derelict in our duty.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no one denies that order-in-council

appointments by name are the prerogative of government. The distinction

is that this is a direct appointment with political interference into a

non-political civil service that must abide by the normal hiring

processes of panels and selections. There are people who have spent 30

years of their lives waiting for jobs like this, and they are not

relatives of the Premier, and they are not appointed by that

interference.

Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of this government, through the

Minister of Finance, to now do away with all panels and appoint people

to civil service positions not through order-in-council, but without

competition purely on the basis of a conversation between a minister

and the Premier? Is that now going to be policy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if the question relates to

existing government policy, the answer is no, it is not government

policy.

[ Page 21

MR. BARRETT: Then how did this appointment take place if it

is not government policy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a matter of public record, long before

question period this afternoon, as to how this appointment took place;

the member knows that. The member has material available to him, as a

member of this House and, indeed, as a British Columbian, with respect

to how the appointment took place. I've assisted the member to the

fullest extent possible this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has said this is not a normal

appointment, and the minister has said I have public knowledge; both

are correct. It is a straight pork-barrel appointment — a violation of

everything we know in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must again remind the member that

we are not entering into debate; this is question period. The member is

entitled to ask a question, but argumentation and debate are not

permitted in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I agree, but the argumentative

answers avoid dealing with the specific questions.

The last question, Mr. Speaker: Is it your impression that restraint

does not apply to relatives, or indirect relatives of the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Questions addressed to the Chair are not in

order.

MR. BARRETT: How do you deal with your brother's

brother-in-law?

PAY INCREASE BY ORDER-IN-COUNCIL

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can

the minister advise whether the 50 percent pay increase awarded by

order-in-council to Mr. Mike Bailey of the Premier's office will be

referred to the compensation stabilization committee for review?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Nanaimo

would know that the appointment as announced represents a significant

change in job and in position, rather than a promotion. The duties

assigned to Mr. Bailey prior to the appointment versus those which

apply now are entirely different.

MR. STUPICH: I have a supplementary question to the same

minister. Can the minister advise whether all branches of government

are entitled to use this form of transparent reclassification to award

salary increases that are denied other government employees?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty in

accepting the thesis that "transparent" reassignment applies in this

instance. I indicated to the member that the responsibilities and

duties of the individual concerned changed significantly. That is why I

earlier rejected the use of the word "promotion," suggesting simply

more money within the same position with no change in responsibilities

or duties.

MRS. WALLACE: I rise under standing order 35 and ask leave to

introduce a matter of urgent public importance. The matter relates to

the recently announced permanent closure of the Chemainus sawmill, with

a layoff of 600 people, followed almost immediately by another

permanent closure at the veneer plant at Youbou, with 150 people. That

veneer plant is owned by B.C. Forest Products, which is a co-owner of

Western Forest Products, which owned Honeymoon Bay, which closed down a

year or so ago with 300 people laid off.

Mr. Speaker, this question has reached a magnitude that is beyond

normal proportions. It has reached a magnitude where it is a matter of

urgent public importance, not only to the Cowichan Valley but to the

province generally, and to the forest industry. The minister has made

some statements relative to the MacMillan Bloedel closure. I believe we

should discuss that in this Legislature, and I believe we should relate

it to B.C. Forest Products as well. I have a motion, Mr. Speaker, if in

fact I have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As has been the

practice, I will review the matter without prejudice to the member's

argument and return with a decision.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate

you, once more, on your election as Speaker. I also would like to

welcome all the new members to the House. May I congratulate the ones

we have already heard from. I think their speeches were done with great

confidence and smoothness, and I will compare them with my first speech

in this Legislature some 17 years ago when I almost had to be held up,

I was so nervous.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I remember that.

MRS. DAILLY: You remember that, don't you? He's even older,

Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, I am going to address, specifically as I am in a position to

do so today, the first reply of the official opposition to the throne

speech of 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I read it very carefully after listening to it being

read, and I must congratulate the government on the fact that it is one

of the most clear and explicit throne speeches that I have had the

opportunity to listen to in many years. It is very clear in pointing

out to the public of British Columbia exactly what philosophy, finally,

the Social Credit government is telling us that they are going to base

the next four years of government on in the province of British

Columbia. It is most clear that the philosophy which the Social Credit

Party has now come right out, openly, and told everyone about is simply

an ultra-conservative Thatcher-Reagan approach to economic planning — a

Milton Friedman approach, a Reagan approach and a Thatcher approach.

The thing that's frightening about that approach is that we simply

have to took at what has happened in England and in the United States

under this very ultra-conservative fiscal approach to the economic

situation that we face today. Let's look at what has happened. I'm then

going to go into detail and apply it to the province of British

Columbia and tell you why I and so many other people are, frankly,

very, very

[ Page 22

concerned. If this approach is truly going to be

followed, the people of British Columbia, instead of looking forward to

improvements in the economy, unfortunately are going to find themselves

moving further into recession.

[2:30]

Under the Thatcher-Reagan approach, which the Social Credit

government now openly espouses, we can see that we are going to have

increased unemployment in this province. We're going to have increased

youth unemployment, which already is far too high for any province.

We're going to have growing social tensions. All this we now see in

England and the United States because of the policies which are being

followed by these governments. We have increased crime. We have massive

cutbacks in needed people services. We have a return of Crown

corporations, which were created by the people and for the people of

British Columbia, into private monopolistic hands.

We also have a continued obsession with inflation. Now that does not

mean that anyone wants to continue to live under high inflation, but we

find that governments such as the Social Credit-Reagan-Thatcher-type

governments have an obsession with the matter of inflation. The public

of B.C. has been sold on the selective cutbacks in the wages of certain

people in this province — cutbacks in public services, in education and

in health. I am sure you can name them with me, Mr. Speaker. Your

constituents must talk to you about them too. We have found that this

has all been done in the name of reducing inflation. Yet we look at the

inflation rate today right across Canada and in the province of British

Columbia, and while it may have gone down slightly, one has to ask

whether it has improved the economy. Has it improved the lot of the

people of British Columbia? I think we would have to answer that the

record shows that this obsession with inflation has not worked

positively and for the benefit of the people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On this very matter of inflation many people have stated.... I am

going to quote from a Catholic bishop in the United States, who

recently stated in the Catholic Reporter: "I represent a

religious tradition which believes it is immoral to use unemployment to

quell inflation." This was declared by Cleveland Auxiliary Bishop James

Lyke as he delivered one of the Catholic Church's harshest critiques to

date of the Reagan administration. I am concerned that our Premier in

British Columbia and his cabinet seem to be embarked on this same trail

of obsession with keeping inflation down, thinking that this is going

to solve all the evils of our society today.

Let's look at the public control program that has been brought in by

the Liberal government. Their 6-and-5 plan, which they brought in with

such fanfare that they were even going to have a special dinner, I

understand, to celebrate the bringing in of it — an anniversary

dinner.... I am sure all the public servants and the people who have

suffered from this would not be invited to that dinner. This was going

to be a dinner of politicians clapping each other on the back, saying:

"Aren't we great? We've kept down the public service wages, and look at

the great results." My point, and my question to everyone in this

House, is: what are the results? Yes, maybe the wages have been kept

down, but what's happening to the economy? Our own Premier stated in

the throne speech that the whole area of control of certain wages has

certainly helped to improve the economy and has brought down inflation.

The interesting thing is that I think most people would agree today

with the chief economist of the Conference Board in Canada, Thomas

Maxwell, who recently estimated that the federal 6-and-5 program

contributed directly to only about 3 percent of the fall in inflation

over the last year. He said similar provincial programs should have

contributed more to the fall in inflation, but even these, Mr. Maxwell

said, were probably not a major factor in the price decline. So what

was the major factor? The thing that really brought down the consumer

price index, which is of course a measure of inflation, is the

worldwide recession.

I am suggesting to the government that it's about time they started

reassessing and looking at this obsession with bringing down inflation,

and saying: "What is really happening in this province? Is it

improving? Are these selective controls on certain people in our

society and all the suffering that goes along because of it — loss of

employment, etc. — truly helping the economy and the people of British

Columbia? I say that it is not. The record shows it.

In the throne speech, there is a statement that I find very callous

and cruel. I want to quote from the throne speech regarding

unemployment: "For those who are unemployed, there are no quick fixes,

no magical solutions. My government believes that we must earn our way

out of the recession because we cannot spend our way out of it."

The unemployed of British Columbia, if we judge by this throne

speech, are being given no hope. Although we are told there are no

quick fixes and no magical solutions for the unemployed, we want to

know — and I'm sure many other people in British Columbia want to know

— why that statement does not apply to people who are being hired in

the Premier's office, who we suddenly find are promoted, with increased

salaries. Special appointments are being made. The czar of all public

relations, now Mr. Heal, is spending we have no idea how many thousands

and thousands of dollars — probably going into the millions before we

are through — in hiring a retinue of people around him. For what

purpose? Everywhere else there are cutbacks. Everywhere else teachers,

nurses, etc. are being told: "You cannot expect to get out of the

terrible recession we are in unless you accept cutbacks in services and

cutbacks in your employment." Yet Mr. Heal, for some strange reason,

has been selected for an enormous increase in staff and in money. For

what purpose, Mr. Speaker? The purpose is apparently to coordinate all

public information under one man. I'm sure that the unemployed of

British Columbia are going to be so pleased to know that this new

function is taking place. I'm sure it has a great relation to their

position of being unemployed. So more employment is being created for

the PR flacks in the Social Credit government at the expense of

services elsewhere in the province which are far more valuable.

If Mr. Heal, the czar of public relations, could come out and

announce in one big brochure — even with the Premier's name on it, even

with all the cabinet's pictures on it — that unemployment in British

Columbia is going down and that they have positive, realistic programs

to improve employment, none of us would care if Mr. Heal used his

office for something positive in that vein.

We know that the only thing that will be coming out of this

unnecessary expenditure in Mr. Heal's office will be some very

fine-tuned political partisan propaganda, starting

[ Page 23

now to control public opinion in preparation for

the next election four years from now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Five.

MRS. DAILLY: Five years. Yes, unfortunately it could almost

be forever, if this government takes unto itself the taxpayers' money

to perpetuate themselves through Social Credit propaganda. It becomes

very questionably close to a dictatorship. When you have the money and

you abuse it in that manner, I can only say to you that in time the

people of British Columbia will say enough is enough. Whether some of

us will be here or not, that time will come.

I would like to go on and discuss some of the other areas of

unemployment that concern me, particularly the government's attitude to

it. I was recently reading — and this seemed to tie in so much with

economist, Sir William Petty, advocated a new and daring approach to

the growing problems of unemployment in England. In contrast to the

actual practice in seventeenth century England, Petty was convinced

"that the unemployed ought neither to be starved nor hanged nor given

the onset of capitalism, as did his belief that the lack of employment,

rather than innate laziness, might be the real cause of the miserable

condition of the unemployed.

As you read that statement of the throne speech, there appears to be

an almost supercilious attitude developing in the Socred government.

They're throwing up their hands and saying: "Look, if you're

unemployed, don't look to us for help." When you say that, there is an

implication to the unemployed that it is their fault they are

unemployed. As long as there is a government with that attitude — which

doesn't seem to differ much from that of 300 years ago in England — I

would say that the people of British Columbia have much to fear from

the Social Credit government and their so-called new mandate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I ask the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and everyone

else not to interrupt.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One thing one learns

throughout the years in this Legislature is patience, even with that

minister. One thing one also learns politically, especially if one is a

member of the democratic socialist party, is that patience usually pays

off. Naturally the NDP, the democratic socialist party of this

province, is somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, that it did not

become the government. But we tried. We know that 45 percent of the

people in British Columbia believe in us and supported our principles.

We will continue to put forward those principles of democratic

socialism in this Legislature, across the country and elsewhere in the

world because we believe in them. They have succeeded in the countries

and provinces which have them. They are governments which rule with

compassion for and understanding of people. As we can see by this

throne speech, I'm afraid the Social Credit government is becoming very

removed from the true needs of the people of this province.

1 think the government must really take a second look at saying they

are going to throw up their hands, do nothing about unemployment and

just leave it to the private sector. Many government members who are

going to do this are, I'm sure, not going to be here eight, ten years

down the road. The policy they are bringing in today — or their lack of

policies — is going to come out and be shown in future years. We are

going to see children who today are being brought up in families where

the parents are unemployed growing up with some definite psychological

harm. We are going to see the young mothers of today, who are denied

the services they should have because of the economic recession, end up

in more serious difficulty in future years. Because this government is

so short-sighted in not providing funds now for the needs in these

areas, the irony is that future governments are going to have to pick

up the pieces left by the Social Credit government.

[2:45]

Having worked out of our offices as MLAs, we all know that there is

nothing more devastating than meeting people who are unemployed and who

have been trying for months — for years in some cases — to get a job.

I've had people in my office who literally break down — and I'm sure

you have too. I'm not saying that you are so hard-hearted, Mr. Speaker,

that you are not concerned about that. But what I am concerned about is

that your policy — a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude to government

intervention with respect to unemployment is simply not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware that the results of unemployment

can be physical violence, increased sexual problems, white-collar

crime, increased stress; children of the unemployed often become

withdrawn, performing poorly in school; deserted families, etc.

I think one of the most devastating things of all, one we will

discuss in much more detail later, is the attitude of this government

to medicare. I want to state now that the democratic socialist party in

British Columbia and right across Canada will fight to the end to keep

medicare, which was brought in by the democratic socialist party in

Canada. We will make sure that our voice is heard, and the voices of

thousands of other people, if this government makes any attempt to

break up and thwart the original purpose of medicare. Much more will be

said about that matter as we move on into the session and into

estimates.

Another result of this Reagan-Thatcher economic philosophy approach

to our problems today is the general overall cut in basic services to

people. I believe I've already pointed out how short-sighted it is in a

time of recession, when people need more and more services, that the

government is cutting those services. This shows all of us how removed

this government is becoming from the people of this province who truly

need care. They are simply saying, in other words, that their concern

is more with the people who have it now. The Social Credit government

of this province is becoming a government that leans far more toward

the concerns of the affluent of this society, to the neglect of the

poor. This has been seen in the United States and in England, and if

this philosophy continues in the province it is going to become

increasingly evident in British Columbia.

This matter of unemployed teachers, unemployed social workers,

unemployed nurses, really is very ironic when you know that these

services, the demands for these people's services, are essential. These

people, once working again,

[ Page 24

would of course bring taxes back into the

community, wherever they may live, and they would keep the cycle, the

that the Social Credit government is taking us in exactly the opposite

direction, and I say shame on you. Many of you, as I said earlier, will

be long gone before the really detrimental effects of your stupid

policies are felt in this province.

One thing we keep hearing from the Social Credit government, which

now seems to be coming out in the open, is very strong attacks on Crown

corporations in British Columbia. In analyzing that, perhaps we should

look at why British Columbia embarked on having Crown corporations at

all. For those of you who remember, it was the first Social Credit

president — well, we think of the Premier today as president — the

first Social Credit premier in this province, W.A.C. Bennett, who

created the Crown corporation of B.C. Hydro. I hope those Social Credit

members who are going blithely along with the suggestion that many of

these Crown corporations should be broken up and returned to private

industry would give thought to why these Crown corporations were

created in the first place. B.C. Hydro was created when the old B.C.

Electric refused to cooperate with the Peace River power development

corporation, which was a vision at that time of the first Social Credit

premier to develop power in this province. It was because this private

company would put its own basic profit motive interests ahead of the

people of British Columbia that former Premier W.A.C. Bennett moved,

took it over and created the Crown corporation of B.C. Hydro. If you

really stop and think of the basic purposes of Crown corporations and

why governments move into them, I cannot see why this government has so

many of its members who are just going along on the myth that to divest

the province of all Crown corporations, or at least some, will be for

the betterment of the province.

Let's go through some of the few points of value of Crown

corporations. First of all, the Crown corporation will allow the public

to collect 100 percent of the resource revenues. Secondly, the Crown

corporations supply the public with accurate information on the cost of

production and the availability of resources — information that is

crucial to the public interest and for the setting of fair tax rates

for private corporations. Now that's pretty important.

Having been on the Crown Corporations Committee and studied some of

the Crown corporations, I know that some of these Social Credit members

have had interesting debates on the breakup of certain facets of Crown

corporations. For example, many of the Social Credit members obviously

believed that the autobody shop that was established by the NDP under

ICBC should go, with the result that they managed to get the government

to agree. The government has attempted to break up the ICBC autobody

shop and sell it back to private hands. Yet when you ask them why, all

you get out of them is: "Well, it's better in the hands of private

industry." They completely ignore the fact that that autobody shop, Mr.

Speaker, has been able to monitor prices and in the long run to keep

prices more stable in that area than if it were in the hands of a

private company. It has also provided an apprenticeship training

program. These are all positive things.

What concerns me is that the Social Credit government is embarking

on policies that are dogmatic, inflexible and irrational, simply

because somehow they have it in their heads that Crown corporations are

bad and private industry can do a better job. Mr. Speaker, what they

must say to themselves is: "Well, if the Crown corporations are bad,

perhaps we'd better look at the management and accountability of the

Crown corporations." I give the government credit for setting up the Crown Corporations

Committee, whose purpose was to check on that accountability. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, I regret that there are rumours around suggesting that that

committee may find itself emasculated. Can you explain to me why they

would want to eliminate a committee that can be a watchdog and keep

accountability on those massive Crown corporations? It does not make

sense, Mr. Speaker, and there is no rationale to those moves.

I also want to point out that the Crown corporations have another

asset. Thirdly and most importantly, Crown corporations can give us an

important bargaining position with the large private corporations. You

know, when you turn everything over to the private companies, you don't

have any bargaining any more. You can't ensure that the investment will

be for the betterment of the public and not strictly on a profit-motive

basis. You have a responsibility as a government to serve the people of

British Columbia. I say to you that if you all sit back and preside

over the breakup of these Crown corporations and turn everything back

to private industry, I can tell you right now that you'll have lost

your accountability. You'll no longer have control over some of the

major economic decisions that will be made in this province. Instead

they will be made on the basis of moves such as General Electric in the

United States.

Let me give you an example of what happens with large corporations —

private corporations, not Crown. I think perhaps some of you have heard

that General Electric plans a shutdown of a large plant

section in the

United States. They cite high labour costs and say they are going to

move to Mexico. Yet other people are saying that if they do it is an

immoral, un-American and illegal move. Some of their critics state

this: "It is immoral to move jobs from one location simply to increase

profits." What I want to point out is that once you start turning

everything over to the private companies, this is the kind of thing

that you'd better accept will happen. You have no control. If profits

can't be made in this province, they will go to other Third World

countries where they can make more profits. The people of B.C. become

the losers, and there is more and more unemployment in this province.

So I say to the Social Credit government, tread very carefully on this

move to disassemble Crown corporations. You may not see the immediate

effects of it, but your children and your grandchildren are the ones

who are going to suffer and pay for these stupid, inflexible moves

which the Premier and the cabinet seem determined to make.

Earlier I mentioned my concern over the cutbacks in public services.

I know people say: "Well, do we need all those public servants?" What

we are trying to say to the government is that the question is: what

public services are needed? If the public services are needed and

essential for the health and welfare of the people of British Columbia,

this government has no right to cut back on those services, especially

when they can find money willy-nilly for their pet projects.

For example, I recall hearing a discussion recently on the

exorbitant cost of the ALRT. People are becoming increasingly concerned

that this could come in at far more money than was originally expected

— over $800 million is, I believe, the latest figure. What concerned me

is that when the former Deputy Premier, the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is now in charge of ALRT, was

[ Page 25

asked, "Is it going to come in over another $125 million?" she said:

"Well, there is a possibility." She was asked: "Where will you get the

money?" Do you know what the Minister of Human Resources, a cabinet

minister in the Social Credit government, replied? Her reply was: "Oh,

we will borrow from future revenues." Can you imagine that, Mr.

Speaker? I want to repeat the Social Credit fiscal policy for solving

their debt right now and for solving the problem of an ALRT system

which has obviously become far too expensive: "We will borrow from

future revenues."

[3:00]

This is the government that talks about being fiscally responsible.

It is simply another myth that we have all had to face. Unfortunately

it is the job of many people out there in the province of British

Columbia — and it is a job of the NDP — to educate people as to the

fact that we cannot afford to have governments running this province

who do not base their policies on any planning, who are inflexible, and

who base themselves on a dogma that is simply not working.

The matter of wage controls. Selective wage controls, which this

government has embarked on, is a thing which they are very proud of. I

pointed out to them earlier that it has not brought down inflation. It

is the recession that has brought it down.

I also want to make a major point here on another reason why this

whole idea of selecting certain people in our society for wage controls

is, to my mind, so unjust. You know, people will go along with things

by and large, whether they like them or not, if they think they are

fair. But let's really look at the state of the world today, in Canada

particularly, and let's look at what is happening in private industry

when it comes to controls on salaries. You know we always hear that

public servants have to be dropped down because out there the private

sector is really suffering too. Let us look at some of the recent

salary settlements for some of our leading executive positions in

Canada. There is an annual survey of what major companies provided

their five best-paid officers in base pay and bonuses, including house

loans, club memberships and free cars during the year. Just within the

last year 135 executives at 27 corporations received a total package

worth $290,000 on average — up from $258,000 in 1981. In other words,

they received an increase of 12 percent. They can receive an increase

of 12 percent. Yet everyone else in British Columbia, particularly the

public servants, are being told: "You just be glad to stay where you

are." All we are saying is: how about some fairness in this? Why should

these people be able to receive these kinds of increases today and yet

hold their own employees down? Is it fair?

If I read you some of the perks that go with these jobs and how much

they make a year it is simply unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, we have here

Victor Rice, chairman and chief executive officer of Massey-Ferguson

Ltd. Massey-Ferguson — isn't that a company that had a bit of trouble,

Mr. Speaker, if I remember? Well, it's interesting that their chief

executive officer received 40 percent more pay and benefits, for a

total of $554,000, even though that firm — the Toronto farm equipment

manufacturer — ended 1982 with a loss six times greater than Alcan —

they're referring to another company.

Well, when we hear these things one can't help but say, look, what

happened to the sharing? What happened to basic equality, which we

thought was supposed to be created by governments? That's your

responsibility. And yet somehow or other the Social Credit government

seem to have decided to ally themselves with this kind of philosophy,

Mr. Speaker.

1 was hoping, if time had allowed, to go into some of the very

positive things that have been happening in the New Democratic Party

province of Manitoba, which shows, apparently, an exceptionally healthy

economy, based on many of the policies that the NDP believe in. Mr.

Speaker, it does show you that with the right policies governments

today cannot create immediate positive change, as we know, because of

the world situation, but it shows you that one government — one

province — has been able to keep the economy very, very viable because

of its policies. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through them. I

have them here, and I hope I'll have an opportunity to go through them

step by step at another time.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I note the

reference in the throne speech to reliance and the way people in

British Columbia are working harder and more competitively, but there

is another side to this recession and the way it is being handled by

the Social Credit government. They say that at the same time the people

of British Columbia are becoming meaner; they're becoming less tolerant

of minorities. What is happening here is something that I think the

Social Credit government must look at very, very carefully, because you

are the ones who set the examples. You should be setting an example of

cooperation between labour, management, business; you should be setting

a whole atmosphere of cooperation and sharing and working together, and

fairness and justice. If you did that, the people of B.C. would be more

inclined to accept some of your policies. But unfortunately, the

examples that you are setting out of the Premier's office, the things

that you are allowing to happen when you talk about disembowelling

Crown corporations, when you cut back needed services, are giving very

little hope to the people of British Columbia.

The Social Credit government won the election; they have their

mandate. What I am saying to the Social Credit government is: please

look very carefully at the economic road that you intend, apparently,

by this throne speech, to set us on in this province. It is disastrous.

It is going to be done, unfortunately, with little compassion for the

people who need the most help. Mr. Speaker, I must say it is not easy

to run any province today, but I had great hopes that perhaps after

coming back, having a mandate before you, the Social Credit government

would have said: "All right, it is now time to deal with the people of

this province who are suffering the most, particularly the unemployed."

And the tragedy of this throne speech is they are not being looked

after. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, and I most

certainly cannot support the motion on this throne speech.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Before speaking to the throne speech, may I

offer my congratulations to the Speaker of the House, and to yourself

as Deputy Speaker, on being re-elected to those positions. I trust that

you will enjoy your stay in office.

It's interesting to hear comments on and responses to the throne

speech that was offered to us last week. The concluding remarks by the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) deserve an immediate response,

because it seems that we're being subjected to a certain amount of déjà

vu. If you put your policies before the people, the people may accept

them. The people of British Columbia will provide you with an

opportunity of knowing if your policies are acceptable. It seems to me

that that occurred a very short time ago and the people of British

Columbia indicated to the

[ Page 26

Social Credit Party that they would accept their policies. The

policies outlined in the throne speech were very much a part of the

policies of the Social Credit Party during the election campaign and

its platform offered to the citizens of British Columbia.

The members opposite have made comments with respect to the

government's intent, as outlined in the throne speech, to eliminate

many commissions, boards and, as referred to in the throne speech,

layers of bureaucracy and interference in the system. The same theme

was very prominent during the election campaign. It was the Social

Credit Party's belief that a lot of the commissions, boards, some

corporations, and layers of bureaucracy were counter-productive to

stimulating the economy, thus addressing what the member for Burnaby

North identified as perhaps the most serious problem, and that is

unemployment.

It was the belief during the election campaign, and the belief is

outlined in the throne speech by this government, that unemployment can

be attacked when government — for want of a better phrase — simply

stands out of the way of the citizens and stops blocking any capability

and progress to develop industry. I'm sure we are going to see

specifics brought before this House to suggest how government can, by

elimination and change, assist citizens in our province to take their

place in the economy without government interfering or, even more

devastating, competing with those who have the responsibility and the

obligation to provide employment on the private side for those citizens

of British Columbia.

I think many people during the election campaign were quite willing

to accept that there are direct alternatives to working directly for a

government at any level. Not every person has a desire to be a civil

servant. Not every person feels they must depend directly upon

government for employment. Many people believe — and particularly the

young people I spoke to during the campaign — that they should have the

opportunity of working in the private sector if the private sector can

be stimulated to the point of creating those positions.

We have hundreds of thousands of citizens in our province who are

employed directly or indirectly by government. To the most degree they

are employed because of their choice. But there are an equal number or

more who choose not to work directly or indirectly for government, and

there are many people who simply will not accept the concept that

government can best supply employment. Government, in my opinion,

cannot best supply employment. Government can, however, ensure that

employment opportunities are created and do exist if government itself

examines its role, particularly in encouraging investment and

development of opportunities, rather than attempting to compete,

replace, or frequently, as we witness, interfere by way of regulations

and bureaucracy, which makes it virtually impossible for the private

sector to develop the employment we all seek.

To a very large degree the evolution of governments has occurred

without a master plan. I think it is healthy for any government to sit

back and take stock of the role it is playing in our society. I don't

think that it is a condemnation of government to simply take stock of

those boards, commissions or layers of bureaucracy which are in place

and to do an audit to determine how useful or necessary any of those

may be. If the service can be provided by the private sector, without

the added costs of government, then what is wrong with attempting to do

that? Government will always retain the capability of responding in the

event that a situation is not working or a situation is not providing

the services required by the citizens. Government can always respond.

But there is nothing written in stone that government can do better

than the private sector.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made mention of President

Reagan of the U.S. and Prime Minister Thatcher of Britain. It's

interesting that Prime Minister Thatcher of Britain was returned with

the strongest mandate since the war, and the leader of the Labour Party

in Britain was expressing comments similar to those expressed by the

NDP during our election. Mr. Foot is out because the people of Britain

would not buy that. The people of B.C. would not buy that. How many

other jurisdictions will have to go through the same process" I find it

very difficult to listen to those who still espouse the opposition's

platform of the last election and will simply not recognize that those

ideas put forward were rejected by the people of B.C. Those ideas as

duplicated in Britain were rejected by the people of the United Kingdom

in no uncertain terms.

[3:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to point

out flaws in any government, any program, any system; not difficult at

all to point out flaws. And of course flaws will exist as long as men

and women are responsible for governing any jurisdiction and number of

people.

The member for Burnaby North also mentioned Milton Friedman, but

since he's an economist I don't think it really matters too much what

his opinion is, because he simply would disagree with another

economist. Whatever answer you may want, an economist will oblige you.

None of them seem to have the answers for the problems unless it's an

academic exercise.

Mr. Speaker, if our government, as it mentions and outlines in the

throne speech, can eliminate some of the layers of bureaucracy and

nonsense that have grown up over the years; if we can eliminate some of

the commissions and some of the committees, task forces, that seem to

go on endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion other than to

recommend that further study take place; if we can at least eliminate

some of the duplication that takes place at the local level through

regional districts and municipalities — and even beyond that, some of

the other subcommittees which have been established recently — we will

allow people who would build and develop the opportunity to get on with

the job, rather than to find themselves completely frustrated with a

system that seems completely insensitive to the legitimate aspirations

of the citizens of the province.

Interest rates and inflation not long back were uppermost in the

minds of the people of Canada and in British Columbia. I would

dissociate myself from any person who would suggest that inflation is

not damaging to the individual and that inflation should not be fought

with all possible effort, because we have witnessed what inflation and

the interest rates over the past few years have done to many citizens.

The capability of governments to modify inflation rates, I think, is

most important. We have witnessed a decline in inflation and in the

interest rates. We have seen, accompanying that, an increase in housing

starts, an increase in other business activities and an increase in net

employment.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Burnaby North very clearly

enunciated the difference between the two parties of

[ Page 27

the NDP and the Social Credit. And I think that was enunciated most

carefully and clearly during the election campaign. It may come down to

a difference of opinion and philosophy. I think our government

enunciated during the election campaign that we do not believe

government should be responsible for all employment opportunities in

our society, nor should government attempt to take on all

responsibilities. There is a combination that has served our country

and our province well: a combination of responsible government,

responsible industry and self-responsibility. If the day should come,

with 1984 looming, when government is going to be given all

responsibility over each member of our society; when you are advised by

government that you need not be concerned about yourself because Big

Brother government will take care of you — it will make the decisions,

it will decide what is best for you and you need not worry, but please

remember when election time comes, vote for the party that's going to

take care of you in everything — there will be no need for you to

think, because government can think for you.

Mr. Speaker, it's been the wisdom of North America particularly for

some years, the wisdom of many philosophers and others that the least

government is the best government. There has been a change over the

years because government has involved itself in many areas of commerce,

industry and other aspects of our society. In some instances it has

benefited society generally; in others it has created incredible costs

to citizens. If we compare the percentage of the gross national product

which represented government spending 30 years ago to what it is today,

we can see the tremendous cost of government interfering in the lives

of citizens.

We can look at the abysmal record of the Liberal government's

massive deficit and debt. We can look at the abysmal record of what

this philosophy of giant socialism and Big Brother is costing Canadians

and in particular what it is costing British Columbians directly and

indirectly.

Crown corporations have been mentioned by many, as though simply

because of the term "Crown" they can do no wrong. Crown corporations

can serve a useful purpose, but they are not immune from that which is

common to any monopoly organization. They can become very fat. They can

become very self-preserving and have a great capacity to rationalize

their need. I think if a government really wishes to take itself

seriously on behalf of the people it represents, it not only has a

requirement to examine Crown corporations but also it has an absolute

duty to determine their value to our society. If they are not

functioning as they should be functioning, then changes must be made.

One of the changes that is always available to free-thinking people is

the elimination, not just modification, of a corporation. Frequently

the best answer is simply to see that it no longer exists, because it

is no longer serving a useful function, although the costs are

certainly there.

We were distressed, Mr. Speaker, as were the citizens of the

province of B.C., upon examining the amount of interference which can

and does take place with respect to the agencies, boards and

commissions that have grown up around government over many years. Even

the government which was responsible for the creation of some boards,

commissions or agencies need not apologize if they identify that the

use is no longer legitimate or no longer there. If something's time has

come, then maybe it's time to make that change and get rid of it.

The municipalities and the regional districts are coming under

increasing attack by citizens with respect to the period of time it

takes to process even a relatively simple application. It has been a

habit of local municipalities and regional districts to pass the buck

to the province. They say: "It's because of provincial regulations that

we can't do the job for you." I think the throne speech has indicated

in reasonably clear terms that that challenge has been accepted by the

provincial government and that if it is a provincial problem perhaps

something can be done.

I had a most interesting conversation with an elected representative

of a municipality who was speaking some time back with me about the

possibility of seeing the introduction of the variable mill rate. The

greatest concern he had was: "If you introduce a variable mill rate,

then we of the municipality will be blamed for taxes rather than the

province. Wouldn't it be better to stay with one single mill rate? Then

we could blame taxes on the provincial assessment authority rather than

the municipalities" — taxes which are used solely for the municipality

to provide services to their people. One day, Mr. Speaker, enlightened

minds in this province will shine and an entirely new system will come

forth, as the Attorney-General is most familiar not contained in the

throne speech at this time.

The member for Burnaby North — and I welcome her most sincerely as

the Health critic — mentioned the medicare situation in Canada, but

without details. May I for just a moment respond to the invitation to

discuss that matter? The federal Minister of Health, Hon. Monique

Bégin, visited our province prior to the beginning of the weekend, and

had statements to make. I didn't have the opportunity of meeting her

during that period of time, but I listened with great interest to what

she was saying. I also found it most interesting that the federal

Minister of Health took the opportunity of making a speech in New York

City, advising New Yorkers what Canadians might expect in their health

care system come this fall — I understand the people from Brooklyn were

particularly interested. Unfortunately the Ministers of Health across

Canada were not made privy to the information. I spoke with five last

week, and they were completely in the dark as to what the federal

minister has in mind. At the present time no one has seen a draft of

the legislation; nor have we been advised as to what some of the

details may be. We may have to find a New Yorker to fill us in.

I have written to the federal minister asking if she would provide

me with specific information as to what her plan is, so we might be in

a position to respond to it. We can only presume that her plan is

similar to that which she enunciated a year or so ago; that is, it was

her belief at that time that there should be complete universality and

access to everything with respect to health care — not the program

which exists in Canada today but everything: complete access, total

universality, without additional funding.

The ten ministers of health representing the provinces and the two

ministers representing the territories, in conference last September in

Vancouver, unanimously disagreed with the federal minister and advised

her in no uncertain terms that they felt she was grossly in error and,

more than anything, represents the biggest threat to the medicare

system in Canada if that act is brought forward in Ottawa and passed.

Historically the provinces have had the responsibility, as the

constitution provides, to deliver the health-care system in our

country. And historically the provinces have provided a very good

health-care system. But the program differs from province to province

as the needs differ. For example, in British Columbia we provide

additional programs as insured

[ Page 28

benefits under our medical system; they are not available in all

provinces. Some provinces provide other programs which British Columbia

does not, but usually British Columbia has offered under the program a

larger number of services, medical and non-medical, than other

provinces. From the very beginning British Columbia has had a per diem

for hospital care and a premium for the Medical Services Plan; it has

served us very well. No one in this province should be in a position of

hardship because of premiums, per diems or any other fee.

The revenues derived from British Columbia's health care system, and

in other provinces, allow the provincial government the opportunity to

provide additional services which are not cost-shared with the federal

government. The federal minister would have some of those services

included in the federal-provincial agreement but without additional

funding. It means that you have several options: first, you reduce or

eliminate services which are optional, such as chiropractic services,

podiatry, some optometry, or other insured services now under our plan

which are not part of the agreement; secondly, if you choose to do so,

you can eliminate the long-term care program, which is not required by

agreement; and if you so desire, you can eliminate the homemaker

program and a lot of other programs which British Columbia introduced

on its own, paid for in part by some of the revenues generated by the

system.

[3:30]

This morning I had the delightful opportunity of speaking with the

CBC on the same topic. They were as confused as many of the critics of

the medical system. They felt that the people in British Columbia were

rising against the $7.50 per day for hospital care, the premium and

some of the other fees. That area is perhaps the one about which the

Ministry of Health receives the fewest complaints. People are becoming

sophisticated and educated; they know what's going on. Thankfully,

today our society is becoming very realistic. Most of us have an

opportunity to travel to other countries, particularly the United

States, and are familiar with the costs of being ill in such countries.

We know full well what the per them rate to us would be if we were in a

hospital in the United States. For acute-care facilities in B.C. which

cost the program approximately $550 to $600 per day per patient the

person is asked to pay $7.50. It's a token amount, which is considered

by some within the system to be a discipline. It is certainly not a

revenue-generating program of any magnitude.

The concept of our Medical Services Plan is that of group insurance.

Group insurance suggests premiums. Our premiums are considerably lower

than those charged in our sister province of Ontario. During our

provincial election, for some reason Alberta came under fire about what

they intend to do. They, as well as the governments of Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the territories, disagree

with the federal Minister of Health about what she feels would be

necessary.

My government is very concerned about the future of health care in

Canada because we wish to see it preserved. We are concerned that the

federal government, through lack of consultation, and I think really

through lack of any thinking at all, is attempting to bring forward its

version of health Utopia 1984 style, without thinking of the damage it

could do. Each province has emphasized in its own particular way to the

federal minister why it feels she is moving in the wrong direction. I

hope to have the opportunity soon of speaking with Monique Bégin once

again, and with the other ministers, to see if we can't at least

attempt, through some type of consultative program, to modify her views.

We happen to have a good program of health care in Canada. We don't

wish to see it abused; we don't wish to see it deteriorate. I commend

the throne speech to the citizens of our province. Though it may be

vague, in the tradition of throne speeches, I think it sets out in no

uncertain terms that which the government believes must occur if we are

to maintain some type of recovery in the economy and produce the

necessary environment to attract industry and commerce, to create

employment and opportunities for our citizens.

I think the statements of the throne speech indicate in no uncertain

terms that our policies will remain as they have been over the past

number of years; that is, they will continue to recognize social

services as a top priority of the government. As the budget has

indicated every year that this government has been in office, health

care has constantly been the largest expenditure, followed by

education, human resources and the attorney general's ministry. The

throne speech indicated that this would be retained and those

priorities continued. However, it is becoming very, very clear to the

citizens of our country, and particularly of our province, that

government revenues and expenditures are not the result of smoke and

mirrors, but the result of a reflection of reality in the economy.

Nobody wishes to see unemployment numbers as they are today. There

are those who believe there is a simple answer, a quick fix: that is,

government hires everybody, forgetting, of course, where government

gets the necessary funding to pay those people. And you have the

choice. You can go into debt; you can borrow money; you can borrow

against revenues from B.C. Petroleum Corporation in years to come; you

can raise taxes. You can do all of these things and create government

jobs which may be short-lived, which may be very low in productivity,

which may have minimum influence on stimulation of the economy. That is

one way.

An additional way — a companion way, if you like — is to attempt to

attract private capital into British Columbia. You can do that in a

number of ways, one of which is to relieve those who would invest and

develop commerce from the onerous burden of government regulation,

bureaucracy and delay. It became common to hear stories of people who

were quite prepared to invest in our province, only to turn away

because they couldn't keep up the fight with the bureaucracy. It is not

the bureaucrats' fault or responsibility; it is those who make the

laws, regulations, rules and policy. Therefore I think it is quite

proper for the throne speech to refer to the need to examine those

layers of bureaucracy and regulation. I don't think the people who have

the responsibility of administering those acts or series of regulations

can be blamed, because they are simply doing what the law says they

should do. It is too convenient for governments to write laws or

regulations and then leave them on the books without ever giving

consideration to what effect they are having in reality. Time is well

past when it must be done.

Rather than dwelling on the negatives that we heard all during the

election campaign, rather than dwelling on the negatives almost

forever, perhaps it is time for British Columbians, our citizens, the

government — and who knows, even the opposition — to look at that which

is good in our province, that which we can all be proud of. We have had

tremendous growth in our province over the past three decades. We have

suffered from the recession, as have other

[ Page 29

areas of Canada and all countries. We have seen the beginning of a

recovery process, because British Columbia was the first province in

the country to try, at least, to do something about it. Certainly a

program was introduced and examined. Some fault was found by certain

people and modifications may be required, but it was an attempt to do

something about our problem, and we see some results. The federal

government came in with its restraint program. I agree, I don't think

they should be having a party to celebrate it, because who wants to

celebrate recessions. Nonetheless, they saw some wisdom in at least

attempting to do something about it, and there has been a decline in

inflation and in the interest rates, I can't agree with any member who

says offhandedly: "Oh, three points or so." Three points on inflation

and interest rates are very significant. At least the British Columbia

government attempted to do something and brought in a program which has

been hailed as a model across Canada by other provinces.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Manitoba. Who else?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Speech from the Throne indicates

clearly that a re-examination is due for all of these programs, and I

know that in the days to come details will be offered to the House for

their examination and consideration.

The people of British Columbia were offered a choice not long ago.

They were given the opportunity to review the details and facts of the

matter, and they made a choice in very clear terms. That choice is now

represented by the Speech from the Throne, and by the subsequent

legislation and budget to be introduced by this government. I believe

that which comes before this House will clearly reflect the attitude of

the people of British Columbia, and we can look forward to a

stimulating 1983 and great forward progress for the people of our

province. Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in this

debate today as the representative of the citizens of the Alberni

constituency for the fourth time. I'd like to thank those constituents,

the thinking people of the province, who re-elected me for the fourth

time to represent them in the Legislative Assembly of B.C.

The minister said throne speeches are traditionally vague and

lacking in detail, and are meant to set out the government's general

direction and intent, rather than to outline specific programs. That's

certainly true of this throne speech. It doesn't say how the government

plans to serve its citizens, but in its choices of slogans, jargon and

catch-phrases of the new right, it's perfectly clear which citizens it

plans to serve. I've read the throne speech a number of times since it

was presented in the House last Thursday, and it contains the usual

passing references to the issues this government generally pays lip

service to: parks, the environment, native rights, housing, health care

and the needs of senior citizens. But where it's most clear and most

specific is in its attack on the role of government in a democratic and

pluralistic society, and in its use of buzzwords of the

corporate-dominated right wing to articulate that attack.

Since it uses so many of these catch-phrases, I think it would have

been appropriate for the government to provide the House with a list of

definitions prior to the reading of the speech, in the same way that

most bills presented into this House contain a definition section. For

example, what is the real meaning of "public sector," which is always

characterized in the throne speech as something negative, or intrusive

and overweight? What are the

definitions of "private sector" and

"private sector confidence?" What is meant by the terms "downsizing"

and "privatization," "cost-competitiveness" and "productivity," and

"high technology?"

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll tell you, Mr. Minister. And how does the

elimination of such bad things — clearly bad things, as the throne

speech indicates — as "regulatory roadblocks" contribute to good

things such as "the stable investment climate" and "the free play of

market forces?" All of these phrases have become common currency

through the publications of organizations such as the Fraser Institute,

which pose as economics brain trusts but which are nothing more than

propagators of an economic newspeak financed by the largest and most

powerful corporations and corporate organizations in the country. Their

objective in popularizing these slogans is to gain public acceptance

for a type of government which increases the burdens on and curtails

the rights of ordinary citizens, and at the same time enhances the

rights and benefits of the rich and powerful who control the corporate

sector. What do you call a government that deprives some citizens of

their rights while increasing the rights and benefits of others? You

certainly don't call it democratic.

[3:45]

Let me proceed with a few

definitions. First of all, private sector.

What does the term "private sector" mean? Obviously, it describes that

sector of the economy which is engaged in business for private profit.

It is dominated by large multinational corporate entities involved in

resources, energy, utilities and finance. Over the last few decades

mergers and other mechanisms have concentrated the assets of these huge

corporations into fewer and fewer hands, and their political and

economic power, as well as their ability to influence and persuade the

public, has increased. How effectively the private sector operates is

easily measured: by the profits and the increased assets enjoyed by

that limited number of private owners.

The second buzzword used in the throne speech is "public sector."

What does the public sector mean? Clearly, the public sector is the

government and the various instruments it uses to serve those who

appoint it. In a totalitarian society it's usually a strongman, the

police and the army. In a democratic, pluralistic society such as ours

it is more complex and more difficult to describe. It consists of all

those public agencies, boards, commissions and institutions through

which government balances the powers and obligations of its citizens,

to make certain that no individual or group is able to take advantage

of other individuals or groups through the unregulated exercise of

greater wealth or power.

It is more difficult to measure the effectiveness of the public

sector since its benefits cannot be quantified in dollar terms. The

measure of the success of the public sector is quality of life, which

describes notions such as freedom, equality of opportunity, and

equality of access to services such as health, education, housing,

transportation and social security benefits. In a totalitarian society

unlimited freedom, opportunity and service are enjoyed by the few — the

rich

[ Page 30

and the powerful. In our society freedom, opportunity and access to

services are enjoyed equally by all citizens. This is only achieved by

the action of government in limiting the benefits of the wealthy and

powerful, and in distributing power and benefits equally to those who

lack wealth and power. Needless to say, in a democratic society the few

whose wealth and power are regulated by government in the interests of

the majority always complain about that regulation. Those complaints

are a price that we pay in a democracy for equal access to services and

for equal opportunity.

What then is private-sector confidence? If the public sector in a

democracy is always at war with the private sector, whose wealth and

power must be regulated in the interests of the majority, how does the

government gain private-sector confidence? The answer is simple. It

gains private-sector confidence by losing the war. A government which

has private-sector confidence attains it by reducing regulation on the

private sector and allowing the owners of business corporations freedom

of action to increase profits and amass wealth. This is done, of

course, by eliminating regulatory roadblocks — another buzzword in the

throne speech. These are roadblocks such as environmental regulations,

occupational health and safety regulations, land use regulations, human

rights legislation and legislation which protects the rights of labour

to organize and bargain collectively in order to increase benefits for

its members — and also to eliminate corporate tax or progressive tax

legislation. All these mechanisms which are designed to guarantee a

fairer distribution of power and wealth in a democratic society also

add to the cost of doing business. To the extent that regulation

increases the cost of labour or increases the cost of a unit of

production of goods or services, then those regulations also limit

productivity.

This brings me to another buzzword in the throne speech:

productivity. Productivity is simply defined as the labour costs

involved in producing goods and services of a certain value. I once had

an opportunity to speak with a Panamanian Jesuit economist named Xavier

Gorostiaga. I asked him why agricultural productivity decreased so

dramatically in Nicaragua after July 1979, when the Sandinista

government took over. His answers shed some light on the nature of

productivity as a measurement. He said that when fieldworkers in

Nicaragua were compelled to work for virtually nothing and under fear

of death by the Somoza government, they would work all year round under

the most indescribable conditions of misery. But when they were

liberated from that compulsion in July of 1979, and when minimum-wage

legislation and working conditions were established for fieldworkers,

they would only work to provide for their own requirements. The result

was a precipitous drop in the productivity of agricultural labour. In

other words, what Xavier Gorostiago was saying was that slaves are, by

definition, more productive than workers who are free to work for their

own subsistence requirements. As governments increase the rights of

workers to bargain for benefits, or improve minimum wages and labour

standards, productivity must decrease because there is a cost to those

wages, there is a cost to those labour standards, and those costs

become a part of the cost of delivering goods and services.

What about "high technology, " another buzzword in the Social Credit

throne speech? Well, since slaves are, by definition, more productive

than free men, it follows that machines which substitute for labour

also increase productivity. Programmable machines — that is, high

technology — which eliminate skilled labour are even more productive than

simple machines which replace cheap unskilled labour. High-technology

equipment, of course, costs money, and is only of value to the private

sector if it reduces the costs and increases profits. To achieve this,

some governments which have the confidence of the private sector have

agreed to limit the power of organized labour in high-technology

industries so that labour in those industries will be — to use another

buzzword of the Social Credit government — "cost-competitive" with

labourers in Taiwan or Hong Kong, where productivity is high because

those workers work at wages approaching slave labour rates: about $1.57

an hour.

What, then, does "downsizing," another buzzword that appears in the

Social Credit throne speech, mean? Well, people in my constituency are

only too well aware of what downsizing means. It means that one in four

employees of the company that operates in my riding has been eliminated

from the forest industry — 25 percent of all the workers in that

riding. It means that thousands of people have ended up on welfare and

unemployment insurance. It means that the money they formerly

circulated in the regional economy of Port Alberni has dried up, and as

a result businesses close, bankruptcy ensues and foreclosures take

place for hundreds and thousands of people. In government it means

precisely the same thing, because teachers, health workers, care

workers and other government workers whose salaries formerly

contributed to the regional economy also end up on unemployment and

welfare rolls. Their salaries no longer circulate in the economy, and

the effect on spinoff jobs and businesses is exactly the same: "market

controls," as the government calls them — bankruptcies, foreclosures,

business closures.

Downsizing of government operations by cutting government services

does reduce corporate taxes and increase profits. It also reduces

personal taxes. But of course these reductions are ultimately wiped out

by the increased user fees for health, education and other government

services to individuals. So downsizing benefits the corporate sector of

the economy by reducing their taxes; it provides no net benefits

whatsoever to individual taxpayers in our society.

When taken together, these buzzwords and catch phrases represent a

radical departure from the traditional role of government in a

democratic society. For the first time in the history of this province

government has made a conscious decision to support the few who are

rich and powerful by freeing them from restraints and forcing

individuals and the poor to bear the costs. It is a clear abandonment

of democratic pluralism, and in its total submission to corporate power

it demonstrates this government's lack of the courage required to

defend the weak against the strong. It is easy. It's the easy way, the

way the Premier has always taken — the easy way, the submissive way —

because it avoids the challenge to big business and guarantees the

re-election of governments, because right-wing propagandists have

already softened up the public to accept these slogans, buzzwords and

catch-phrases as real economic analysis, without understanding their

ultimate consequences in terms of unemployment, high cost of services,

lower income, and fewer benefits for those fortunate enough to work.

The Roman Catholic bishops, on January I of this year, attempted to

stimulate debate around the consequences of such an economic policy as

the one that was revealed in this current throne speech, which

emphasizes the value of capital over labour. I'll simply quote a few

passages, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the statement of the Roman

Catholic bishops in

[ Page 31

Canada, which was made on January 1 this year, under the heading of

"A Moral Crisis."

"The current structural changes in the global economy

reveal a deepening moral crisis. Through these structural changes

capital is reasserted as the dominant organizing principle of economic

life. This orientation directly contradicts the ethical principle that

labour, not capital, must be given priority in the development of an

economy based on justice. There is, in other words, an ethical order in

which human labour, the subject of production, takes precedence over

capital and technology. This is the priority-of-labour principle."

The bishops go on to discuss what the government in its throne

speech calls the "free play of market forces" and which they call "the

survival of the fittest."

"In addition, the renewed emphasis on the survival of

the fittest as the supreme law of economics is likely to increase the

domination of the weak by the strong, both at home and abroad. The

survival-of-the-fittest theory has often been used to rationalize the

increased concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few.

Within Canada itself the top 20 percent receive 42.5 percent of total

personal income, while the bottom 20 percent receive only 4.1 percent

of total personal income. These patterns of domination and inequality

are likely to further intensify as the survival-of-the-fittest or

free-play-of-market-forces doctrine is applied more rigorously to the

economic order.

"While these Darwinian theories partly explain the

rules that govern the animal world, they are, in our view, morally

unacceptable as a rule of life for the human community."

The bishops also comment on the restraint program of the type that

the Premier likes to brag about and describe in his throne speech.

"At the same time, working people, the unemployed,

young people and those on fixed incomes are increasingly called upon to

make the most sacrifice for economic recovery, for it is these people

who suffer most from layoffs, wage restraints and cutbacks in social

services. The recent tax changes, which have the effect of raising

taxes for working people and lowering them for the wealthy, add to this

burden, and these conditions in turn are reinforced by the existence of

large-scale unemployment, which tends to generate a climate of social

fear and passive acceptance. Moreover, the federal and provincial

wage-control programs are inequitable, imposing the same control rate

on lower incomes as on upper incomes. If successfully implemented,

these programs could have the effect of transferring income from wages

to profits; yet there are no clear reasons to believe that working

people will ever really benefit from these and any other sacrifices

they are called upon to make. For even if companies recover and

increase their profit margins, the additional revenues are likely to be

reinvested in more labour-saving technology, exported to other

countries, or spent on market speculation or luxury goods."

[4:00]

What the Social Credit government is talking about is not

necessarily the key to economic recovery in this province or anywhere

else. It is certainly the key to economic recovery for that very large

sector of our economy concentrated in the ownership of few hands — the

corporate sector, the rich and the powerful. The bishops do state

economic alternatives as to how we can approach this economic crisis in

a different way — a more ethical way, a way that is based more on moral

principles — and I would commend the reading of the bishops' statement

to the Socred members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the provincial Legislature for

11 years. In all those years I have never seen a throne speech which

so blatantly submits the government to the service of one sector of our

society, to the detriment of all others. By setting out to weaken and

destroy the government sector, which acts as a countervailing power to

that of large corporations, this government has abandoned one of the

critical underpinnings of democratic government. Over the last decade

organizations such as Amnesty International have documented the erosion

of democratic institutions and respect for human rights around the

world. My fear, after reading this throne speech, is that we have now

taken the first step in that process here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

MR. PELTON: I would like to thank the people on the other

side of the House for sticking around long enough to listen to me.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am honoured to join this

distinguished assembly and that I consider it a privilege to address

this House. As a newcomer to the Legislature, I anticipate eagerly, yet

with a sense of the need to learn, the opportunities, challenges and

responsibilities which 1, along with other members, have assumed with

our election to this House. As the new member for Dewdney, I would like

to express my sincere gratitude to those British Columbians who have

conferred upon me the responsibility of representing them in this

House. I accept this responsibility, recognizing the honour that it

represents; but, even more than this, I accept the responsibility with

the full recognition of the obligations which it implies.

It is almost disarming to realize that we serve close to two and

three-quarters million British Columbians. When I consider that the

deliberations, decisions and actions of this Legislature may affect

directly the dreams and aspirations of all British Columbians, I am

compelled to emphasize that our duty is indeed to serve. Pursuing the

same theme, I wish to advise the House that I will not lose sight of my

responsibility to represent all the constituents of my riding.

As newly elected members of the Legislative Assembly, we must be

ever-mindful of the contributions made by those who preceded us;

specifically, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend, on behalf of my

constituents, my warmest best wishes to Mr. George Mussallem. His past

and continuing work on behalf of the constituency of Dewdney

demonstrates clearly that this assembly's former Miracle Whip is indeed

an "amayonnaising" public servant. [Laughter.] As with all

organizations, the addition of new members can be expected to result in

the generation of new ideas, fresh approaches and novel perspectives.

The combination of newcomers and senior members of the House augurs

well for this Legislature. I therefore look forward to the challenges

of this session knowing that the future of British Columbia is very

bright indeed.

As I suggested earlier, Mr. Speaker, I consider it vitally important

that I represent in the House the interests of my

[ Page 32

constituents. I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity to

convey to the Legislature a few of the concerns we have in Dewdney.

First, I would like to acknowledge those pioneers who worked for

British Columbia and who contributed their skill, their energy, their

experience and their wisdom to realize the potential of this most

beautiful of provinces. I speak, of course, of our senior citizens. I

realize that my appearance may suggest an element of self-interest in

this tribute, but I assure you that none is intended.

In my private and public experience I have come to know many

seniors. Most have given much and taken little. Most appreciate the

meaning of restraint, because they have had to practise it for many

years. With typical selflessness, these pioneers have supported the

measures which became necessary during the recent months to bring the

province through its difficult times. They supported these measures,

even though they were themselves faced with additional burdens as a

consequence. Through these difficult times many have given even more

and taken even less. I believe that our seniors are entitled to the

dignity and comfort afforded by financial security. I believe also that

economic recovery is underway, and I would propose therefore that as we

emerge from the recession, and as this recovery comes — after some time

— to be reflected in a stronger provincial revenue picture, the House

consider as a priority the reintroduction of those programs

discontinued because of our inability to fund them during the lean

years. It is my belief that these measures and programs will help to

safeguard the dignity and comfort of our senior citizens. Recognizing

the immense contribution they have made to the province of British

Columbia, I believe it is our duty to do no less.

During the election campaign, I met and talked with many, many

concerned people, and the single most significant topic of conversation

was the creation of jobs. People want to work. People want to

contribute. People want to play a role in the growth and development of

this province. This government has expressed the same concerns, and

this government has responded through programs and initiatives directed

at the creation of new jobs. I would like to take these programs one

step further by expressing publicly, on behalf of the riding of

Dewdney, our interest in encouraging commercial and industrial

expansion in our riding. We welcome the opportunity to work

cooperatively with business and industry toward our goal of a "jobs at

home" policy.

Dewdney, in many respects, is a bedroom suburb of Vancouver. With

the rising prices which have characterized the housing market in recent

years, increasing numbers of people employed in the city of Vancouver

and other urban core municipalities are driving increasing distances to

work. But higher energy costs make commuting even more demanding in

terms of the family budget. Our long-term objective, therefore, is to

provide employment opportunities where people live — a jobs-at-home

policy, if you will. One of the most interesting prospects offered by

the new revolution in electronics, home computers and so on is a

realistic possibility of more flexibility and decentralization of jobs

in the future. While what we are talking about by jobs at home is much

more immediately practical, I believe it is time that our communities

began to think in terms of the likely future impacts of electronics and

consider these impacts in their long-term planning. These are long-term

responses, but short-term responses are also required — short-term

responses directed at meeting the needs of commuters in our riding.

This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of transportation, an issue

vital to Dewdney and important also to the economy of the region

generally. My constituents want and need an effective and efficient

commuter system reaching as far east as Mission. While I don't want to

discuss the details of such a system, I would suggest that the

utilization of existing rail lines, perhaps combined with an improved

bus system, would meet the short-term needs. In the longer term, an

extension of the automated light rapid transit system at least as far

as the east side of the Pitt River is considered essential by my

constituents. I wish to advise this House that I consider this to be

among the most vital issues to the riding of Dewdney. My constituents

count this among the most important of issues. I would emphasize that

improved access to employment opportunities throughout the lower

mainland renders this an essential issue to the continued improvement

of the regional economy. I can assure you that I will be focusing the

attention of this House on this important matter, and I will be doing

so in a forceful and continuing manner.

In addition to the movement of people, we are concerned about the

effective movement of goods and services to and from Dewdney. We

recognize that the creation of jobs within our riding depends to a very

large extent on efficient and reliable access to markets for those

goods and services produced or processed in Dewdney. Our jobs-at-home

policy would derive major benefits from the early completion of the

Mary Hill bypass and the four-laning of the Lougheed Highway from Haney

to Mission. The improvement of an integrated road transportation

network would greatly increase the attractiveness of Dewdney as a place

to live, to work and to play. I say "play," Mr. Speaker, because within

our riding we offer some of the most attractive and enjoyable natural

amenities to be found in the lower mainland. They provide unparalleled

opportunities for development of the tourist industry and unique

opportunities for both active and passive recreation,

I am proud to draw to the attention of the House the Iron Mountain

golf course, currently nearing completion as a world-class golf course

and recreational complex. We offer beautiful mountain country and an

equestrian industry with an international reputation. This year we will

be hosting the well-known B.C. Summer Games which, I am proud to say,

were initiated under our Premier's leadership. On behalf of the

constituents in Dewdney I tender a sincere invitation to all members of

this House to visit Dewdney and enjoy the substantial and varied

opportunities we have to offer.

With a background in municipal government, Mr. Speaker, and with

responsibility for representing the local jurisdictions within my

riding, you will understand my interest in policies, programs and

legislative initiatives affecting local government. It is my belief

that as a provincial government we must seek new innovative and

imaginative methods to ensure their ability to deliver first-line

services to the people of the riding and to do so quickly, efficiently

and at the least possible cost to the municipality and the taxpayers. I

would also mention that the assessment and taxation systems, subjects

generating substantial public discussion in recent years, demand

continuing review and improvement in the interest of equity to all

groups of taxpayers.

I would also like to refer to proposals which have been offered to

simplify land use legislation and procedures. It is my view that

several excellent changes have come out of this process, changes which

would significantly improve the circumstances in which local councils

make planning and land

[ Page 33

use decisions. As we look forward to the end of the recession, as we

anticipate renewed activity in housing and commercial and recreational

development, we will face renewed challenges, in some respects

different from those we have faced before. We must provide the tools to

guarantee the orderly and efficient development of our province in a

way that is fair and cost-effective for all participants, including

smaller developers and the average homebuyer. We must maintain a

continuing re-evaluation of our legislation to ensure its

responsiveness and sensitivity to changing circumstances and

conditions. The development climate will continue to change, and the

legislative framework within which development will occur must keep

pace.

[4:15]

In a related way, our approach to the agricultural land reserve must

be sensitive to current conditions. I believe the time is right for a

new and cooperative working alliance between the Land Commission and

local councils. I believe that local councils support the objectives of

the Land Commission. I believe that the Land Commission appreciates the

concerns of local government with respect to agricultural lands. In

short, I believe we have entered an era in which this mutual

understanding promises a realistic, credible and mature approach to the

protection of this limited but vital provincial resource.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Finally, the issue of housing. We have gone through a series of

crises in the housing industry: a crisis which witnessed a dramatic and

unprecedented fall in the demand for housing; a crisis which witnessed

a dramatic and unprecedented volatility in the price for housing; and a

crisis which witnessed a dramatic and unprecedented failure rate for

business responsible for the provision of housing.

While positive signs are beginning to suggest a recovery in the

housing sector, I believe we must, through constructive government

initiative, encourage alternative forms of housing and alternative land

use concepts. Many countries, particularly in western Europe, have

responded with imaginative success to challenges not unlike our own. We

must do likewise. Current attitudes toward housing are no longer

suitable. Current standards are no longer appropriate. There are viable

alternatives, effective alternatives and necessary alternatives. I know

that we have barely scratched the surface of appropriate responses to

this significant problem. We must scratch deeper. We must respond with

positive incentives.

In closing, I would like to share with the House some of my personal

thoughts and perhaps a personal vision I bring with me to this

prestigious institution. I realize that this may have escaped the

attention of some, but I sit in this House as a government member. The

implicit presumption in this startling revelation is that I carry with

me a predictable set of philosophical baggage. That may in fact be the

case, but that which is predictable need not be stated.

I do not share the view held by some that meaningful contribution

can only be made at the cabinet level. Not all new members will become

cabinet ministers, but all will have a fair chance to advance their

ideas. I would suggest that this is how it should be. As I mentioned

earlier, I believe that we are here to serve. We are here to improve

the quality of life for all British Columbians. We are best able to do

this in a spirit of cooperation, to do this as a team. I would

emphasize that this team — I hope I'll be forgiven if I'm being a

little naive — should be made up of all members on both sides of the

House. We may, at times, differ in our perceptions as how best to

serve, but we do not differ in our ultimate purpose: to promote the

well-being of all British Columbians.

Consequently, I look forward eagerly to the forthcoming opportunity

of contributing to the future of British Columbia. I welcome the

adventure of participating in this process, and I see as a consequence

of this adventure a bright future for the province and the people of

British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to

congratulate you in achieving your position of Deputy Speaker, and to

ask you to pass on to the Speaker my congratulations as well. I also

want to welcome the new member for Dewdney, who just spoke. He's not

nearly as pretty as the member I would have voted for, but here he is,

and I hope he finds the House as interesting and exciting as he's

expecting it to be, and I'm certainly going to do everything I can to

make his life as miserable as possible.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Be nice, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: He's not as pretty as the person I would've voted

for.

This is my second term, as you know, representing the constituency

of Burnaby-Edmonds, although it is my fourth term in the House, and I

want to take this opportunity to thank the residents and constituents

of Burnaby-Edmonds for renewing my mandate and giving me another

opportunity to be here to speak on their behalf and to represent them.

One of the first ways in which I am going to do this, of course, is to

look at the throne speech to see what kind of impact, if any, it's

going to have on Burnaby-Edmonds.

I must start out by expressing disappointment, because the issues of

main concern to us in Burnaby-Edmonds at this time have really not been

touched on or dealt with by this particular throne speech. Burnaby,

like so many other parts of the province, is experiencing an incredible

increase in its unemployment rate. Every day we find more and more

young people in particular, those between the ages of 15 and 24, who

would like to work, who want to work, but who are unable to secure

employment. Our unemployment insurance roll increased from 1,221 in

1982 to 3,400 in 1982 and by June of this year to 4,197. Unemployment

has been severe not only for our young people but certainly for the

women who live there and are now entering the labour force because they

have to, in many instances because their spouses are unemployed or

because they are single parents — widowed, deserted or single, never

having married. We find that the throne speech really has not addressed

itself in any meaningful way to the kinds of long-term, meaningful job

creation that would relieve the unemployment situation in

Burnaby-Edmonds. The other crisis we are facing is the continual high

number of small businesses that are going bankrupt. The bankruptcy rate

in Burnaby-Edmonds continues to escalate, and there is absolutely no

indication in this throne speech that the government is aware of that

situation or prepared to do anything to alleviate it.

So in those two instances, the throne speech has not been of any

benefit and does not indicate that the plans of the government for the

future would in any way benefit the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. At

the same time we continue to see the erosion of services to people in

Burnaby, and I want to deal specifically with a number of them.

[ Page 34

The campership program, known as a campership program, which is

funded by the Ministry of Human Resources, makes grants available to

low-income families to assist their children during the summer vacation

— to help them get out of the city, to go to camp, to get some relief.

That budget does not exist any more. What we find is that individual

offices have been borrowing from other funds to make these grants so

that some of those children will have an opportunity to go away. It's

not a large budget, it's not a major sum of money we are discussing,

but it is large in the life of those children. It is important, and is

a major part of their growth and development. That particular program

has been eroded.

The Marguerite Dixon Transition House in that riding, which exists

to deal with family violence directed specifically towards children and

women, has not been told whether it is going to receive its grant so

that it can continue its very important work. It has a two-month

extension, but it has not heard from the Ministry of Health whether it

is in fact going to get its extension so that it can carry on the very

important job that it does. The house tried to expand its services so

that it could be of assistance to the disabled people who use it,

because apparently they are not excluded from battering. It appealed to

the municipality and asked for funding, but the council found that it

was not in a position financially to help them in that either. So they

were not able to employ an additional person to work specifically with

those victims of violence who were confined to wheelchairs or had to

use crutches.

Not specifically in Burnaby-Edmonds, but in Burnaby and serving all

of the lower mainland, we have a very special school program that runs

out of The Maples. It addresses itself to a very special group of

children with psychological and emotional problems. Although it's

located in Burnaby-Willingdon, it really serves children throughout the

lower mainland. We're finding that part of that school, not all of it,

is going to be moved to the Donald Paterson School and that the

lunchroom, the library, the psychologists, the principal and everyone

are going to be fitted into four classrooms which are much smaller than

is necessary for the program to be successful. Those students are going

to be deprived of the kinds of services they were able to enjoy when

they were a part of the Burnaby mental health unit at the comer of

Willingdon and Canada Way — for example, the swimming pool and the gym,

which were not frills but were part of the therapeutic program which

those children used. To children without emotional or psychological

problems, using a swimming pool or a gym is recreational; it's an

additional kind of thing they do. But to children with emotional

problems the swimming pool and gym were as much a part of their therapy

as was the psychologist, psychiatrist or the counselling and other

services. Now they're going to be deprived of that because of an

ongoing debate between Health, Education and Human Resources as to who

should pick up the tab for what. While this debate goes on, the

children in need are the ones who really suffer.

The Burnaby General Hospital has to be a model for all other

hospitals in terms of operating within its budget; it never has budget

overruns. It lives within the confines of its budget. It limps along as

best it can, giving the best possible service within its limited

resources. It is now finding that it is almost impossible to give the

kind of quality health care which they would like to give to the people

of Burnaby because of the very stringent terms under which they have to

live and work and operate. Like other hospitals, for example, Burnaby General cannot afford to have a resident anaesthetist on

staff. I think we've just been lucky that Burnaby General has not yet

experienced the kind of tragedy that another hospital went through as a

result of not being able to have the services of a full-time resident

anaesthetist on staff.

[4:30]

The other point is that because we are geographically located almost

in the centre of transportation going everywhere on the lower mainland,

traffic congestion continues to threaten the quality of life of the

people of Burnaby-Edmonds. Under the estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) I will be speaking in

more detail and at greater length about the ways in which this

government has failed to address itself to the fact that the residents

of Burnaby are continually under attack from the automobile as a direct

result of poor planning and bad planning on the part of the Ministry of

Highways and this government. There's no mention of that in the speech.

As far as education is concerned, the threat to the education of the

children of Burnaby is the same as it is to students throughout the

rest of British Columbia. The restraint program to enhance

productivity, to which the throne speech referred, really treats the

children as though they are widgets in a widget factory. This whole

business of suddenly finding funding for school boards prior to or in

the middle of an election is the kind of crass cynicism which in the

long run penalizes students. It may be of great benefit to the

politicians and may ensure their re-election, but in the final analysis

it's the children who pay. There is absolutely no indication that the

programs implemented as a result of that infusion of money at that time

are going to continue. The board has been trying to find out whether

that same amount of money is going to be available in the future; to

date there has been no indication of that.

As far as the throne speech is concerned, it has certainly not

addressed itself to the needs of the people of Burnaby-Edmonds. I'm

going to be discussing at greater length — and quite often, I'm sure —

this failure on the part of the government. But I want to quote and

deal with some of the statements made in the throne speech. On page 4

it talked about the government's mandate to downsize government by

eliminating some programs which may be desirable, but are not

essential. Who decides what program is essential?

One of the programs that this government has decided is not

essential is the continued funding for a halfway house — the Lynda

Williams Home — which operated exclusively on behalf of those women who

were in the penal system and were being phased back into the community.

It was the only house of its kind in existence in British Columbia. But

you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? I went back and checked Hansard

through the years and I found — and I'm glad that the then

Attorney-General is still here — that every single year, without fail,

I have had to stand on my feet in this House and appeal to the existing

Attorney-General for continued funding for the Lynda Williams Home. The

Lynda Williams Home exists only for women in the penal system. It's a

halfway house. It is a house which helps them make the transition

gradually back into the community at large. It's not a large facility.

It's not an expensive facility. It's not one of many facilities. It's

the only facility of its kind. That house is always full. There are

always occupants there. There are always people using that facility.

But the government in its wisdom has decided that on August 1 that

house is to be

[ Page 35

closed and that those women can go straight from the maximum

security facilities of Lakeside or from the minimum security facilities

of Twin Maples right into the community.

Do you know what they used to do in the Lynda Williams Home? They

used to be able to go to school. They used to be able to pick up their

grade 12 or whatever. They used to be able to do retraining programs so

that when they were finally released back into the community, they had

skills: social skills, academic skills or vocational skills. In its

infinite wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the throne speech, the

government has decided that in order to downsize the government this

program is going to be eliminated because, although it may be

desirable, it's not considered to be essential. The only facility of

its kind for women coming out of prisons in this province is going to

be closed on August 1 so that the government may downsize government.

That's the kind of thing they are talking about when they brag about

"leaner, tighter public service" and "downsizing government." That's

the kind of thing they're talking about. So after fighting since 1977

and struggling to keep a facility that, as I said, is full and has been

full, and that serves the women coming out of prisons in this province,

it's over. The axe has fallen, and on August 1 the Lynda Williams Home

is going to be closed. I don't know what they're going to use that

facility for — for something, I'm sure. The original Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) is here, the past Attorney-General (Mr. Williams) is

gone, the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) isn't here, but if

that decision hasn't been written in stone, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will

be possible for the present Attorney-General to rethink it, because

that is an essential facility that we need, especially when you

consider that it's the only one of its kind in the province.

The throne speech went on to talk about some of the services that

may have been desirable but not essential. Of course, legal aid is one

of those services. Mr. Sweeney, the chairman of the Victoria criminal

justice subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, tells us that cuts

to legal aid services will result in chaos in the courts and will end

up costing the taxpayers more in the final analysis. The decision

really is a poor economy, Mr. Speaker, because it means that many

people who cannot pay fines owed to the provincial government — and we

are told it was something in the neighbourhood of $6.5 million last

year — will end up going to jail because of their inability to pay

their fines.

We are also told that it costs approximately $60 a day to keep a

person in provincial jail. Yet the kind of legal service which the

legal aid system provides to these people to help them deal with this

dilemma so that they don't go to jail, so that they are somehow able to

have their fines phased over a period of time in a manner that they can

handle, is not going to be possible because this government in its

infinite wisdom has decided to downsize government by cutting back on

that very vital and important service. Although it may be desirable,

they do not consider it essential. Of course, in its finest sense,

eliminating legal assistance for those people who cannot afford to pay

erodes the very ideal of the application of justice as we say we know

it in a democracy.

Downsizing of government, eliminating services. Headlines in the

Sun . There was another one today. The Richmond Association for

Children's Services is having its budget cut. Do you know what this

program does? This is a preventive program dealing specifically with

children aged 3 to 12 years of age. That's what this program addressed

itself to, and in 1982-83 something in the neighbourhood of 88 Richmond

families used the service that this program provided. It was an

outreach program. It tried to prevent children who gave an indication

of heading straight for trouble from achieving that goal. But this

government in its infinite wisdom has decided that that program,

although desirable, is not essential. And so, in the interest of

downsizing government, that program is going to be eliminated.

Do you know what it means? It's like the old ad that says: "You pay

me now, or you pay me later." None of these programs directed to serve

children, when they are eliminated, stop there. The children don't just

die and disappear. They continue to grow, and if they are heading on

the path of delinquency and getting into trouble, what we do is, rather

than pay a little bit now to prevent that, end up paying a lot in the

end, either through the court system or through the prison system or

through our mental hospitals. It is short-sighted. It is bad economy.

It doesn't make sense, and it's too expensive a price for young people

to have to pay so that this government can achieve its goal of

downsizing. Downsizing — that's the new word for child abuse. That's what

that is.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech goes on to say — and honestly, I

don't know how the Lieutenant-Governor was able to mention this without

gagging on it — "I am advised that our people are extending a helping

hand to the weakest members of our society." The infant development

program was cut — they are some of the weakest members of our society.

The children who use the infant development program are disabled from

the moment of birth. You can't be weaker than that. They did not get a

helping hand; they got a boot. The funding for the workshops to help

people deal with children who are the victims of incest — they are the

weakest members of society — didn't get a helping hand; it got the

boot. Did the senior citizens and people on fixed incomes who depended

on the provincial renter's tax credit get a helping hand? Not on your

life, Mr. Speaker — they got the boot.

[4:45]

Did the disabled people in this province who asked that they be

covered by the Human Rights Code get that? Did the farm workers and

domestic workers who asked for the full coverage of labour legislation

get that? As I said, the idea that this government extends a helping

hand to the weakest member in our society is so ludicrous that the

speech contradicted itself when it went on to say, on another page,

that those who are unemployed must earn their way out of the recession.

How does an unemployed person earn their way out of a recession? How

does an unemployed person do that?

Let me tell you a little bit about unemployment and what it does to

people. According to Dr. Harvey Brenner, a university researcher from

Johns Hopkins, a 1 percent rise in unemployment in any community

increases the suicide rate. It increases the number of admissions to

mental health facilities and creates a legacy of stress, aggression and

illness. That's what unemployment does to people. The crisis lines in

British Columbia — one of our researchers made it her business to

contact a number of these to get the statistics — all reported an

alarming increase in suicide calls. Admissions to mental health

facilities increased from 2,576 in 1981 to 8,542 in the first ten

months of 1982. That's what government-created unemployment does. When

you restrain and downsize, you throw people out of work. Downsizing and

restraints are just euphemisms for throwing people out of work. That's

all they are.

[ Page 36

Communities fight back. They are now opening their food banks and

soup kitchens — the first time since the 1930s — but they are fighting

back. They are trying to help themselves. Even the Ministry of Human

Resources, in its report, reports an increase of 30 percent in reported

incidents of child abuse. Social service agencies throughout the

province notice increased numbers of family break-ups. That's what

unemployment does. Cutbacks cost us. As a society and as a community we

pay. They cost us in terms of human suffering and in terms of long-term

corrective measures. In times of economic decline, cutbacks to social

services and health care are a false economy. While we have in this

province a government which can find thousands of dollars to spend on

advertising to remind us how great everything is, the reality of the

situation is that nearly half a million British Columbians who want to

work are not working. Many of them are facing dire poverty because

their UIC is not enough or has run out, or they are caught between UIC

and welfare. When the d