1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

Mrs. Wallace –– 3314

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 3317

Mr. Barrett –– 3319

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, leading us in prayers this

morning is a good friend of both sides of this House, an individual who

has seen many members come and go, the Rev. Cecil Barner. I wonder if

we might say a special hello to him today.

MR. SEGARTY: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to

introduce the board and regional directors of the British Columbia

Social Credit Party, who are in the gallery this morning: Meldy Harris,

president; Hope Wotherspoon, vice president; Brian Battison, director

of operations; David Stone, treasurer; Dennis Sorenson, president of

the Young Socreds; along with Donny Redding, Bhagwan Mayer, Lynne

Upton, George Little, Barry Irvine, Len Duncan, Wally Penner, Jacee

Schaefer, Lorne Jackson, Gail Thompson and Ed Kisling.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As the member for Boundary Similkameen, I am

pleased to welcome also my former executive assistant, Brian Battison,

who worked for me over the last several years. He has aspired to new

heights, and I'm looking forward to his future works. I'm pleased that

he is here this morning. I welcome him and hope I'll see him at home in

the not too distant future.

MR. VEITCH: Inadvertently our caucus chairman left out a very important

person, the secretary to the board, Mrs. Ella Hembroff.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to request leave

to move adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of urgent public

importance. The matter concerns the charge by the ombudsman in his special report

number 7 that in the Shoal Island case the ministry acted contrary to the spirit

and intent of the Forest Act. And that the ministry is not managing the province's

forests in the public interest. The reason for the urgency of this matter is

that the minister continues to occupy his office while he is under serious charges

and while millions of dollars in public revenue remain uncollected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Firstly, under

standing order 35 the matter must be stated briefly. Secondly, it is

improper at any time for a member to cast any kind of doubt upon

another member in this House whether in one form or another, and I

would remind the member that during his 35 he must keep that in mind as

well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member rises under standing

order 35, a matter of urgent public importance, and the subject matter which

he is attempting to describe to the House at this time is the same matter he

raised in his statement to the House last night, which is the earliest opportunity

he had to raise the subject. So I suggest that his attempting to raise this

under standing order 35 at this time.... He had the opportunity in that statement

which he made on the subject matter last night, and I would suggest hat his

urgency motion fails for a debate on the matter at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would seem to the Chair that if

a point of order of that nature were to be made, it would be most

appropriately made at the conclusion of the statement by the member and

certainly not during the course of the member's suggestion.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought he had finished, because you had asked him to be brief.

MR. SPEAKER: A 35 must be briefly stated. I will permit the member to continue briefly now with the matter.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is a brief statement. It's

difficult for me to make the statement without outlining the importance

of the matter, which was discussed by the omudsman in his report, and

the serious charges which have been raised by the ombudsman. I think

all members would agree that no minister should be allowed to continue

in his office while the hint of a suggestion remains that his ministry

as acted in violation of the act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has advised he member

what he may and may not say in his 35. Clearly he member is seriously

transgressing not only on 35, but also n the rules of debate in this

chamber. I would advise the member that he must continue briefly to

form his 35 or the Chair will be in the position of having to ask him

to take his place.

[10:15]

MR. SKELLY: It was the only way I could deal with the issue

of urgency in the statement, Mr. Speaker. The matter of definite public

importance is that millions of dollars in public revenues have been

diverted into private hands, and it is urgent and important that this

House require the minister to step down until a full inquiry either

clears the minister of the charges levelled against him in the

ombudsman's report, or else confirms them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to take a

look at the 35. However, as pointed out during a point of order that

was made during the submission, the member had an opportunity last

night as well and was given leave of this House to form a similar

premise. Nonetheless, the Chair will take this under advisement and

bring a report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is not going o engage in

debate on a 35 before the Chair has had an opportunity to come back.

This is not a debatable matter.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to raise

is related to your latter comments about the opportunity taken by the

member for Alberni last evening, First, the motion that the member for

Alberni now puts forward could only be put forward at this time: it

could not have been put forward at six o'clock last evening. Secondly,

Your Honour — and this relates to what the Provincial Secretary had

raised

[ Page 3314 ]

earlier — the motion, if it is accepted, provides

an opportunity for debate so that the government will have an

opportunity thereby to put its case forward. That is not permitted

under the statement made last night.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Needless to say, even though the member

might not have had an opportunity to debate a motion under standing

order 35 last night, he could, during the particular statement that he

made last night, have identified the fact that he was going to raise it

this morning under standing order 35, and he failed to do so. I have

some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, with your taking this particular motion

on notice in view of the clear evidence that he failed to raise the

matter last night. I think there should be a decision on the issue,

whether he has a point or not. I think it should be done forthwith, and

there shouldn't be any deferral for examination of the wisdom of his

standing order 35 –– I am not going to challenge your decision...

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but I would like you to consider it very carefully, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I trust you will consider,

as a point of order, that if the member wishes to raise a matter of

urgent public importance under standing order 35, the opportunity to

debate that is already at hand. As a matter of fact, I don't understand

the entire proceeding, because the member himself is delaying his own

opportunity to debate the matter; we are presently in a throne speech

debate, which gives plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is one matter the Chair

would like to address as to the points of order that were raised

specifically, and that is the Provincial Secretary's request for a

decision now. Decisions made by the Chair often form decisions that are

made much later — several, in fact, many years later. Therefore it is

the practice of this Chair to make sure that when rulings or decisions

are brought in, they are carefully and clearly considered because of

the fact that they have impact in years to come.

I thank the members, and I'm sure they'll appreciate the Chair's position.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MRS. WALLACE: I had intended to continue dealing with the

health situation in this province, but the remarks that have just been

made by the Provincial Secretary indicate to me that perhaps the first

thing I should deal with is the ombudsman's report. I think it's

important that this House and the public recognize what the ombudsman

has said in this report.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like you

to give me your

interpretation on the subject matter she is proposing to discuss

at this time. In view of the fact that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has

raised the subject under standing order 35, is she entitled, under those circumstances,

to debate that subject matter at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, one of the reasons a 35 can be

disallowed is the fact that there is an opportunity to debate the 35

during the throne speech debate. In fact, if the Provincial Secretary

recalls his argument of just a few minutes ago, that argument was made

by the Provincial Secretary himself. Clearly, hon. member, we can't

have it both ways. Basically the Chair will rule...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you making a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Delighted to, hon. minister.

...that the member who currently has the floor certainly has the

opportunity to discuss, under the throne speech debate, the matter and

the course on which she is currently engaged.

MR. LAUK: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a result of

the various points of order made by the hon. Provincial Secretary this

morning, perhaps the House could unanimously refer him to some

chiropractor in the precincts.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary seems to

think this is funny. I think this is an attempt to throttle discussion

in this Legislature — a direct attempt to throttle the opposition and

prevent them from raising a report in this Legislature that puts that

government in a very awkward position. It's no wonder they want to get

rid of the ombudsman. The back-bencher over here talks about him being

frivolous. Six million dollars is not frivolous, and this is just the

tip of the iceberg.

We know now who's running the forest industry in this province. It

isn't the ministry; it's the big ten over there. The reason they

wouldn't bill, the ombudsman says, is that they were afraid that the

operator would appeal if they estimated. Who is running the show? We

now know who is running. It's the major multinational forest

corporations who are running the show, and it's never been more evident

than it is in this report, Mr. Speaker.

The minister refused to exercise the authority that he has under the

Forestry Act. It is spelled out that he has the authority to give an

estimate when there is an error in scaling, and he absolutely refused

to do that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As a result of that refusal, the ombudsman said a very interesting

thing: "In my mind this position of the Minister of Forests in refusing

to have that estimate made is not only contrary to the spirit and

intent of the Forest Act, but also contradicts any proposition that the

ministry might be managing the province's forests in the public

interest." I wonder if you have ever read the Ministry of Forests Act,

Mr. Speaker. Have you ever read what that act charges that ministry

with? Have you ever read what his responsibility is? It is, almost in

those exact words, "to manage our forests in the public interest." This

is a direct rebuttal of that act. That minister has not done his job.

He has not done the job for the taxpayers in this province. This is one

instance where this has happened. How many other instances have there

been? How many small contractors have been gypped out of their proper

scaling?

Interjections.

[ Page

3315 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, what with conversations and heckling going

on.... It is quite discourteous to act this way in the House while the member for

Cowichan-Malahat is taking her place in debate. Perhaps we could show some courtesy.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not used to courtesy in this House, Mr. Speaker. It would be a bit of a surprise if I got courtesy from those members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will from the Chair, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: I always do from the Chair, thank you. I

recognize that you are always courteous, Mr. Speaker. A great many

points raised in this report put this government into a position where

grave questions arise. These are tough times in B.C., and here are

millions of taxpayers' dollars down the tube, dollars that could have

been utilized to provide better hospital care, better education and

greater assistance for the unfortunate people in this province. But

that minister has let that slip through his fingers, and he's not

prepared to do anything about it.

The throne speech goes on even further to indicate that now they're

not even going to bother to have any government scaling, that they are

going to privatize it, completely in the hands of the multinationals.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: We introduced the board of the B.C. Social Credit

Party earlier today, and we've been joined by an honourable member of

the party and an old stalwart and leader of this party in the person of

the former president, Bernie Smith. I'd ask this House to welcome him.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sure it must be a bit embarrassing for that

bevy of Social Credit officials in the gallery today to hear what their

government has been doing to the people of this province, to hear what

that minister has been doing relative to getting the returns from our

number one forest industry here in British Columbia.

I want to return to the issue that I was dealing with yesterday,

relative to the throne speech comment that they had managed to preserve

the integrity of our most essential service, health care. I received in

the mail this morning a letter dated February 10 from a patient in the

Cowichan hospital. It's addressed to the Premier, and she sent me a

copy.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"If you are trying to close down hospitals, you are

going about it the right way. If there are any further cuts in the present staff,

this place will no longer be able to function as a hospital. The equipment is

excellent, and the nursing staff is of superior calibre. But how do we use the

equipment if there is insufficient staff to utilize it? The staff is trained

to do much more for patients than they are able to do under present conditions.

"If this is the way the Social Credit government handles

its budget, my vote in the next election will not be cast for you, Mr. Bennett.

Yours sincerely,

Miss C.E. Rightson,

Patient in Cowichan Hospital."

MR. KEMPF: How did she vote in the last election?

MRS. WALLACE: I have no idea how she voted. I do not even

know how to pronounce her name. I do not know the woman. The letter

arrived on my desk this morning.

MR. HOWARD: You notice what he's interested in: strict politics.

[10:30]

MRS. WALLACE: That's right: not how much care does she need, but how did she vote. Absolutely.

Well, here's one. I happen to know this woman. She has had a long

history of medical problems. She is presently in the Gorge Road

Hospital, but she was back in Victoria General from December 20 to

January 4.

"I thought you may be interested in how patients get

along because of restraint. No matter what the great Bill Bennett says,

patients are definitely adversely affected, both in care and

cleanliness. The nurses have an impossible job, and the big trouble is

they are only human. I was on the fifth floor in the orthopaedic ward.

The majority of patients are post-ops. There are 25 patients to the

ward and three night nurses and four day nurses for all of them."

This is the new Vic General.

"Some of the duties of the night nurses are bedpans,

walking with patients to and from the bathroom, rub backs, straighten

beds, dole out medications, give out and pick up meal-trays. help most

patients turn over and get comfortable, give out wash-bowls to

patients, attend to necessary dressings, closely watch new post-ops.

"There is an intercom by each bed that one of the

nurses answers when they notice the signal. They ask for name and room

number, problem, and promise to come as soon as possible. which could

be half an hour.

"As well as all of the paperwork that has to be done, etc.,

etc., when you consider the size of the rooms and the size of the halls between

the two sides of the wards, you can imagine the difficulty added to the work.

The nurses are fabulous, but they cannot do the impossible. One nurse said they

cannot do one of the most important things in nursing: talking to patients and

encouraging them. They can never catch up to the intercom bells. The day nurses

have all this to do, plus admissions, discharges, making beds, etc., talking

to doctors, and there are only five of them for 25 patients.

"I left on January 4, but on the 8th the night staff

was cut to two. There are no practical nurses or nurses' aides. I

understand there is a floater nurse who goes from ward to ward, helping

where she can. Nurses and patients both get frustrated, and it could be

an explosive situation.

[ Page 3316 ]

"The cleaning staff is also minimum. There is one

housekeeper for 11 rooms. One of them told me they are lucky to do each

room every four or five days. I always thought cleanliness was

important in hospitals."

Then the government has the nerve to come in and say that they have preserved the integrity of health care.

This writer goes on to talk about some of the extravagances in that

hospital. She talks about the intercom phones as being very nice, but

how much better it would have been to have had another nurse. She talks

about a lot of the frills in that hospital which are very nice but

costly.

What I'm suggesting is that that minister has not made the best use

of health care money. He has forgotten the very old adage that

prevention is better than cure. He has made severe cuts in a lot of the

low-cost preventive areas. He has simply a sickness care system, not a

health care system. He's looking after people when they reach the

critical stage, rather than providing low-cost support outside the

hospital system. That's gone. So it makes me a bit ashamed that this

government has the gall to come out with a statement like that in the

throne speech.

I'm also concerned about the people in receipt of Human

Resources.... I'm concerned about what's happening there. The workload

is growing. In the Cowichan area, for example, a caseload of something

in excess of 1,500 went up by nearly 130 last month. Because they don't

have sufficient staff they have had to withdraw services from the Lake

Cowichan area. Now people from Lake Cowichan have to come into Duncan.

They don't have transportation to go to Duncan. If they phone, it's a

long-distance toll. Have you ever realized that some people don't have

a quarter to put in a pay phone, that they don't have the money to make

a long-distance call? There are a lot of people in this province who

find themselves in that position. They don't have transportation to go

to Duncan.

That's the kind of thing these restraint measures are putting on the

people who work for Human Resources. They have fewer people. Because of

the whole process of staffing, they have people who are put into

positions for which they're not trained. They have people who have been

involved with one facet — say, retraining — who are now put in as, say,

caseworkers. They are not qualified for that job, and they are leaving

because it's not the kind of job they're trained to do. Those places

are not being filled. In the meantime, the rolls are growing; there are

more and more people running out of unemployment insurance and going

into those areas and looking for help.

While that's going on and those kinds of cutbacks are taking place, with

very small, if any, increments in the amount of allowance for those people,

we have this government sitting tight on a request to simply pay a few small

contractors their just return for the product they have delivered — refusing

to pay them, refusing to adjust, and refusing because they are prepared to turn

a blind eye to what the major multinational forest corporations are doing in

this province. They are prepared not only to turn a blind eye but also to disregard

the very laws of this land in so doing. We have a government that is prepared

to ask the disadvantaged and the unfortunate in this province to do with less

and less in the way of services. It is a government engaged in mass firings.

It is not prepared to collect a fair return from our No. 1 resource. Not only

that, but knowing this was the situation,

I'm sure they have decided to withdraw all government scalers and to

simply leave it up to the companies to decide how much timber they have

taken out. That's called privatizing, and that's what this government

is up to.

We heard publicly that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

is terminating some 350 to 360 employees. The Ministry of Environment

is terminating about 100. Do you know what they are doing? They are

getting rid of some very essential services. What better time to be

involved in recycling than during a low economic level? What are they

doing? They are getting rid of the entire

section that deals with

recycling. No more assistance for recycling. What kind of a ministry of

environment is that?

Water quality. As we become more industrialized and thickly

populated, an area that needs more review and careful scrutiny is our

fresh water quality — our potable water. You have to travel in other

countries around this world to recognize the importance of having pure

potable water so readily available. What is the Ministry of Environment

doing? They are wiping out that section. What kind of an approach is

this? It seems that the only thing this government is interested in is

allowing big bucks to move in and make more big bucks for themselves.

There is no concern, compassion or understanding of the problems

people are facing. We heard a lot of talk last year, at the height of

that horrendous session of 24-hour sittings, of how confrontation had

to go and how the government was prepared to consult. They realized

they were wrong and they would back off. They let a lot of legislation

die on the order paper.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, it's coming back. You're right

on, Mr. Minister, and it's outlined right here in this throne speech

that it's coming back. The idea that there was going to be consultation

was just so much sham. They backed off because they got into hot water,

and now they are going to bring it back.

They're going to bring back human rights at the discretion of the

individual. Come on, Mr. Speaker, you know that won't work; I know that

won't work.

Labour legislation. We're going to see the same kind of

confrontation that we saw before in this province, and the government

knows that too. Why else would the Premier of this province — who in

effect writes the speeches for the Lieutenant-Governor; we all know

that — say in the closing speech when he is talking about the next

session: "There will no doubt be periods of misunderstanding, of

disagreement and of stress for you all." What a prophecy! That's the

attitude of this government. That's what the government is looking for

— confrontation. It's out there in an arrogant, determined attitude to

introduce a program that it is convinced is right, and that every

jurisdiction across this country and around this world recognizes is

taking us in the wrong direction. That's what this government is

determined to do; it doesn't care where the chips fall. There is no way

that this throne speech and the directions it outlines is going to take

us anywhere along the road to improving our economic and social lives

in British Columbia. It's going to take us on the continuing downward

spiral that we've been on since this government became involved in its

so-called restraint and recovery program.

[ Page

3317 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I stand, of course, to

congratulate our Lieutenant-Governor on a throne speech with a great

deal of vision. I also take this opportunity to say on behalf of most

of my constituents in Central Fraser Valley that we appreciate all of

the programs that have been provided by this government. We certainly

don't always get all the money we would like, but the important thing

out there is that most of our people realize that we are in a difficult

time and recognize the difference between what is desirable and what is

really essential.

[10:45]

My colleagues have all done an excellent job on their remarks in

highlighting most of the benefits of the throne speech, but I would

like to zero in on the area of productivity.

I think it's rather interesting as we hear about reports such as this one

here in the Province

of February 12 about a survey done by Goldfarb. It's headed: "Slackness

on the Job. A survey of 400 greater Vancouver residents reveals some

disturbing things about people's attitude toward work and

productivity." We know that one of the most serious problems that we

have in British Columbia and, indeed, in all of Canada is low

productivity. It's not only affecting our cost of living here directly

but it is making it very, very difficult for us to compete on the world

markets. Here it is: "Many people generally understand that wages or

salaries are high and productivity is a problem." I am not opposed to

high salaries. As a matter of fact I am a promoter of high salaries,

but I believe that the salary should reflect the output — the

productivity. The study says: "People and companies both need an

element of volunteerism, companies to be financially successful and

individuals for their own personal well being."

It is also very interesting to note that at long last we're seeing some

wisdom appear on the horizon with the Liberals in Ottawa. In the Times-Colonist

of February 16 is the headline: "Profit Sharing Plan Includes Tax Credit

for Workers Too." There is absolutely no question in my mind that our people

of British Columbia are entitled to fair wages, but I think that in order to

encourage increased productivity, to stimulate the initiative and to get people

feeling better about their jobs and about the results of their efforts, they

have to have an opportunity to share in that.

When I entered politics to serve, I didn't leave behind my businessman's

common sense or distrust of government. On the contrary, I made a point of bringing

them with me, because I honestly believe they will help me serve my fellow British

Columbians with candour and the kind of fiscal responsibility the private sector

takes for granted. It wasn't too long ago that productivity in government

was regarded by the private sector as a myth. In fact I would go so far as to

say that until recently most people outside government would have thought it

blasphemous to utter the words "productivity" and "government"

in the same breath. I wouldn't have blamed them. Government was, and to

some extent still is, the willing butt of many bureaucratic anecdotes. While

they may appear as amusing stories, I heartily agree with the fellow who once

said: "Many a truth is spoken in jest."

I was one of those who believed that a bureaucrat's idea of cleaning up

his cluttered file was to make a copy of every paper before destroying it. Being

a businessman, I held the firm position that bureaucrats were all alike — they

think it's their business to delay other people's. Nevertheless. after

being in government for four years and a cabinet minister for a eight months,

I've come to the conclusion that we ultimately get the kind of government

and bureaucracy that we deserve. It is very easy, for instance. for a politician

to sit back and say that the so-called system is out of control, that it's

impossible to fight the bureaucracy and win or that the system is so big and

cumbersome all we can really hope to do is tread water and perhaps make a few

ripples of change on the surface. If my colleagues and I had believed that,

I don't think any one of us would have been involved in provincial politics.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

The tough but necessary decisions taken by the government in recent

months have shown that we believe inefficiency in government can and

must be changed in British Columbia if British Columbia is to prosper

and take advantage of the economic recovery that is taking shape across

America. British Columbians have a right to change how things are done

in government. and by electing men and women to carry out those

changes, our constituents in every corner of the province expect

decisive action, with recognizable goals that are realistic, easily

measured, and most of all, affordable. When the British Columbia men

and women who ultimately pay the bills want a change in the system,

sacred cows must be debunked for what they really are — often terrible

wastes of tax dollars. time and energy. As elected representatives we

would be irresponsible to turn a deaf ear to he legitimate concerns of

our fellow citizens. Demands for fiscal responsibility, less red tape,

less government and reduction in the size and scope of the bureaucracy

are not frivolous whims, Mr. Speaker. They reflect a genuine change n

the attitude and appreciation of government services, a change mirrored

in the government's efforts to control what some consider to be an

uncontrollable system, and a reversal of the dangerous and costly

tail-that-wags-the-dog syndrome hat some politicians and governments

feel is inevitable. It is inevitable, but only if we let it happen.

The business of government is not profit, just as it should not be loss. The

business of government is to provide unnecessary public services with minimal disruption

of the private sector's unique ability to create capital, invest in new jobs

and secure a sound and healthy tax base to pay for the health, education and human

resource services we all agree are vital. As a result. productivity in government

cannot always be measured in the same exacting terms used by the private sector's

profit-and-loss ledgers, What government can and must do is ensure that every

hard-earned tax dollar sent to Victoria is spent in the most cost effective

manner, making absolutely sure that the people of British Columbia get the best

possible value for every revenue dollar government receives. And when those revenues

are diminished or reduced, as they have been for the past two years, government

has a responsibility to go through each and every program with a fine-tooth

comb. Like it or not, we must separate those programs, measuring their merit

by the yardstick of necessity, not just desirability. It is not an easy job,

but no one said hat it would be.

MS. SANFORD: Collect the money from Forests.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You'll get your turn.

The alternative is to back away from the problem. However, in

addition to being gutless by backing away, this attitude would also be

irresponsible. It would be a black day for our children and

grandchildren, because they are the ones

[ Page 3318 ]

who would be burdened with our debt — a mortgage

forced upon generations of British Columbians yet unborn. Today

productivity in government is a serious matter, one the provincial

government is doing something about.

In my own Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for instance, I have called

for a performance evaluation of the province's regional districts. The

review process is designed to provide information on the scope and

efficiency of regional district operations, and the very first report

detailing the activities of the Capital Regional District around

Victoria was a real eye-opener. The report identifies a serious lack of

management in the past, and a great deal of overlapping bureaucracy. In

addition there are also several serious areas of concern where

corrective action will have to be taken. For example, the report finds

that land use planning has been restrictive. No one denies that sound

land use is essential. Nevertheless, unfettered bureaucracy,

duplication of services and a multiplication of anti-development

regulations have taken their toll in hidden costs being passed on to

taxpayers, consumers and all those young families wishing to buy their

first home, but finding it difficult because costs are often

prohibitive. Bill 9, the Municipal Amendment Act, seeks to rectify that

situation by returning land-use responsibility to locally elected

councils. Men and women who represent local governments are the best

guarantee of a municipality's success. And while I may have differences

from time to time with individual municipalities, I am a staunch ally

of local autonomy. It is at that level, with neighbour talking to

neighbour, that you find a genuine appreciation not just for

agricultural land, but also for parkland, greenspace and controlled,

affordable development.

Productivity in the private sector is closely linked to

technological advances. Word processors, computerization, electronics

and assembly-line techniques have given new and unique tools to

business. Those same tools are available to help government do its job,

particularly in the area of processing the documents and forms

associated with providing a wide variety of programs and services. For

instance, it is interesting to note that the motor vehicle branch mails

out almost 600,000 pieces of mail each year. The mailing costs had been

37 cents per item, but thanks to improvements in printing and packaging

they were able to reduce that cost by 10 cents, for a saving of some

$60,000 annually. Another example is the saving generated by using

standardized forms and envelopes throughout government. By using simple

8 x 11 paper for correspondence and standard No. 9 envelopes for

mailing, we have been able to reduce paper, storage and postage costs

in the current fiscal year by more than $300,000.

In the area of computer technology, the now common office word

processor is doing the job once done by the typewriter, and it is doing

that job faster and more efficiently. A good example of this is in the

office of the Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services,

where they have been able to increase the quality and quantity of

written work while reducing the number of clerical staff by more than

20 percent. The success of this sort of technical revolution means that

capital investments in such things as word processors and operating

terminals are paid back in one to three years — a worthwhile investment

for both government and the private sector.

A recent Financial Post

article pointed out how difficult it

is to measure productivity in some industries. To a certain degree that

difficulty also exists in government. Do we measure productivity in the

Ministry of Human Resources by increasing the number of welfare

cheques? On the contrary. A reduction in Ministry of Human Resources

annual expenditures means the private sector has created new job

opportunities, making social welfare assistance unnecessary. While an

increase in employment is one sign of productivity in the private

sector, the same is not always true in the public sector. If it were,

then all governments would be the most productive enterprises on the

face of the earth, because during the last 40 years no industry has

grown faster or fatter than the public sector.

[11:00]

Bearing this in mind, I recall that it wasn't too long ago that individuals

worked primarily for themselves. Indeed, a few hundred years ago there were

no big businesses, no giant institutions gnawing at the public purse, and certainly

no centralized government swallowing both tax dollars and private sector talent.

Farmers, businessmen and craftsmen worked on their own. Their degree of success

depended on individual effort and initiative, and profit was their livelihood.

It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that we began working for other

people in large numbers, and suddenly profit became the sole domain of owners

and management while wages and salaries became the stipend of the employees.

With that system came the loss of incentive; paypacket militancy took over and

profit became a dirty word. Today, however, profit-sharing is back in the news,

and it is an idea whose time has come again. This simple innovation is helping

to put new life and cooperation into labour and management. Suddenly that small

cog in a big wheel, that social insurance number in the assembly line, that

employee whose work-a-day world begins reluctantly on Monday and ends with a

sigh on Friday afternoon, finds that there is an opportunity to contribute by

sharing in the output. When an employee is willing to provide greater input,

going to work takes on a new meaning. Being an active participant rather than

a meek spectator can mean increased efficiency for the employee — greater productivity

and an attitude mirrored by the pride you take in your product. While profit-sharing

is not feasible in government, there is a lesson to be learned from this private

sector opportunity. Government employees can share in the savings of good government.

This is an important part of the government's recent compensation stabilization

guidelines, the two most significant features of which are the employer's

ability to pay and measurable increases in productivity. This commonsense form

is aimed at maintaining a high level of service by increasing productivity,

not expenditures or numbers of employees.

The provincial government is showing that more can be done for less,

that additional money is not always the solution to social or economic

problems. It's a novel idea, but certainly one that is long overdue, an

idea that could serve all of us if it were applied right across the

country, not just at the provincial level but also at the federal

level, where money is thought to grow on trees. By tightening our belt

and trimming our size, government is seeking to give taxpayers value

for their money.

Mr. Speaker, we are counting on the talent and expertise of our

employees to help in this process, because even though they may work

for government, public sector employees also pay taxes. Like each of

us, they take pride in their work and want to be recognized and

congratulated for doing a good job.

[ Page

3319 ]

The reduction in the size and scope of the public sector has caused some unfounded

concern in recent months. However, I am confident these changes will prove again

and again that we can do more for less. Government employees have the talent

and expertise to do the job. Most of all, they have a genuine desire to serve

their fellow British Columbians efficiently.

As much as government is changing numbers, I think we are also

striving to change attitudes. The days of big, bigger and biggest are

gone, not just here in British Columbia but all around the world. While

some are grudging in their concession of this fact, I believe that it

has a tremendous opportunity. We have a chance to challenge the old

ways, to keep what is good and change what needs reshaping. I believe

we are headed in the right direction.

Our emphasis on the private sector is well-founded. After all, it is

based on the most successful economic system the world has ever known

and reflects a practical realization that individual initiative is

preferable to government interference. As a result, I think the best

and perhaps the most effective way government can be productive is to

let the private sector be productive. Standing in the way of business

and job creating opportunities is not productive. Piling form upon form

and tying them up in a big ribbon of red tape is not productive. Real

productivity in government should never be measured by the number of

forms produced or the hours spent filling them in. Productivity in

government should consist of finding new and better ways to govern with

minimal delays and interference, not just in the lives of individuals

but also in business and industry.

Mr. Speaker, I for one feel it is far better to be under governed than to be

bludgeoned by over government with all that it implies: stagnating economics,

increased deficits and a population too busy filling out forms to be creative

and innovative and to build British Columbia. Productivity in government is

no longer a myth; at least it's no longer a myth here in British Columbia.

Thanks to the electoral mandate that we were given last year, the government

of British Columbia is showing the rest of Canada the system can work, can be

improved. In British Columbia we are taking on the invisible "they,"

those grey, unnamed figures who lurk in the background of any large organization.

Facing up to them, we realize that "they" are really us. Bearing this

in mind, necessary changes in the system can and will be accomplished.

Let me conclude by saying that the provincial government is doing its very

best to enhance and foster the encouraging signs of economic recovery we have

seen in recent months. Our aim is to keep British Columbia on that road and

promote increased economic and industrial development. To me our goal must be

to do two things. First, government must curb its growth and restrain its operating

costs. Deficits must not become the order of the day; deficits are abnormal

and unnatural, and to believe otherwise is at least foolhardy. Second, the private

sector must take the lead in providing the only viable alternative to UIC lineups:

real jobs, not the make-work projects initiated by government. Government sponsored

work programs are of limited value and offer only short-term solutions. What

we need is the private sectors initiative in creating new business. Government

can help by creating an attractive political and taxation climate, but industry

must have the courage and faith to invest. The partnership we call British Columbia

is not one-sided, Mr. Speaker. As a result, the future of our province rests

as much with individuals and the private sector as it does with government.

Few places on earth have the opportunities and possibilities that we

enjoy in British Columbia, and as such, short of a total world economic

collapse, our long-term success rests in our own hands. Frankly, after

travelling across our province in my capacity as Minister of Municipal

Affairs and seeing the capabilities of British Columbians, I think our

future is in very good hands, something we can all take a great deal of

pride in.

I fully endorse our throne speech; it gives a great deal of vision.

I hope that the remarks I have just made, zeroing in on the area of

productivity, in spite of the heckling and little catcalls from the

across the floor.... It's very important to us. It's very serious. It

deserves some serious attention. Whether it's to help you in your life

or whether it's for all British Columbians or whether it's to assist us

in the world market, if you're simply going to sit and sneer and

catcall at any comments concerning the need to zero in on and increase

and improve the productivity of our workers, whether in government or

the private sector. then I think you're doing a disservice to the

people of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Before I begin, I would like to bring to the

attention of the House that we have a number of esteemed guests in the

gallery. In the gallery opposite the Chair is the president of the

provincial Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Jim McNeil, and I'd ask

the House to welcome him. I'm pleased to see Mr. McNeil; I don't know

if he's one of those schizophrenic Tories that has a Social Credit card

as well or if he actually has a philosophy, but he's welcome.

Sitting next to him is somebody I know very well, a person who is

the wife in a husband-and-wife team who have contributed a great deal

to the public life of this province: the wife of Dr. Scott Wallace,

Mrs. Wallace. I'd ask the House to welcome her. Dr. Scott Wallace and

I, in spite of his being a Tory and my being a socialist, became very

good friends. Dr. Wallace, when he sat in this chamber — and he still

is a prominent British Columbian — gave some valuable years of his life

to this Legislative Assembly and to the people of British Columbia. It

is a shame that he is no longer in public life, and I would urge, if my

voice could be heard all the way to Oak Bay, that he reconsider his

decision to return to private life and that he run again for public

office. I was doing very well with Mrs. Wallace until I made that

announcement.

Mr. Speaker, I've always enjoyed.... Where did the minister go? I

wanted to make some comments about the minister's speech it wouldn't

take long — just one little note, you know. A couple of minutes, that's

all. There wasn't much in the speech, so I don't know why he ran. I

wouldn't catcall him, or anything like that. I believe in productivity:

why catcall something that isn't worth catcalling?

I thought the speech was really humorous. Here's a cabinet minister

in the province of British Columbia delivering a profound statement of

the philosophy of his department and ending up reading a speech full of

jargon, rhetoric, clichés and, frankly, some of the best Fraser Valley

manure that I have heard expressed in some time. For instance, the

part

I enjoyed best — and it should be bottled, packaged, wrapped or shipped

out for export — is the line on deficits. He said: "Deficits must not

be the order of the day." Whoo-eeee! The biggest deficits in all of

Canada per capita have been racked up under this administration that he

is a part of as a cabinet minister. If he wants to believe in

productivity, the most

[ Page 3320 ]

productive thing he could do is resign. At least we'd save his salary.

But there were some other humorous things he said, too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What did you do when you were out of the House?

MR. BARRETT: What did I do when I was out of the House? I had a touch of sanity, and it was welcome and I took forward to more of it.

I'm pleased to take my place in the debate and hear the chipmunk

interruptions of the Minister of.... What is he the minister of again?

ICBC and all that stuff, yeah. Well, I enjoy the comments, but I

thought that after hearing....

AN HON. MEMBER: Very unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Very unparliamentary, yes.

Mr. Speaker, it's a really classic instance of the more things

change, the more they remain the same. One thing has changed: we're

meeting here in the morning. Good change! Since this is my last throne

speech, I think I am entitled to muse on the almost quarter-century

that I have spent here in the parliament buildings. We now sit in the

morning, which is a good thing, but morning sittings should not be a

replacement for committee work. The stifling of the public accounts

committee by this government is not acceptable to me and to the people

of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, that I've got the rapt attention of the cabinet benches, I will carry on with what else I have got to say.

[11:15]

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I enjoy the outbursts from the novice members

who sit in that comer — fondly known in this chamber as the dense pack.

I enjoy those interruptions. I remember that when I was a novice and

desperately craved for recognition, I would throw inane comments out,

too. My comments, Mr. Speaker, were just as inane as theirs are.

Nonetheless, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

There was a member who sat in that corner and had difficulty in

getting here Fridays. Friday was always a difficult time, because we

would have to sit from 2 to 6 o'clock on Friday. It never occurred to

us that we could actually change the

schedule and sit from 10 to 1

o'clock. I remember, when that change occurred during our

administration, how shocked I was that tradition could be swept aside

so quickly, and also how pleased I was. Many were the nights that some

of the younger MLAs wished to get home to their families for a good

long weekend. Many were the days and months, Mr. Speaker, that MLAs

would like to spend a summer and some planned time with their families.

I hope that some sane, rational communication might take place between

government and opposition to end this madness in terms of affecting

people's health and lifestyle for no purpose whatsoever in a vindictive

debate. But it means that the people who are delegated to arrange for

the

schedule should have a mutual trust and delegation of

responsibility and authority to arrange the debate.

It serves no useful purpose to have either opposition House Leader or government

House Leader involved in negotiations if neither one of them have delegated

authority to make the necessary arrangements for sanity in this House.

There is no point in discussions taking place between the government

House Leader and the opposition House Leader unless they have the

authority to make arrangements. Where the matter breaks down is where

one side or the other does not trust its negotiator.

As I am leaving, Mr. Speaker, I am permitted to make these

statements that normally are not discussed out in the open, in the

fresh air of this chamber. I won't be here, but I make an appeal for

the sanity of all the members of this chamber for a positive debate in

the province of British Columbia and that when negotiations take place

between government and opposition House Leaders, those negotiations be

understood to be the word of both sides. Then, and only then, will we

have some sanity returning to this chamber. It means that the Leader of

the Opposition must give his pledge that the authority for making

decisions and negotiations is fully delegated to the House Leader, and

that the Premier must give his similar pledge that the authority for

making negotiations and arrangements is fully delegated to his

spokesperson as well. Without that pledge from the Premier and the

Leader of the Opposition, the negotiations are meaningless. In the

spirit of developing a whole new era of negotiations in the province of

British Columbia, let me tell you that I make that pledge. I would ask

that the new leader of our party make that pledge; I would ask that the

Premier make the same pledge publicly so that we can get some sanity

back in this chamber once and for all in the province of British

Columbia.

MR. MOWAT: What happens when you leave, though?

MR. BARRETT: I would expect that the next leader would say

the same thing, Mr. Member, and I'm not looking for blame, fault or

anything else. I'm saying now is the time to make a whole new

beginning. If, in any way, you feel that I've been part of the problem,

well, I'll be going. But I am saying to you clearly, as we are in a

small number here in this chamber dealing with an important matter that

affects us and the public, publicly I say: full delegation of authority

to the designated negotiator to make the arrangements so these silly,

childish boil-ups that take place in the hallways, in the corridors,

and in front of the press, become the focus of the nature of debate,

rather than the debate itself. Sanity must prevail, and all it takes is

a public commitment by the leader of the opposition and by the Premier

to say: the House Leaders make the arrangements, period. That's a part

of growing up for all of us.

The other thing I'd like to say about this chamber, Mr. Speaker,

within these four walls: enough of this claptrap about the sacrifice

that individual MLAs must make related to the salaries they make. It's

a time of restraint, but it doesn't mean that people who come to public

office should always be looked on at the last end of the scale as well.

The only way we're going to draw in rational, thoughtful, available

candidates, regardless of what party, is to ensure that the working

conditions are sane here too. We make important decisions in this

chamber, and you cannot draw people away from the careers and privacy

they had, to come into public life and the kind of abuse.... It only

comes when tempers are lost, but the abuse comes nonetheless. You

cannot ask them to

[ Page 3321 ]

come to public life, take all of that, and then at

the same time think that this is some kind of manse and that they

should bring their lunches along with them.

Mr. Speaker, having said all of that. It is not all for

self-aggrandizement, because I'm going. But I do recall, with some

sense of anger, when we tried once in government to rationalize the

working conditions for MLAs, how we were attacked — falsely — for doing

that. Let there be an end to that kind of cheap politics. Let us

understand that this province can only be better served if there is an

honest, upfront discussion about working conditions for MLAs,

particularly back-benchers.

I've got to get a few other things off my chest. When I get these

things off my chest it may be of benefit to some Socreds. They too have

my love, as it is unlimited, as a social worker. I may not be able to

cure them, but that doesn't stop me from loving them. One of the

biggest tests in dealing with the maturity and stability of my Social

Credit friends is to see how they react when I go up and give them a

big kiss on the cheek. You know, Mr. Speaker, they are threatened by

even a little bit of contact with us socialists. So when we do have the

chance to have contact with them, I enjoy just giving them a little

peck on the cheek. Then I see them turn red. and I know they're pinkos

underneath.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there's nothing wrong with some

contact with each other. The loathsome disease of capitalism cannot be

spread by a handshake, and the wisdom of socialism cannot be

transmitted by a handshake. But there can be no political dialogue

unless there is some understanding. In the final analysis, we all share

a common burden in this chamber.

MR. MOWAT: Socialism.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, socialism. It takes you a long time to team.

We have accomplished, since the time-frame that the minister spoke

about, a major degree of socialism. I remember — I am entitled to a few

reminiscences — coming into this chamber before we had socialized

medicine in this country. I remember that there were right-wing free

enterprise MLAs over there known as Social Crediters who spoke against

socialized medicine. Oh, my goodness, was it outrageous! I remember

them calling us "communists," "pinkos," "radicals," "dangerous" for

espousing socialized medicine. And to my shock, Mr. Speaker, when I was

first employed at $5,000 per annum as an MLA, what did I receive in my

little package? A little green card. You see, Mr. Speaker, while the

government railed against socialism and medicare, that little green

card gave socialized medicare to the MLAs. But I made a terrible

mistake in those days. I was young, sweet, a self-described ingénue,

Mr. Speaker, and I stood up in this chamber and said: "There seems to

be a mistake here. The government has given me a card for my socialized

medicine, and the government couldn't possibly subsidize an MLA's

socialized medicine if they didn't believe in it for the people." Mr.

Speaker, an unlamented former member of this chamber, who used to

represent Kamloops, got up and said: "Oh, well, we're just the test

pilots." You see, if socialized medicine was going to do any harm to

people, the MLAs would suffer first. So then I realized that any

benefit we got was purely as test pilots. If we got cured of our

illness because the state paid for it, well, it was just a test run.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It was kind of interesting, Mr. Member, and I

know that all of you are younger than me, including my number two

colleague, who joined me in those early years. I am ten years older

than him — that's the note he slipped me.

MR. MACDONALD: We're only young twice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, socialism then was directly

identified with socialized medicine. With 23 short years transpiring,

we have socialized medicine in this country from coast to coast. The

socialists won. The federal Liberal government decided to take on

socialized medicine as an issue again, and what did the federal

Conservative Party do? It announced in Ottawa that it would support the

continuation of socialized medicine. If government can't afford things,

would it not be an issue for the Socreds, if they were serious, to

stand up and say: "We're going to eliminate socialized medicine and

privatize it." Would it not be logical to hear a minister of the Crown

get up and say: "To privatize we must do away with those systems or

things we can no longer afford. We'll do away with socialized medicine,

because we don't want people dependent on the state."

It has been two years since this so-called economic plan has been in

power, and I've not heard one Socred get up and say: "Because the

health costs are so great in our budget, we're going to eliminate

people's dependence on the state and destroy socialized medicine." The

Fraser Institute would go along with it, and all those right-wingers

would go along with it. If you believe in it, why don't you do it?

There's a little barrier between theory and practice. They talk like

rightwingers, they walk like right-wingers and they squirm like

capitalists, but when it comes to their own hides on issues, they will

never destroy socialized medicine, because the people support it and

the people will vote them out of office.

So we deal with this mental, schizophrenic, political problem that

those right-wingers have: "We're against socialism, except we have to

keep it to stay in power." What does that tell you? You can attack

socialism. You can criticize socialists, but you haven't got the

courage of your convictions to eliminate socialist programs because you

know very well that you will go down the tube at the poll. So we have

this kind of government that says: "We're against big government. but

don't worry, we won't take away the gains you've got." But if they

thought for one minute they could take away socialized medicine, they'd

do it.

We have a socialized automobile insurance program in this province.

They have been in power for eight years as right-wingers. Have they

touched the socialized automobile insurance scheme? Uh-uh-uh! And who

is now on the side of the socialist automobile insurance scheme? One of

the leading socialist converts to show up in the history of the

province of British Columbia, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, does not now want

ICBC destroyed. Whooppee-do! Do you know how the press is interpreting

it, Mr. Speaker? They're interpreting Mr. Vander Zalm's defence of the

ICBC as a desire to re-enter politics. What is the government

interpreting it as? They say they're not thinking of bringing it in.

They may not sell back. Socialism is going to win a right-winger back

into politics in B.C. again.

[ Page 3322 ]

[11:30]

Mind you, this schizophrenia will never be analyzed on the editorial

pages of the newspaper or in in-depth studies on television, because

now we don't even allow the cameras in the hallways or the reporters to

take notes in the hallways. That's a change since I've been in here.

Just the other day I walked down to this chamber with a reporter, and

the poor reporter took a few steps with me in the corridor, turned

white and fainted. I immediately ran into the washroom and gave myself

that famous test — no, it wasn't my breath. That was the first time,

Mr. Speaker, that I have seen a reporter collapse near to me and not be

a result of anything I had done the night before. What was it? In the

quarter of a century I've been here we've made progress. We've told the

press: "Naughty, naughty, don't take notes in the corridor." We've told

the cabinet: "Don't turn the lights on in here." No government has the

right to stop anyone from the free press having access to politicians

anywhere in this chamber at any time. The idea that some poor,

hard-working reporters, who have enough difficulty taking three steps

in a row without some kind of collapse in their ability to be logical

in the first place....

Now you hamper them in where they can take notes. It's a shame and disgraceful.

The most shell-shocked appendage of this whole legislative

experience is the press gallery. We should not hamper them in their

attempts to figure out what's going on around this place by restricting

access to us. If I want to hold a reporter's hand in the hallway,

that's my business. If some reporter wants to ask me or any other

member a question in the hallway, that's their business. No one has the

right, in a free society, to deny a camera or a tape recorder access to

politicians right outside this door. I have never seen it before and I

don't know why it's here. There is no rule in this chamber that permits

that kind of censorship. That was never part and parcel of this chamber

when I first arrived, and I do not understand or accept the kind of

collective paranoia that permits access to this chamber by the press to

be limited. What are you trying to hide or what are you afraid of? I

haven't seen a reporter yet who can't be outfinessed by a good

politician on figure skates. If you can't finesse them on figure

skates, you shouldn't be here. They have the right to be anywhere they

want to be with their tape recorders and their cameras.

Having said that, I should say that lots of the times I've told

them: "No comment." But they have a right to hear "No comment" —

wherever they choose to hear it. Don't be so silly. Don't be so

childish as a government as to deny access to the free press.

A couple of other comments as I leave. We have always prided

ourselves in this province on the west coast on being among the most

free and the most open people in all of Canada. When I arrived here we

had one or two security people to help aging MLAs make it up the stairs.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It had nothing to do with what they were doing the night before, Mr. Member.

But as MLAs attempted to get to their duties, we did have one or two of what

we fondly called in those days the green giants — a couple of security guards

to open the door for us. I remember when I first became Premier, I passed one

of those green giants and I said: "You may kiss my ring." In British

Columbia fashion, he said: "And you may kiss my...." I want to

tell you that that was the kind of rapport — it was open. That's a true

story. I didn't even fire the guy. That was the kind of openness. That was

the kind of atmosphere of exchange and understanding and sense of equality and

love of fun that was always part of this province. There was always a sense

of fun and equality in British Columbia.

As I leave this chamber.... A year ago I witnessed Mounties running

around in here — we had five cop cars parked down here one day; I

counted them — protecting politicians. Can you think of anything more

wasteful for the RCMP to do than to spend their time trailing

politicians? Knock it off! We had an obscene level of security here in

this chamber for the first time ever in the history of British

Columbia. When you deny people access to this chamber or when you

develop paranoia to the point that you're above or different from the

public, then you lose the touch of the magic that is in British

Columbia. We've always had demonstrations before and we're going to

have demonstrations again. I remember seeing the faces of some of the

present cabinet ministers standing out there in the middle of

demonstrations, screaming at me. It was no offence to me. I have always

dealt with unbalanced people. So to find them out there on the lawn or

here in the chamber was no threat to me. "Forgive them for they know

not what they do," my Christian brothers told me. And that's what I

have done — with humour, with a touch of love, but most of all with a

touch of understanding. You must listen to people's complaints. You

must allow them to vent their feelings. But if you impede it with the

insecurity of massive police intervention or the paranoia of protection

of politicians, you lose the whole spirit and nature of a parliamentary

democracy. I don't want to see that in this beloved chamber or in these

precincts again. Let the press roam. Let the Mounties find the press.

One will bust the other. But leave the MLAs alone and let the public

have access to this chamber.

I heard the minister give his little cliché speech: "After all, we

only represent the people." Well, the people never said that

politicians were potentates or should be absent from contact. When I

see an ex-Social Credit MLA in a fit of anger because he can't talk to

his former leader of his party, and I see the kind of expression of

hostility shown by people who want to talk to their government in

Victoria, I get very upset. I've listened to everybody. I haven't

agreed with most of them. The time I most agree, Mr. Speaker, is when

I'm practising in front of a mirror. The rest of the time — 90 percent

— I know they're wrong. But I'm willing to give them a chance and to

hear them. When I see an ex-MLA, an honoured member of this chamber,

pushed around by a civil servant and see it written up as some kind of

humorous incident, that's too much. Is that to say that any one of us

who sat in this chamber and wanted to have actual breathing distance

between ourselves and a politician, that somebody is going to come up

and shove us around? I find it offensive that anybody would be placed

in that position. I don't blame anybody as individuals, but I blame the

incident as a demonstration of where we have gone in this province.

We've gone from an open, caring, feisty society, as demonstrated by

debates in this chamber, to one of a government with massive paranoia

that blocks the press in the corridor, that has cops all over the place

and has retreated into politically inspired bureaucratize as an escape

from responding to honest citizens' requests.

I've taken too much time on my four-minute notes, but once I started talking about this I thought I'd better get it off

[ Page 3323 ]

my chest, because you never know in this place. Even though I want to go, I may be going earlier again.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. There was a

member who sat in the corner of that House when I first got here. The

member's name was Gordon Gibson, Sr. His nickname was "Bull of the

Woods." He was a charming, delightful, genuine British Columbia

character. I don't think there's a higher accolade that anyone can give

anyone else in British Columbia than to say that you're a genuine

British Columbia character. It covers a lot of sins. That member stood

up in this chamber on a forestry debate and said that money talks. Oh,

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that there was one hullaballoo out of

that. It took two and a half years, a hidden police report and the

first-time conviction of a cabinet minister in the history of the whole

British Commonwealth — a Forests minister.

I'm not saying the same is happening again. I'm not suggesting that

the same circumstances apply. But when this chamber is presented with a

document such as we were presented with yesterday from the office of

the ombudsman, and the government minister's reply is that the cabinet

will have to check this, with the knowledge that this material has

already gone to the cabinet before it came to this chamber, I say that

I hear again the echoes of the speeches of the member from North

Vancouver, I think it was, and I smell the same odour. When this

government talks about piously looking after the resources of the

people of British Columbia and that minister says that Ottawa thinks

money grows on trees, in a way that cliché is appropriate for British

Columbia. Money does grow on our trees here. But for whom? And when the

government doesn't get its fair share of those resources and the

ombudsman says that the minister has not been right in his dealings,

then an honourable minister would stand up in this House and resign

after this kind of report.

This is the most serious report I've seen in those 25 intervening

years. The more things change, the more they remain the same. I quote:

"Timber is one of British Columbia's most important

and most valuable resources, and the Ministry of Forests is charged

with the responsibility of ensuring that the forest resource is managed

for the benefit of the province. As part of that responsibility, the

ministry is required to determine the volume of Crown timber removed

from the province's forests and to collect stumpage or royalty payments

from those who harvest and use Crown timber."

Crown timber is our timber. Crown timber pays for the education,

pays for the socialized medicine, pays for this chamber. I read this

next paragraph:

"But the Ministry of Forests has failed in its duties.

In this report I draw to your attention a situation in which the

ministry's failure has resulted not only in significant financial

losses for a number of small logging contractors but also in millions

of dollars of lost revenue owing to the province for the use of Crown

timber."

This is not idle chatter from some reporter, Mr. Speaker. This is

not a wild accusation from a novice back-bencher. This is a report

tabled in this chamber, backed up by facts from the ombudsman, who was

appointed by this very chamber and inspired in legislation by this

government.

[11:45]

1 want to pause here, Mr. Speaker, and say I noticed that the Vancouver Sun

had an editorial praising the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) for saying something nice about the NDP's agricultural

policy. The minister's still alive; he was not punished in caucus. So I

will take the same risk. I praise the Social Credit government for

establishing the ombudsman's office. You deserve full credit for it.

Now that they've set up the ombudsman, he goes on to say:

"Briefly put, the ministry did not scale large amounts

of Crown timber as required by the Forest Act; that is, it did not

determine the volume of timber removed from the province's forests.

Since the timber was not scaled, the company benefiting from the use of

Crown timber has never been billed, and millions of dollars have gone

uncollected."

Mr. Speaker, in this paragraph the ombudsman is charging the

minister and the government with breaking the law. It is not an idle

charge. In the 25 years I've been here, I do not recall the existence

of a more dramatic report with a direct charge against the government.

Now the question is: what are you going to do about it?

There is already a police investigation going on in the Ministry of

Tourism. That investigation has been going on ad infinitum. It is a

matter of public record that the police have yet to give their report

on the mess that went on in the Ministry of Tourism. We do have the

public statement of the auditor — brought in again by the Social Credit

government, which they deserve praise for — saying that the more they

look into it the more mess they uncover. There is an odour accumulating

around this government when it comes to the handling of public funds,

when the auditor-general says that bills are being paid two. three and

four times by taxpayers' money, and when the ombudsman says that

millions of dollars are lost to the Crown. How can anybody believe that

this is a responsible government in knowing how to handle the treasures

of the people of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, leaving this report for the moment, I would suggest to

the government that its wisest course would be to immediately initiate

a public inquiry into this matter; and, for confidence to be restored

in the management of the resources of this province, that the minister

concerned step down until that public inquiry is over. If this were in

Ottawa, and we were the Conservative opposition and they were the

Liberal government, this stinking scandal would be headlines in every

newspaper across this country. Will it happen here in British Columbia?

This is not the idle comment of a socialist group. This is the

statement of the ombudsman, who is making these charges. The test will

really be how this government reacts to it. Police reports on a

ministry were not filed. Charges have been made that I haven't heard

since I first came in here as a young man. I believed and dreamed that

I would never again witness that kind of charge in the province of

British Columbia. In many ways they are making Robert Sommers look like

a kaffeeklatsch misdemeanour.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for a more light examination of the province's

situation. Never in my 25 years have I seen such unhappiness as exists

in British Columbia. Where is that little lilt in the walk of British

Columbians? Where is that sparkle in the eye? Where is that wonderful

thing we felt about being British Columbians? It has been replaced with

a dour, meanspirited, venal government whose whole basis of making

[ Page 3324 ]

decisions is that it does not trust people and, in many instances, dislikes them.

But the pious hypocrisy that has been used these past two years to

justify a mad economic plan that this government has brought in — and

economic planning it is.... They believe in economic planning, but

their own kind of economic planning. They are proud of what they have

done in the economy in the last two years, so let us examine what their

economic planning has done. It is known as wrecking-crew economics,

protecting the super-rich and the super-powerful at the expense of the

poor, the handicapped, the ill and working men and women in this

province. In his estimates last week the Premier said he made the right

choices in carrying out the programs that he said were working — the

so-called program he announced two years ago in a TV special. Let's

measure the results. Two years ago unemployment was 9.8 percent, or

130,000 people. After 24 months of Social Credit wrecking-crew

economics, unemployment has climbed to 13.1 percent and last month it

reached 15.2 percent, or 189,000 of our citizens out of work. That is a

direct result of the economic planning of Social Credit. If the Premier

wants to brag about it — and he is entitled to brag about his economic

program — then let us examine what he is bragging about. He is bragging

that instead of having 130,000 unemployed, we now have 189,000

unemployed. One thing is linked to the other.

What are the further results of this economic wrecking crew? For the

first time in the history of British Columbia the Unemployment

Insurance Commission has 230,000 claims in front of it. Are you proud

of that record? You must be; you say the program is working. This did

not even happen during the Depression. Almost one in three British

Columbians is drawing unemployment insurance, social assistance or an

old-age pension. It is almost double the Canadian average. In two short

years your economic wrecking crew has established this record in

unemployment, welfare and social assistance. You say you have made the

right choices. You can hardly say that when it comes to bankruptcies,

unemployment, welfare and other benefits. Your madcap wrecking crew

economics have helped only those who do not need help: the super-rich

and the super-powerful.

Richard McAlary, B.C. Central Credit Union economist, yesterday

pointed out that British Columbia's unemployment rate is one of the

highest in North America. Worse, it's about the only region in North

America where unemployment is going up during recovery. As an

opposition member sitting across from W.A.C. Bennett, I remember that

in the throne speeches the desks pounded incessantly over the fact that

we were given hints of economic growth and new jobs every single year.

During our three years, I remember the desks pounded with the same

anticipation. Now we get the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) of

the province of British Columbia, in anticipation of a provincial

budget, attacking the federal government. McAlary said it well when he

said: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Bankruptcies in British Columbia in 1982 were 3,127. In 1983 — in

the second year of the wrecking-crew economics of Social Credit — they

went up by 25 percent to 3,931. Social Credit wreckonomics, that's what

it is. You have wreaked havoc on the private lives of decent people in

this province by stupid, backward economic planning that belongs to

some kind of neanderthal thinking. After two years of planning the

economy your way, and boasting about the planning that you have done,

this is the mess that we have in front of us. It would be excusable a

bit, understandable a bit, if they didn't go around bragging about what

they are doing. But when you examine the results and understand that

they have been planning these results for two years, it makes one

wonder if it is not an Alice-in-Wonderland cabinet over there.

Mr. Speaker, in the 25 years I've been here, every one of us in this

chamber, regardless of party.... I've seen all kinds of parties and all

kinds of switches. I've seen them come in here as Liberals and join the

Socreds; I've seen them come in as Tories and join the Socreds; I've

seen them come in as opportunists and join the Socreds; and they've all

found a home. But no matter how they got over there as Socreds, we all

as a group collectively rejoiced in the growth of British Columbia.

One of the things we used to love quoting to each other is how many

people are coming to British Columbia. We loved that. Fastest-growing

province. I remember the late W.A.C. Bennett getting up there, both

arms akimbo, thumbs down, smiling and saying: "Last year the population

of British Columbia increased because people were flocking to this

province." And it was true. There was fun then and humour in intense

politics. But this dour-faced wrecking crew, in its mean-spirited

planning of economics, has driven people away from the province of

British Columbia, and now, for the first time ever in the west, Alberta

is growing three and a half times faster than the province of British

Columbia.

This recent throne speech makes a sardonic statement. It's last

year's speech, only to be repeated in spirit this year: "My government

has demonstrated leadership in fostering economic recovery in Canada."

We used to have a sly humour and a warmth about Newfie jokes. We here

in British Columbia are now the Newfie joke of Canada when it comes to

counting the economy.

Twenty percent unemployment in the city of Victoria, brought in by

this wrecking crew. Some cockamamy case about Dynatek Electronics out

in Sidney and 600 people lined up looking for jobs that weren't there.

Some phony hopes and dreams that you peddle around election time, and

you've got the cheek and the nerve to say that your economic plan is

working. It is your economic plan that is working all right. It is a

working failure, and you're deliberately pursuing it in the face of

everything else.

Outlook in B.C. labelled cloudy, says Canadian Conference Board.

Recovery bypassing B.C., economists say. Recent reports indicate there

has been a perceptible increase in the level of consumer confidence,

but not in British Columbia. Retail sales in 1983 have given the lie to

that government statement. Even the Christmas sales in British Columbia

were not as prosperous as expected. The average increases in nine

provinces for that period of economic measurement was 8.9 percent; for

that same period in the province of British Columbia under the economic

wrecking crew it was 2.8 percent.

[12:00]

Statistic after statistic: unemployment — "Hunger for Work Shocks Employer";

UIC registrations.

Chapter and verse of a catalogue and a litany of absolute

personal and financial disaster for individual British Columbians, and the only

response the government can give is to say their program is working. If they

believe their program is working, then they've deliberately planned the

chaos and the tragedies that we now have in British Columbia. What other conclusion

can you come to? If you brag that this is your economic system, if you brag

that you've made the tough decisions, if you brag as

[ Page 3325 ]

a government that those are the decisions you made

as to where you're going to make your economic planning — and it is

"wreckonomics" planning — then this is the result. You can't ask for

parenthood and then deny the child. You seemed to have some pleasure in

anticipating parenthood; that is not an unusual biological experience.

But when the child is produced, you cannot deny that it is your child.

Anticipating the economic child won you an election, but the birth is

one you now want to deny.

I want to read some shocking figures that I've accumulated from the

Unemployment Insurance Commission. Listen to this — and this is not

1932; this is 1984. There are 12 doctors registered with Unemployment

Insurance in British Columbia looking for work. There are 29 nurse

superintendents registered with Unemployment Insurance looking for

work. There are 707 nurses, 367 nursing assistants, 923 nurses aides,

46 physiotherapists, 649 surgical, ambulance, child-care and homemaker

assistants, 27 nutritionist/dietitians, 54 radiology technicians, 85

lab technicians, and 486 dental hygienists and technicians — all

looking for work. "Social Credit — It's Working." Every one of these

people — professional, semi-professional or industrially trained to

give a service — are out of work. We have not seen numbers like these

since the Depression, and the government brags that its program is

working. Yes, it is the Bennett government, but it is the R.B. Bennett

government mentality that exists here.

Moving along quickly, I want to make some comments that I had not

intended to make until I listened closely to the minister speak about

debt. Under Social Credit wreckonomics — not Reaganomics — the debt in

British Columbia on December 31, 1975, was $4.4 billion, or $1,800 per

capita. Today in British Columbia under Social Credit that debt has

escalated three times. The squandering spendthrifts of public money are

throwing it up against the wall on such dumbbell things as a $38

million prison just outside Victoria — a super-first-class hotel for

criminal offenders. Now they're going to privatize services to criminal

offenders. They've got a $38 million prison out there that's serving

three hot meals a day that tens of thousands of British Columbians

would like to have...rather than being a criminal before you get a meal

in a first-class hotel — S38 million squandered on a brand-new jail,

and you say you haven't got money for hospitals. That kind of dumbbell

decision was made by a government that has no idea where they're

squandering money. What's the reason for building a $38 million prison?

Is that the Empress Hotel replacement out there? Whose idea was it to

spend $38 million on a prison and then to start advertising that you're

going to privatize the service? Are you going to charge rent for the

rooms? You've cut off money to university students. You can't find

$39,000 to translate books for blind people. You haven't got $39,000 to

help blind people go to university, but you spend $38 million on a

brand-new prison. Who built that jail? Was it built by private

enterprise? Not on your life. Private enterprise didn't spend a dime

building that jail — 38 million bucks for a brand-new, first-class

hotel jail at Wilkinson Road. What was the priority on that? Even

right-wingers can't justify a $38 million first-class hoteljail. Butyou

did it. Do you know who did it, Mr. Speaker? That cabinet over there.

The debt has gone up to $15 billion, or $5,400 per capita. There was

a statement issued by Mr. Richard M. Thomson, chairman of the Toronto

Dominion Bank, at the January 18 annual meeting. The nasty federal

government, which we're all free to hate in this chamber because there

are no Liberals here — they're all Socreds, so we're all free to attack

the Liberals.... The only Liberals left in B.C. are the ones who sit

over there in that cabinet, and they're becoming a species soon to be

extinct. One of them has gone overboard on formaldehyde, another one

has gone overboard on vests, but they're still there. Those ex-Liberals

over there are the only ones who can defend Mr. Lalonde. There's not a

peep out of them. This is what Lalonde got dumped on for: Lalonde

revealed that the total federal debt now stands at $6,000 per capita.

The bank president, Mr. Thomson, said: "In addition, of course,

residents of each province bear responsibility for their province's

debt. Here in Ontario, for example, provincial debt amounts to $2,800

for every Ontario resident, and the debt per head is growing by $280

per head per year." That kind of hot statement from a calm banker is

enough to melt snow in northern Ontario.

What is the record here in British Columbia? That pious Socred

wreckonomics crew has built up the following record, which is the worst

in all of Canada. The worst government in all of Canada is in B.C.

today. Before the budget on Monday, the per capita debt is now $5,400

per person in this province, and it's growing at the rate of $450 per

person. And you build a first-class prison to spend some of that money!

But those who are employed are the ones who bear the burden, that

ever-shrinking group of people in the middle class, those happy people

who live in the suburbs represented by some of these MLAs, who see the

services cut for their children, for health care and education. They're

the ones who carry the cost. For every employed person in British

Columbia who pays taxes, the per capita debt today — the personal

mortgage put on their heads, three-quarters of it by this Social Credit

government — is $12,781. That mortgage had been put on their heads. For

a working couple in British Columbia who are struggling to keep their

family and their home together, let them understand that they are

carrying a per capita debt, spent by this government largely, of

$24,000. Every time you figure out your mortgage at home, folks,

remember Social Credit wreckonomics is taking up a big part of your

salary to pay for their economic plans.

Do they tell the truth. Mr. Speaker? Would they tell the truth? At

least we would know a bit more what is happening. In their attack on

the federal government they carefully neglect.... Lord knows the

federal government needs to be attacked, but let's do it with the

truth. In their attack they say that the federal government is cheating

them. Just as B.C. pocketed federal increases on education and health

and handicapped in the past, now they are not even giving the whole

figure, and they are pocketing the money for other services. I quote

from an outstanding journalist who I have seen in the corridor on

occasion, although I am not allowed to talk to him. I do recognize him

by feature. His name is Eli Sopow, and he has written this in that

outstanding newspaper, or rather that outstanding tabloid, the

Vancouver Province . They have even taken to removing the nudes

on the front page to sell them, because the news is so bad in British

Columbia. News is worse than nudes. I quote: "There is almost $150

million more in the B.C. treasury than we are being told about. At

least, that's according to the fine print in yesterday's federal

budget. Federal figures show that by April 1 Ottawa will have given

B.C. $939 million" to pay for its health care. I see the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is over there. "But the provincial

government's financial reports say B.C. will get only $793 million."

Where did it go?

[ Page 3326 ]

"That's $146 million less than Ottawa reports. Federal officials disclosed

yesterday that B.C. got an extra $79 million bonanza late last year when technical

adjustments were made to the system of transfer payments." Mr. Speaker,

do you remember the Minister of Health standing up in the province of British

Columbia anywhere and saying: "Hey, we just got an extra $79 million bucks

from Ottawa"? He must have misread the message, because when he heard that

Ottawa had sent him another $79 million, his response was to raise the fees

for health care.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I will never have a heart attack or ulcers. It

is my duty to give both to others. It is my duty, Mr. Speaker, to give

both to others within the health-care budget, and without being

specific.

Seventy-nine million bucks! Have you got that money in your back

pocket, Mr. Minister? Naw! Have you got it stashed in Richmond? Naw!

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) won't let you have it, and

you're not tough enough to go up to him and say: "Give me that money

for the health care department." The Minister of Health has been

relegated to a tertiary role. The most that he can do is have six

band-aids a year and put them on any department of his choice within

his whole ministry, but don't tell the truth about Ottawa giving the

extra $79 million bucks. He's the band-aid Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, if I have done anything to directly attribute it to any

person by name, I withdraw that inference. However, the member for

Richmond, who is the Minister of Health.... If there is any allusion by

name to any person holding that post, I withdraw it. It is really a

fiction anyway. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that too.

Social Credit wreckonomics. They have created this havoc in the

province. They have spent money stupidly, and to top it they don't tell

the truth about the money they got. What are we going to do about it?

Not a heck of a lot, because if you say anything in here — remember,

Mr. Speaker, this is 1984, and I want my colleagues to know this — Big

Brother isn't listening, but Doug Heal is. Oh, you know who Doug Heal

is? They've got a chief propagandist buried away in this office, and

they pay him about 70 grand a year. I hope that not one of those

flacks, hacks or doughnut-hole punchers who work for Heal produced that

speech by the Minister of Municipal Affairs today. If that is the

measure of their work, fire the whole lot of them. If that's the level

of speech preparation by 100 paid propagandists under Doug Heal, to

have that kind of speech read by that brilliant conversationalist, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and to humiliate him by putting those

words in his mouth, fire the whole works. Mr. Speaker, do you know of

any other jurisdiction that has 100 paid propagandists sitting down in

the bowels of a building writing out propaganda about how wonderful

things are? Not 100, not 1,000, not one million propagandists will wash

away the truth of the destruction you have wrought on this province

with Social Credit wreckonomics the last two years you have been in

power.

[12:15]

Since we are talking numbers, it is difficult to envision the response. The

other day we had the Lieutenant-Governor, in the traditional and necessary pomp

and circumstance, walk into this chamber with all the bluebloods of British

Columbia sitting around, led by the bluest of the blue, the

MLAs of British Columbia: sons and daughters of

pioneering families in this province who have given up so much

sacrifice to be in this chamber along with the leading representatives

of our business, banking and legal fraternity. I do not include the

Clerks in that last remark, Mr. Speaker. In front of the free-lunch

crowd on Monday the Lieutenant-Governor delivered of himself this

self-gratifying throne speech, and while we were in here — everybody

polished, everybody shined up and every tummy full — the following was

going on in the province of British Columbia. I took the trouble to

find out what was happening at the soup-kitchens on throne speech day.

I took the trouble to find out what was happening at the food banks. In

the week that the throne speech was delivered, in New Westminster 2,400

people lined up for a bag of groceries. In the same week 9,640 people

lined up for a bag of groceries in Vancouver. The Franciscan Sisters on

Cordova Street in downtown Vancouver, a region of the city not habited

very frequently by such royal personages as ourselves, handed out 4,200

free lunchtime sandwiches to hungry people. On the Sunshine Coast, in

Gibsons Landing and Powell River, last week 356 people had to line up

for a food hamper. In the north, in Fort St. John, Terrace, Williams

Lake and Quesnel, 2,008 people visited the soup-kitchens and stood in

line for a bag of groceries in prosperous British Columbia. In

Barriere, Salmon Arm, Vernon, Kamloops and Kelowna the soup-kitchens

and the food banks involved 3, 860 people last week. On Vancouver

Island, in Victoria alone 8,275 people were served by food banks or

soupkitchens. Last week alone, while we were sitting in here listening

to that throne speech, people were lining up for soup and free

groceries in Victoria. Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Lake Cowichan, Duncan,

Cobble Hill and Comox: last week on the Island 12, 305 people were

assisted. The total is 34,000 people last week alone who showed up at

soup-kitchens or asked for a hamper. That is only through the

soup-kitchens or the food banks which are directly or indirectly

involved with the action centres established by the trade union

movement.

In the 1983 throne speech the government said they were "advised

that our people are extending a helping hand to the weakest members of

our society, and my government has been in the lead in this regard." I

have not seen MacMillan Bloedel set up a soup-kitchen. I haven't seen

one of the major forest companies involved in handing out sandwiches. I

haven't seen one of the mining companies lined up to hand out money or

help the people. I haven't seen one group of capitalists, who have made

themselves fat and rich in this province, helping the poor. It is the

trade union movement that has handed out the help to the poor in this

province. Where is that sanctimonious social conscience so contributed

to by the free enterprise capitalist

section of the community? Where's

the MacMillan Bloedel soup-kitchen? The only people in the private

sector who are helping other people in a massive way are other working

people who have compassion and feeling for those people who are out of

work and unemployed in the province of British Columbia. Let us end

this nonsense that the private sector is going to help. The private

sector is busy counting its profits, sitting there at their two hour

luncheons talking about worker productivity while they clink their

glasses over their $37.50 bottles of wine. It's sheer hypocrisy, Mr.

Speaker, to say that the private sector is going to help these people.

They haven't even given them the crumbs off the table. It is the

religious communities, the established churches, the evangelical groups

and the trade

[ Page 3327 ]

union movement that are helping these people — not the private sector.

The food banks are the only hope for these people. We have this

throne speech saying how wonderful your wreckonomics are going. Well,

Mr. Speaker, look at the pictures of people lining up to get a

sandwich. This is the Social Credit result of wreckonomics: long lines

of people waiting to get a bowl of soup or a sandwich in the province

of British Columbia. And they have the nerve to come in here and say

that their program is working. If you say this program is designed to

help the super rich and the super powerful, it is working: if you say

it is designed to help the ordinary citizen, it is a disastrous failure

for small business and the ordinary citizen.

I was going to read this whole list of privatizing social services.

Privatizing social services! There's a whole list in an ad in here.

We've got these battered kids, you see, Mr. Speaker, and if you want to

set up this little business, you can apply to go into the business of

offering help to battered children. Do you know what the government is

saying, Mr. Speaker, by making this kind of placement in a newspaper?

They're saying battered kids are not the subject of a moral obligation

of the total community; battered kids are a commodity that have to be

measured on productivity from the private sector, and we will put them

out for bids. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the morality behind that kind of

privatization defies any logical understanding. If we have the

unfortunate situation of a battered child in this province, Mr.

Speaker, I submit to you that it is the moral responsibility of every

adult in this Legislature to ensure that that child has the best

possible services available in a civilized community.

Mr. Speaker, long ago western civilization said that it had a moral

commitment to the weakest, the most frail. Long ago in every

jurisdiction in North America, since the 1936 White House Conference

sponsored by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there was a turn towards a

social and moral commitment in North America, in every single

jurisdiction, to ensure that no child should be deprived of basic human

rights and human services, should they be in a circumstance beyond

their control. There is no other jurisdiction, to my knowledge, since

that 1936 White House Conference sponsored by Franklin Delano Roosevelt

that has deliberately attempted to turn back the clock in child

services, except British Columbia. By placing this ad in the newspaper,

the admission is that British Columbia is now publicly saying that it

has a government that is prepared to abandon its moral and social

responsibility to the people of this province by saying that any kid

who is knocked about may be subject to the services of private

enterprise. But if private enterprise can't do it, tough on the kid.

Children are not trees, Mr. Speaker. They're not fish or mines. They

are the focus of the homes and dreams of every generation's future. And

when you measure the commitment of this government to the lowest of

these, to the most helpless of these, and say that they're going to

privatize child services, to the shame of all of us, there is no other

jurisdiction in North America that is taking this attitude.

I challenge you, you MLAs, and I challenge this government to go on

television and radio and tell us why you've abandoned the moral

responsibility you have to children who cry out for help. Whether there

is one or a thousand, it is the moral responsibility of an elected

government in a free, democratic society to say that there are some

people who deserve, need and require, by law, basic protection, and

among those are children. In my opinion, when you abandon that. you

abandon all sense of morality. I never thought I'd see the day, after

some 25 years in this chamber, after going through the fights that

we've gone through, and on the eve of ending my public life in this

province in terms of political activity, that the clock would be turned

back 150 years by a mean, stupid, venal government that simply does not

understand what a moral commitment to children means.

Oh, you're not personally mean, and you're not personally

bad-hearted. Any one of you could be hit up on the street for a buck to

help somebody. You're kind. But as a collective group, as government

over there, you've abandoned your personal commitments to the ordinary

citizen out there who expects better from a government than this kind

of cheap stuff that denigrates the dignity of children and the poor of

this province. As a collective group you deserve to be condemned by

every right-thinking person in this whole country.

I'm not going to go into the transition houses and the treatment of

adults. I'm not going to go into the other havoc that you've wreaked on

the province of British Columbia. I'm not going to go through the memos

that have been delivered across our desks from the health department

and the corrections department. In the election campaign we released

documents which showed what the health care department was doing, and

the minister denied it, but he never fired anybody for writing the

memos. I'm not going to talk about the university cuts and the false

economy.

I did mention the $39,000 for the blind. All they can answer on that

one is: "Was not our fault." If you can't cough up $39,000 to translate

books into braille for the blind, then for God's sake tell one cabinet

minister to stay home for a year, and we'd have enough money to pay for

this kind of thing in the province of British Columbia. This is a high

flying cabinet that spends more time in foreign capitals than it does

here in British Columbia. It's getting so bad they're going to have to

have re-entry visas to come back to Victoria, because they spend so

much time travelling around the world. They can't come up with $39,000

to translate books into braille for the blind, but they can pour away

hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-class, first-class travel to

every city everywhere in the world. Every comer of the earth has seen

one Socred cabinet minister kicking around in the dust. It is becoming

virulent around the world. They spend more time travelling and less

time thinking than any other cabinet. "Incest Victims Have Little

Hope." The papers are full of the stories. "Foodbank Economic System."

My time is rapidly running short. I can't think that 25 years is now

coming down to a half-hour, but it is. I've got five years' more stuff

to say. There's never been a worse government than this one — never.

There's never been one collectively as mean-spirited, picayune, venal,

cruel, petty and vindictive as this one.

I'll end this particular

section of my speech by quoting from one of

the derelicts in downtown Vancouver when describing how he survives in

cold weather: "If you feel warm, move or die." He was giving that good

advice to destitute men and women who must sleep out overnight in the

cold. But there was a hidden message to the government, and it's more

appropriate: "If you feel warm, move or die. You are so warm and fat

and comfortable in government that you haven't moved to protect anybody

in the province of British Columbia except the super-rich and the

super-powerful." I hope this admonition means that you as a government

will

[ Page 3328 ]

pass on to history, too — with your well-deserved pensions, but pass on nonetheless.

[12:30]

Mr. Speaker, I will abandon the copious notes that I have for that

particular section, and go on to some closing remarks. But before I do

that — and some of them are of a more personal nature — I find it

puzzling why, in this chamber, every day we beseech the Lord to look

down on our decisions, to guide us in our deliberations, to give us

good counsel, and at the same time, when the government is asked to

meet with the religious community it won't even answer a letter. The

religious community is largely non-political. Some members from the

religious community have become political, and they've even ended up in

this chamber. Some of them have stood as Social Credit candidates, some

of them have stood as NDP and some of them have stood as Liberals. But

only when they step out from the religious community, in direct

political action, should they be judged on politics of a partisan

nature. When we have the situation in this province that I have

outlined, where tens of thousands of people are lining up for handouts

of sandwiches and soup and we have people losing their homes and

businesses, and the religious community comes out of its traditional

non-interference position and politely says in a letter, signed by a

number of leaders of specific denominations, that it wants to meet with

the Premier of the province to discuss the current economic situation,

and they are not even given the courtesy of a reply, it is mockery of

the prayer that we say every day in this chamber. How dare we stand

here piously in this chamber and pray every day, when part of our

prayer may have been answered by the religious communities expressing

their willingness to help, and the government refuses to meet with the

leadership of that religious community.

Mr. Speaker, if the head of the banks wanted to see the Premier,

they would get to see him in a hurry. If the chamber of commerce wanted

to see the Premier, they would get there in a hurry. If B.C. Forest

Products wanted to see the Premier, they would get there in a hurry —

faster than any cabinet minister. We know that cabinet ministers can't

even appoint members of their staff without it being approved by the

Premier's office. But if they wish to subject themselves to that kind

of role, let it be on their conscience. We have not had an explanation

from this government why it will not meet with the leadership of the

religious communities of the province of British Columbia. I say it's a

disgrace and a shame. It's hypocritical for us to pray every day,

unless we are prepared to back it up by meeting with all sectors of the

community. When I read in the paper: "A leader of the Catholic church

in the community of Victoria...." I've been in this Legislature for 23

years. I was born and raised in this province, and I have had the

benefit of all the best of British Columbia. I wish everyone else the

same that I've had. But I've never before seen a situation so bad that

when the leadership of a major church in this province, His Excellency

the Catholic Bishop of this community, Remi de Roo....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: I'm sure the members were only clearing those

throats by accident; there were no catcalls intended. I want that in

the record, Mr. Speaker, so that it is not misinterpreted.

When the leader of the Catholic community of this city says that the

restraint program is evil, and the government does not respond to a

letter addressed to the Premier by himself and others in the religious

community, I say it is a sign of weakness and fear by a government

afraid to talk to other people. What are you afraid of? What do you

fear? If this statement is wrong, then call in the bishop and talk to

him. If this assessment by the leaders of the Christian community is

incorrect, then call them into the office and say it's wrong. But to

take potshots, to hide behind bureaucratese and not meet with these

people indicates to me that we have a frightened, weak government. Only

weak people run and hide. Only frightened people run and hide. Why are

you running and hiding from the community of Christian leaders who wish

to talk to you about what is going on in their parishes with their

people? They have a right and a duty to speak for their flocks, and

when that right and that duty is abrogated and unheard, then we are

denying an important part of our whole democratic society. That could

only be through fear and insecurity.

We are a secular government. The British parliamentary system has

been secular for lo, the 700 years that we've been keeping records. But

part of the secular nature of a free democratic society is to

understand there's a higher purpose for personkind, and that higher

purpose is to understand that those of us who have our health, those of

us with our wits about us, those of us who are in a position to make

decisions should make responsible decisions for ordinary citizens

thinking that the common good is in mind.

I had planned to speak for a longer time. I even brought my glasses,

Mr. Speaker. When I get to thinking, all warmed up again and charged up

over my career, I look down on my desk and see that I now use glasses.

I bought them first for theatrical effect, because I've seen pompous

politicians take off their glasses, wave them around, and everything

else. I did that, Mr. Speaker, and I broke my first set of glasses. I

dropped them. So I went back and got unbreakable lenses. To make sure I

don't break them I keep them in the case, and I won't use the notes

that I've got. It proves that I'm getting up there. Any time I get in

trouble now and there's a little heat on me when somebody asks me a

question, I pull out my glasses and say: "Wait a minute." It's a good

dodge. I notice you guys too are all wearing more glasses lately.

Mr. Speaker, you know why you're all wearing glasses? Because we get

it paid for under socialized programs. All of us politicians get our

glasses paid for, folks. Read the small print. It's part of our

contract. We get our teeth drilled and our glasses on — and a peg-leg

twisted if we have to. It may not be there for the ordinary people, but

we know how socialism works in this chamber. Oh, don't give it to those

peons out there; socialism will spoil them. But we've all got it in

here, gang. A wink and a nod. We know how it works, don't we? Eighteen

years and we get our pension, don't we? A little bit of hypocrisy, a

lot of fun.

Mr. Speaker, I came here when I was 29 years old young, willing and

eager to learn, anxious to serve. I thank the people of British

Columbia for giving me that wonderful opportunity, and I anticipate

that as the session goes along I will have more opportunities to

participate. But this is my last throne speech, so I am entitled, at

the end of my non-virginal appearance in this chamber, to speak from

experience, having gone through the ropes.

I came in committed to the CCE. It then became the New Democratic

Party. I was surprised to learn that the first socialist was elected to

this chamber in 1898, one year after this particular building was

opened. I was surprised to learn that

[ Page

3329 ]

there have been representatives of socialist

parties in this chamber since the turn of the century, before they'd

even heard of Social Credit. I was surprised to learn, reading back in

those dusty archives and records in the library, about the

Hawthornthwaites, the Guthries, the Williamses, the Strachans, the

Connells, the Winches, the Steeveses, the MacInnises, who were

legendary names as pioneers or fighters for social justice in the

province of British Columbia. Very early on I developed a sense of

pride and a touch of hero worship towards those people. I came to love

the democratic socialist movement because it had a common philosophy of

humanity and accepting human frailties — including my own. I became

honoured to become a leader of this party, and then a Premier for a

short time, and a leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. During that

whole experience what I absorbed through other people of other

philosophies helped me, and I thank those Liberals and those

Conservatives and those Socreds who contributed to my education. But

the sum total of all of their contributions, Mr. Speaker, at the end of

this part of my public career, is that I feel absolutely sure now that

my choice of being a democratic socialist in terms of political action

was absolutely correct.

While we argue and debate very important issues about our

jurisdiction here in the province of British Columbia, in the 25 years

I've been here I have seen the post-nuclear era develop to a point of

international madness. There is not a single thing that separates me

from any Social Credit member or any Tory or any Liberal that is worth

considering human annihilation. There isn't one political philosophy

that I op pose or that opposes mine that has an absolute right to

presume, whether it is communist, capitalist or socialist, that they

hold the Holy Grail and have the right to threaten mankind. It is the

responsibility of this chamber, too, to express that when we argue and

we fight and we disagree, we do it in the hope of a better world. But

there can be no better world unless there is peace in the world.

I have loved the whole experience here. I have particularly treasured some

of the friendships I have built up over the years with my political foes and

my political friends, but there are jurisdictions like this, legislatures like

this, chambers like this that have a higher responsibility to make decisions

about whether or not we live or die as humankind. It is on record in this chamber

by all parties that we are opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing.

On those rare occasions when we've stood together in this chamber on that

issue, there has been a sense of pride about being part of that decision. I

think we could honour each other, honour this chamber and honour the people

we serve if we could continue to be united on that issue. I have never yet heard

anybody in this House speak of anything other than the hope for international

peace, despite differences of opinion we may have in politics. I leave with

that hope. I hope that before I leave this chamber over the next few months

that we again, together as human beings, will stand up on a resolution opposed

to the use of nuclear arms. That, more than anything else, would make me feel

proud and make me feel a little bit worthwhile about this wonderful time I've

had.

In concluding my part of the throne speech. If I have offended

anyone in the 25 years that I've been in public life, I want you to

understand — nothing personal. I know, in return, that is the sentiment

from my opponents — nothing personal.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You go too far.

MR. BARRETT: I go too far? I've got a few weeks to go yet.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place in the last

throne speech that I will participate in in this chamber, a proud son

of British Columbia, a proud part of this wonderful province, sitting

with the hope and the dream that someday even this government will

learn from its mistakes.

[12:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that we, Her Majesty's most

dutiful and loyal subjects of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the

gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of

our present session.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Schroeder

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the opening of this morning's sitting

the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) rose under the provisions of standing

order 35 to request leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite

matter of urgent public importance — namely, a matter arising out of he ombudsman's

special report No. 7, referred to as "The Shoal Island Case."

Let me say initially that the member's application must fail, as we are

presently engaged in the throne debate. The Chair also points out to hon. members

that it has been a long-established rule of this House that a member must not

employ he vehicle of a point of order, a matter of privilege or a motion under

standing order 35 to use unparliamentary language or to attribute improper motives

to another hon. member. Examination of the written statement of the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) clearly shows that he has offended this latter rule.

[ Page 3330 ]

Several points of order were raised by various members to the Chair.

My thanks to those members for their interesting observations.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), that the House will at

its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply

to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over

all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills,

until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move, seconded by the government House Leader, that

this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider

the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome to

the chamber a political opponent of mine and a personal friend, a

former alderperson in Vancouver, Miss Helen Boyce.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada