1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

915 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 915

Planned Parenthood Association grant. Mrs. Dailly –– 916

Funding of BCAMR for volunteers. Mr. Barnes –– 916

Attitude of Victoria council to preserving local industry. Mr. Blencoe –– 917

Mr. Lauk

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

Mr. Michael –– 917

Mr. Macdonald –– 922

Mr. Davis –– 925

Mr. Barnes –– 927

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 933

Mr. Howard –– 935

Mr. Pelton –– 938

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there are two very special guests

and friends of mine on the floor today. First, the minister who gave

the prayer, the Rev. Bill van Druten, is a long-time friend of mine and

I'd like this House to recognize him officially.

We have a very special guest before the House today, Mr. Speaker.

He's my counsel, my mentor, and he taught me everything I know — and

some still say I know nothing. They've always sent gentlemen — and

continue to send gentlemen — to this House from the famous riding of

Dewdney. I'd like the House to welcome the Whip emeritus of this House,

the hon. George Mussallem.

MR. BARRETT: In welcoming our very special guests on the

floor: I thought that the problem with the marble peeling off the wall

was only down in that comer, but today it seems to be spreading through

the House.

It's a rare occasion when we get the opportunity to say some kind

words about a Whip. This is not one of those occasions [laughter], but

I do say that I'm very happy to see the good reverend here in company

with the former Whip because it's important that wherever Whips go they

still have a hope — although it'll never come out that way. I want to

welcome the Whip back today and thank him for spending one of his

masochistic days with us again.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, it would be very remiss of me at

this time if I didn't echo the comments that have been made about the

gentleman whom I have had the honour of replacing in this House, As I

mentioned in my maiden speech, he's a man who has contributed a great

many years of his life to the community in which he lives and to the

community of British Columbia as a whole. As I said at that time, and

would like to repeat — as my friend across the aisle says that famous

one-liner — he was indeed and still is a most amayonnaising" person.

I would also like to introduce two people to the House: Mrs. Shirley

Ridley, who is the vice-president, and Mrs. Pauline Good, who is a

director of the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew B.C. Social Credit constituency

office. I would ask everyone here to welcome them, please.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Miracle Whip is not allowed to speak in

this House any longer, but he asked me to bring along the fact that in

the interests of aviation safety today he left his airplane at home and

came by car.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to introduce a couple of ladies who

are sitting in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: a special lady in my life,

Mrs. Yvonne Johnson, and her friend from Victoria, Elaine Niven.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three friends of

mine, three true free-enterprisers from my constituency. The first one is Art

Holding, the former owner of the Holding sawmill in Adams Lake, and the other

two are Jim and Jean Van. I would ask the House to welcome them today.

[2:15]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with

me in welcoming two old friends of mine from North Burnaby: Maurits and

Greta Mann.

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

today are two long-time friends and supporters of mine. I would ask the

House to join me in welcoming Ernie and Esther Hogg.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery above me here today we

have three people from West Vancouver. Brian and Wendy Hanna are

endeavouring to become sailors this year. Brian is a renowned architect

in the greater Vancouver area, and with them is Wynne Clucas. I would

ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and the House today.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the

former chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Don Munroe, along with

his wife. Don is now teaching law at the University of Victoria and

enjoying a summer vacation with his son. I would ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in our House today I would ask you to

welcome two very close friends of my wife and myself. Sitting in the

gallery with my wife Ann are Pat and Margaret Mabee, the owners of Mr.

Pat's Family Restaurant in the Champlain Mall in Vancouver South. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. STRACHAN: Let me join with all members in offering my

best wishes, and once again a welcome to this House, to the honourable

George Mussallem, our miracle Whip. I'd also like the House to welcome

one of the best cooks in Fairfield, if not on Vancouver Island or in

the western world — a very good friend of mine, and I guess a better

friend of Mr. Charles La Vertu. Would the House please welcome Mrs.

Kate Crowcroft.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a few people in the gallery

remain unintroduced, but I have two friends to introduce today: Dr.

Charles Clayton, a former Oak Bay alderman, and Mr. Ed Nicholson,

educational administrator from Prince Rupert.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question

first to the Provincial Secretary. Will the Provincial Secretary

confirm that McKim agency was reappointed as agent of record for the

government after the auditor-general's report was tabled in the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask you a question.

How often can a member ask the same question in the House after the

question's been taken on notice and a commitment made that the reply

will be brought back as quickly as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the Provincial Secretary is a valid one. Again, hon. members, if the Chair were

[ Page 916 ]

to strictly enforce the rules of question period, it would be very short.

MR. COCKE: Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that I know the answer, I

will ask a question of the minister: can the minister explain to the

House why one minister read the report and called the cops, while the

second minister read the report and reappointed the subjects?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Subject, object, whatever, of the report.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a confusing question, and very iffy.

It's a hypothetical question which I have some difficulty with until

such time as I give a response to the first question.

MR. COCKE: Will the Attorney-General clarify what he was

saying yesterday with respect to the parameters of the investigation?

Will it go beyond the period that was reported on by the

auditor-general or will it be restricted to that?

HON. MR. SMITH: There are no such restrictions on the

investigations of the commercial crime department of the RCMP, such as

the fiscal year restrictions that restrict the investigations of the

auditor-general.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Minister of Health

with reference to the Planned Parenthood Association and the

cancellation of their grant by the government. Given the fact that this

association meets all the government's criteria for funding community

organization — it uses volunteers, it raises a substantial amount of

their budget from the private sector and it meets definite community

needs — would the minister therefore give us an assurance that he will

reconsider this grant?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Planned Parenthood Association was

advised recently that their funding would be terminated as of a certain

date, and that has not been reconsidered.

FUNDING OF BCAMR FOR VOLUNTEERS

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

Resources. With reference to the closure of the Tranquille facility in

Kamloops, the minister has said that it is her intention to develop a

network of decentralized services at the community level that will

enhance the quality of life of mentally retarded individuals. In view

of this commitment, will the minister explain why she has decided to

eliminate a $50,000 grant to the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded which was used to fund training for volunteer organizations

working with the mentally retarded?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the

member for the question. The question was

preambled by reference to

Tranquille, and there is absolutely no connection between moneys

granted to the Association for the Mentally Retarded and the

opportunity to decentralize the services of Tranquille into

community-based programming.

MR. BARNES: Nonetheless, the concern is that the minister has

decided to cancel the funding for the Association for the Mentally

Retarded, which was an organization providing training for volunteers.

The concern is that that program will now stop, which will make it

difficult for volunteers to be prepared to pick up the decentralized

program. Perhaps you could explain it from that point. How will the

volunteers be trained?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The ministry's support for services for

the mentally retarded totals in excess of $50 million a year. That

amount of money is spent throughout the province. The moneys to which

the member refers are for an organization's office program. The

ministry has decided to no longer fund those organizations whose

revenue can come from community resources. We are putting our dollars

into more decentralized, community-based resources throughout the

province.

MR. BARNES: Could the minister specify which of the community

resources will provide the volunteer training that is necessary? We're

speaking of specialized training for people who are not ordinary

volunteers in the strict sense of the word, but people who have to have

certain skills and abilities. Does the ministry have in place any

agreements or arrangements with any local community organizations who

will be providing this service without the support of provincial

funding?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We continue to do so. May I explain that

the community resources that will be developed to take the young people

and the clients from Tranquille will be developed by our ministry in

conjunction with the staff people at Tranquille and various members of

the Association for the Mentally Retarded throughout the province,

depending on where those clients will move. We would be at all times

working with the community-based Association for the Mentally Retarded,

or any other organization that would devote its time to both training

and volunteering on behalf of those clients whom we both serve.

MR. BARNES: Madam Minister, I appreciate the problem you're

having in trying to live within your plan, trying to operate within

your plan, but I wish you could specify the organizations which will

actually be picking up this very major program. As you know, there are

some 300 people involved at Tranquille alone.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question should

then more rightly be: how will the Tranquille institution be

decentralized? The answer to that is: through a process which is very

much in place. It has already been undertaken. We've had one meeting.

As you know, further meetings were interrupted by sit-ins at

Tranquille, but our first meeting, which was initiated by the ministry,

was begun approximately four or five weeks ago. To have the staff

working with our ministry…. Our ministry has as well worked with the

regional directors throughout the province to identify the services

where these young people will be moved. I can give without any

difficulty, but without taking the time of question period, the areas

where each of these young people will be transferred. Some will return

to the areas nearest to their homes. Some 80 young people will be

placed in resources around the Kamloops area, which is

[ Page

917 ]

perhaps the area in which the member is interested. Some 23 or 24, I believe,

and I'm only going by memory, will come to the Vancouver Island area. The

Kootenays and the north also receive some who are going to those areas because

they are closest to their families. We're working with the associations

in 100 Mile House, for example, and with the mental association of Kamloops.

We're working with them, in conjunction with our staff, to put together

a plan for each and every one of those young people who will be moved out of

the institution, which will close a year and a half or twenty months from now.

ATTITUDE OF VICTORIA COUNCIL

TO PRESERVING LOCAL INDUSTRY

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

In response to a question I asked yesterday, the minister gratuitously

insulted the city and council of Victoria and the community

associations by saying they had driven industry out of this community.

I ask the minister today if he is prepared unconditionally to apologize

for those remarks and those comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is not in order for

the question period. It will be taken at another time. However, if it

is the wish of the minister, he has the right of reply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd like to respond, Mr. Speaker, by saying

that I stand by my statement, and I'll give the evidence now that what

I was saying was, in fact, correct. On December 12, 1972, the Times

said: "Local 1947 president Owen Williams criticized absentee

managerial decisions and failure of local government to spur industrial

development. 'Successive councils have failed to do anything to keep

industry here or to attract new industry.'" He went on to say that

Bapco Paint was one industry which the municipality essentially ran out

of town. An

article in the Colonist

of December 13, 1972, said: "Parochialism and apathy on the part of

greater Victoria's municipal politicians are largely responsible for

the decision by Bapco Paint Ltd. to phase out its Victoria operations,

according to Larry Ryan" — your friend — "secretary-treasurer of the

Victoria Labour Council."

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about industry that's been run

out of town, whether yesterday or in 1972. Ryan laid the blame for the

loss of industry squarely on the doorstep of the great superfluity of

municipal politicians. If greater Victoria's seven mayors, along with

all the aldermen and members of the regional board, had taken steps

earlier to provide for adequate industrial sites, Bapco Paint might

have been able to relocate in the capital region.

A brief editorial in the Daily Colonist of December 15 says: "It is a remarkable occasion when….

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, hon. member, I think we are into a

situation where the Chair must draw to your attention that the answer

is becoming rather lengthy. It goes beyond the scope of question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr., Speaker, that member from Victoria suggested that

I wasn't correct and that I owed an apology to the city of Victoria for

my statement that they'd run industry out of this community. They haven't

made provisions for alternate sites for industry in the city of Victoria. They've

treated industry very badly in the city of Victoria and I don't apologize.

I'm sorry for the actions of the city of Victoria, its former mayors, its

aldermen today and its aldermen in the past.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary. I would first remind

that member that city council has been controlled by Social Credit

members for many years in this region, and they are the ones who are

removing those people.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: In view of the fact that the city of Victoria

recently reduced the tax rate on industrial property, met with

industrial leaders to develop a special industrial strategy for

Victoria and made up provincial government cuts in funding to the

economic development commission, will the minister consider his answer

and apologize to this community and this city council?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member babbles quite a bit.

It's quite obvious that the city of Victoria has taken no steps in the

past to keep industry in this community. In fact, they've encouraged

industry to leave the city of Victoria. Essentially there's no industry

left in the city of Victoria, because there was a preordained mission

on the part of the city of Victoria to make this a tourist-oriented

community. They didn't want to see industrial development here. They

didn't make provisions for industrial parks and attempt to keep

industry in the city of Victoria. I'm sorry, as I said before, for the

failure on the part of the city of Victoria and other surrounding

municipalities for their short-sightedness in creating jobs for the

people who want to live in Victoria. That's a shortcoming of former

councils in the city of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the families and estates of Sir Joseph

Trutch, Sir James Douglas and Matthew Begbie, I ask the Provincial

Secretary to apologize for blaming them for the lack of industry in

Victoria.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to rise and speak in support of the budget brought in by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I would like very much during my

address to cover areas where, in my opinion, there have been a lot of

half-truths, innuendos and lies told by those people supporting, and

the leadership of, Operation Solidarity and other organizations

circulating literature in the province of British Columbia, such as the

Public Service Alliance of Canada. I've read the literature put out by

Operation Solidarity and that put out by the Public Service Alliance of

Canada, and I have never seen such utter rubbish, such utter

half-truths, lies, innuendoes, hyperbole, and pure fabrication as I

have read in these documents.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page

918 ]

I have had the research department and various ministries do some

research into some of the statements made by these organizations in

dealing with the restraint budget of the province of British Columbia,

and I would like to read into the record some of those lies,

half-truths and innuendoes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the House please come to order. It's awfully noisy here, and it is hard to hear what the speaker is saying.

I'll also remind the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that

expressions such as he's been using are unparliamentary. If he could

maintain temperance of language and moderation of debate, then the

parliamentary tradition will be well served.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will cover some of the quotations

and give the facts as I see them, and as I have researched them, and

will let the House and the members of the public decide for themselves.

One of the statements in an Operation Solidarity bulletin reads as

follows: "Changes to the Medical Service Act encourage doctors to opt

out of medicare or extra-bill." The facts are that the provisions

relating to opting out are identical to the existing provisions under

the current act and regulations.

Another quotation from Operation Solidarity: "Victoria assumes the right

to overrule doctors on whether specific care is necessary for individual patients."

The facts are that this is no different than the present situation and does

not reflect a policy change.

Another statement made in the bulletin: "Health fee increases range

from 11 percent to 150 percent." While that is a fact, on a percentage

basis, they don't go on to give the relative amounts; nor do they go on

to explain that the average price of a hospital room in the province of

British Columbia is slightly in excess of $300 a day; nor do they

explain that it has been some years since any other increases have been

made in user fees; nor do they explain that the only change in the user

fee for the acute care per them service has been from $7.50 a day to

$8.50 a day, a 13 percent increase.

It bothers me, in that particular area, when I hear members of the

opposition speaking about things that were promised or not promised in

the last provincial election campaign. Today a speaker from the

opposition made a statement that our government was not telling the

truth when it came to telling the people during the last election

campaign what the increases were going to be regarding user fees. I've

gone to the trouble of getting a copy of the New Democratic Party of

British Columbia's press release dealing with this issue, and I intend

to read into the record the relevant quotation from that document. I've

also gone to the trouble of getting the reply of the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I will read this into the record and the members

can decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.

The news release is from the New Democratic Party, 517 East Broadway, dated

April 9, 1983. The relevant clause reads as follows: "If the NDP is elected,

it will scrap the Health ministry 1983-84 plan. There will be no $20 per day

hospital charges, as proposed by the Socreds." That's what they said.

Our Health Minister made the following statement: "It appears that the

NDP will do anything to try to get elected. They have such a lust for power

that they are prepared to ride on the fears of the sick and elderly to achieve

it." The release goes on to say: "Dave Barrett and Health critic Dennis

Cocke have set in motion a totally unnecessary and unfounded wave of concern

and fear among the people of this province. They have done it under the guise

of leaking draft legislation. The statement that there is draft legislation

to increase health user fees is an absolute lie, said Nielsen."

On the one hand we have the NDP in a press release saying there was

going to be a $20 a day fee; the Minister of Health says there was no

legislation prepared to increase the fees. And when we look at the

budget and at the facts we see the first increase in a number of years,

increasing the per-day user fee from $7.50 to $8.50, a 13 percent

increase, one dollar bill, and the first increase in a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I leave that subject to the discretion of the members of

the House to make their own decisions and draw their own conclusions.

Getting back to the Operation Solidarity bulletin — inflaming people

throughout this entire province, not telling them the facts about

economic conditions, and not giving any explanation whatsoever to the

masses at these rallies. They prefer to distribute literature that is

far from the truth. They say the Alcohol and Drug Commission is

abolished. The facts are that the answer is misleading. The alcohol and

drug program of the ministry continues unchanged. The estimates

provided $18,505,000 for this program for 1982-1983, and the estimates

for 1983-1984 are $18,676,000. I would submit to you that it is far

from the truth when they lead their people — the masses, the union

members and the unemployed — to believe that the Alcohol and Drug

Commission is abolished.

Operation Solidarity goes on to talk about the fact that 3,000

teaching positions are to be eliminated. Again, did they go on to

explain that from 1976 to 1982 the total cost of school district

budgets in B.C. rose by 19.34 percent in real terms? Did they try to

rationalize with these people what we're up against in trying to hold

the expenditures in line and work towards a balanced budget? No, they

prefer not to do that. Did they go on to explain to the masses or the

public that the annual per-pupil costs in British Columbia in 1983

range from a low of $2,983 in Delta to $3,920 in nearby New

Westminster, a variation of 31.4 percent? Do they explain that to the

people? No, they don't. They prefer to leave those kinds of facts over

on the sidelines. They would rather drum up the masses and act

irresponsibly. The members of the opposition are a part of that

irresponsible action in whipping up the current frenzy throughout the

province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

They talk about the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Code

being abolished. Many members have made statements about this

government taking away human rights in British Columbia. If doing away

with the Human Rights Commission means that we're not going to have any

more "Hunky Bill" stories in British Columbia, then I support that

action. If it means that we're not going to have people driving through

the interior investigating such trivialities as ads in newspapers

asking for a young man to work on weekends to pile wood or a lady

required for babysitting services and things of this nature, I support

the abolition of that particular commission.

Look at the facts of the matter and examine the activities of that

commission and see the vast amount of time that has been wasted — cases

taking two, three, four, five and as long as six years with no

resolution and no answer. I say that justice delayed is certainly

justice denied, as the Minister of

[ Page 919 ]

Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has stated on many occasions.

I suggest to you….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's another exaggeration.

MR. MICHAEL: It's another exaggeration, and it's very typical

of the opposition and very typical of your friends in Operation

Solidarity. Your friends the union leaders have made fantastic

contributions to your election campaigns. The Building and Construction

Trades Council gave $100,000 to the New Democratic Party coffers in

exchange for a whole raft of promises.

MR. CAMPBELL: How much?

MR. MICHAEL: The Building and Construction Trades Council

gave $100,000 to the central committee of the NDP in exchange for a

whole raft of promises from the NDP that if elected they would provide

for all of the government employees and sub-trades and that all the

contracts issued would be unionized. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a bad group which is mischievous and trying to stir up the

people in British Columbia without telling them all the facts or giving

them the full truth.

I could go through this entire document outlining Operation

Solidarity's falsehoods. They talk about the social services that are

going to be eliminated. "So far the following programs have been

eliminated and their staffs fired: child-abuse team, family and

children's services, mental retardation services, Consumer Affairs

counselling and Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters." Mr. Speaker, to one

degree or another these are all outright falsehoods. There are no

cutbacks to our services to the retarded. None whatsoever. But that's

the inference and falsehood contained in this document. They say the

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program is going to be eliminated. This

program has not been eliminated; it's still in place. Why do they

insist on these falsehoods? Why doesn't the opposition go and visit

their friends and tell them to quit telling these outright lies?

They talk about the ombudsman and legal aid budgets being slashed.

What are the facts? The facts are that the ombudsman's budget was

reduced, but it was only reduced by 8.01 percent. But does anyone tell

that part of the story? No. "They're slashed!" They make it sound like

it's out the window and we have no more ombudsman's office. They say

the legal aid budget is slashed. Well, if this is a slash, I don't

know. The 1983-84 legal aid budget was $13.4 million, the same amount

it was in 1982-83. Do they tell that part of the story? No.

Then they talk about the rentalsman. "With abolition of the

rentalsman's office, renters lose accessible and inexpensive services."

Do they go on to say that rent review remains in effect for one more

year for units up to $500 per month? Do they tell that story? Do they

tell them that if your increase exceeds 15 percent you still have the

right to appeal for that one-year period? Do they explain that the

government is extending the notification for rent increases for mobile

homes from three to six months in its bill? I don't find that in any of

these documents.

Do they go on to tell their people that apartment vacancies are the

highest level they have been in ten years? They're very silent on all

that kind of stuff. They go on to say in their document: "Renters may

be evicted without any reasons being given. It may be for racial,

religious, political or any other such reason."

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: I hear a member across the floor saying "It's

true." I would refer that member to

section 5 of the Human Rights Act,

which prohibits such forms of discrimination in tenancy premises.

Section 5 states:

"

(1) No person shall (

a) deny to a person or class of

persons the right to occupy as a tenant space that is in any way

represented as available for occupancy by a tenant, or (

b) discriminate

against a person or class of persons with respect to a term or

condition of the tenancy of the space because of the race, colour,

ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental

disability or sex of that person or class of persons, or of any other

person or class of persons."

Did he explain that to them? No. Did he explain to them that the

provision for three months' notice of eviction will be phased in

gradually over the one-year period of rent view, starting at nine

months on October 1, 1983, and declining to three months by April 1,

1984? I haven't seen any mention of those kinds of facts in any of

their bulletins or literature, Mr. Speaker.

They talked about public sector employees, and I quote:

"Employees can be fired at any time without being

given any reason whatever. This means the unspoken reason can be

anything: something said years ago, favouritism, political or religious

beliefs, race, a person's opinion…. This removes the most important

protection unions offer; through intimidation all other contract rights

disappear."

Mr. Speaker, I would submit they failed to tell their members that

with Bill 3 amendments, and the regulations which the government will

be bringing in shortly, the types of security based on the present

wording of contracts and seniority will be provided. I submit that the

people will be treated in a fair and equitable manner.

Section 7 of the new Human Rights Act, which replaces the previous

Human Rights Code, specifically prohibits layoffs or firing based on

race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political beliefs, religion,

marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, age, or criminal

conviction unrelated to the person's job. This legislation applies to

all B.C. employers, including the provincial government. The government

is honouring fully all existing collective agreements with its

employees.

Mr. Speaker. when dealing with the public service, the members

should be reminded that one person out of every four working in the

province of British Columbia is employed by the government. Twenty-five

percent of the entire workforce are government employees, whether they

be municipal, hospital, school teachers, provincial employees, federal

employees or what have you. What this government is trying to do is

bring that number down. We feel there are too many employees in the

public sector in relation to those who are producing in the private

sector.

It is important at this time to reflect on a couple of speeches

given in this House by members of the opposition. The member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) gave very

similar speeches, at

[ Page 920 ]

different times, regarding the downsizing of the

public sector. They went on to explain that by the time you look at the

wages being paid the public sector employee, then take into

consideration the amount of tax that person pays while working, and

take into consideration the cost of social assistance or unemployment

insurance, it doesn't make sense to lay people off. It almost sounds as

if, rather than this ratio being four to one, they would like it to be

two to two — fifty-fifty. Better yet, in their opinion, perhaps we

should have four public sector employees for every private sector

employee. If that theory holds true and if that's the kind of economics

they're trying to sell to the province of British Columbia, thank God,

Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party was elected on May 5 and not the

opposition.

In talking about public sector employees, I thought — again, through

a little bit of research — it would be wise to state to the House some

of the benefits enjoyed by those in the public sector. How many people

are aware that public sector employees enjoy a 35-hour week? How many

employees in the private sector enjoy a 35-hour week? The B.C.

government employees' contract calls for three weeks' paid vacation

after one year of service. I would ask you to examine union contracts

in the forest industry, the pulp industry and the mining industry — all

the prime producers of this province — and find out how many private

sector employees enjoy three weeks' paid vacation after one year of

service. I suggest you would find very few.

Let's go on to the dental plan of government employees. They have a

plan that provides for 100 percent of dental surgery and 60 percent for

dentures. None of the plans that I'm familiar with — and I'm familiar

with all in the forest industry — have the generous benefits laid out

here. Forest industry benefits are 80 percent, not 100 percent, paid

for by the plan. The government have 100 percent coverage, no cost

whatsoever.

MR. REID: Paid by the taxpayers.

MR. MICHAEL: Paid by the taxpayers.

Let's talk about group life insurance. In their plan the employer

pays the premium on the first $40,000 of insurance. Again I would ask:

how many people in the private sector enjoy benefits such as this?

Let's go on to income protection for illness and injury. They have a

plan that provides for six days a year at full pay and the remainder of

the time off, up to six months, at 75 percent of the person's normal

earnings. Do you know what it is in the forest industry? The primary

producers in this province don't get six days at full pay. If they're

sick, they're required to lose five days' pay before they collect one

penny. Then they go onto a plan that provides for 54 percent of the

base rate — never mind the highest rate, it's 54 percent of the base

rate of pay. The government employees have six days at full pay and 75

percent for six months. What happens after six months? I know what it

is in the forest industry: it's $1,200 a month, with certain

deductions. That's the maximum for everybody. The long-term plan of the

government is two-thirds basic pay. A person could be off up to age 65

and get two-thirds of his basic pay. I submit that the terms and

conditions that the government workers enjoy, as well as the 35-hour

week, are far in excess of those in the private sector.

[3:00]

Let's talk about death benefits — statutory benefits. In addition to

group insurance coverage, there is a death gratuity of one month's pay

for each year's service to a maximum of six months' pay. This is on top

of the life insurance. Who in the private sector has those types of

benefits?

Let's talk about retirement allowances for a while. An employee with

20 years of service is entitled to a special allowance of from one to

three months of basic salary depending on the years of service. Very

nice! I don't deny them this; it's wonderful. All these benefits are

wonderful. I wish we could all afford it, that's all.

Let's talk about the pension plan. I'm familiar with pension plans

in the forestry industry. An employee, after eight years of service in

the forest industry, gets $15 for each year of service, providing that

he's age 65. Let's say he's got his eight years in and it's $15 a year;

that's $120. If he retires at age 60, that's discounted by 18 percent.

The government plan goes on to say that an employee with at least ten

years of service receives 2 percent for each year of pensionable

service multiplied by the average of the five highest annual salaries

prior to retirement. I would suggest that you could check this plan

with every single pension plan in the private sector in the province of

British Columbia, and I would challenge you to find 5 percent, 3

percent, of the plans that are as good as, or better, than that enjoyed

by the government employees. The capper is that it's indexed. How many

private sector employees enjoy an indexed plan?

When the opposition speakers and the labour leaders and those in

Solidarity meet with the government employees, how many of them have

ever bothered to explain these benefits to them for five minutes? How

many have spent two minutes explaining to them the fact that there was

a Treasury Board order — Order No. 57 — which was passed by this

government on July 9, 1980? How many of them have explained the

generosity of this government since that time in dealing with employees

who happen to be displaced because they were extra on the workforce? I

would suggest that at all of the rallies held in the province of

British Columbia not one minute or one second of all the time has been

spent in talking about the generosity of the government in dealing with

employees since July 1980.

Let's talk about one of the sections from Treasury Board order No.

57. The

section is entitled: "Retraining for Supernumerary Employees."

Item 14 says: "Employees selected for training under this part shall

receive their basic pay for the period of training." Compare that to

the private sector, Mr. Speaker. I think this government has been more

than fair.

Item 15 reads:

"Employees selected for training in accordance with

this policy shall be paid a monthly allowance as agreed to by the

principals as total reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, provided

such training is not available within 35 miles of their permanent or

normal place of residence. No other expenses will be reimbursed. The

employer will pay costs of tuition fees, examination fees and required

texts."

MR. REID: That's fair.

MR. MICHAEL: That's more than fair, Mr. Speaker. But how much

time has been spent at these rallies explaining that to the people?

It's wonderful legislation. But who's taken the time to explain it?

Let's talk about the people affected, the people referred to as "

supernumerary employees" — extra employees who are asked to take early

retirement. What has the government

[ Page 921 ]

done in this particular instance? Again, I read from Treasury Board order No. 57, item 16:

"A regular employee who is aged 55 or older and has

completed ten years of service as a regular on the date to be

applicable for this purpose and who:

"a. is offered a position involving a relocation;

"b. is offered a position at his-her present location, but at a lower classification;

"c. is declared to be supernumerary; or

"d. refuses job offers as outlined in sections 5, 8

and 9 of this policy "may choose to take early retirement within the

time limits established for that purpose and be entitled to recognition

of additional pensionable service under the Pension (Public Service)

Act based on the following formula…."

If a person had 10 years of service they would get an extra 2.5

years of pension credits; if they had 15 years of service, they would

get an extra 3.5 years of pension credits; if they had 20 years of

service, they would get an extra 4.5 years of pension credits; and if

they had 25 years of service, they would get an extra 5 years of

pension credits. "Benefits under this

section would not exceed the time

that would be necessary to reach the maximum retirement age."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and I submit to the opposition that

government has been more than fair with this legislation, with this

Treasury Board order No. 57. It has been a legal document since July 9,

It goes on to say: "Payout of sick leave. (17.) Where an employee

aged 55 or older opts for severance pay or early retirement he-she will

also qualify, in accordance with the master agreement, for an amount

equal to 50 percent of accumulated sick leave credits on the date of

severance or retirement." Mr. Speaker, who in the private sector — what

company, what firm, what business — would be prepared to pay 50 percent

of accumulated sick pay on retirement? The government has done it and,

I think, has been more than generous.

They talk about severance pay in this document. I think it's interesting reading this into the record. 18 reads as follows:

"Within 30 days of:

"a. being informed that he-she is supernumerary to the ministry;

"b. refusing job offers in accordance with sections 5,

8 and 9, a regular employee who has been continuously employed will be

entitled to resign with severance pay based upon years of service as

follows:

"i. for the first year of completed employment three weeks' current salary;

"ii. for the second year of completed employment, three weeks' current salary;

"iii. for each completed year thereafter one-half month's current salary.

"The employee will not receive an amount greater than

six months' current salary nor will an employee receive more severance

pay than he-she would have received in salary had he-she remained

employed from the date of severance to age 65."

Mr. Speaker, the document goes on to talk about setting up

arrangements with the union, and I think it's worthwhile again to read

this into the record to show the way this was handled, in consultation

with the union. The union is well aware of this document, but I suggest

that it has not been revealed to the members at any of the rallies

being held throughout British Columbia. Item 19 reads:

"The specific application of this policy to individual

ministry reorganizations as it affects employees whose positions may

have been declared redundant or whose positions have been relocated,

and the time limits for job offers without relocation, shall be the

subject of discussion between the employer and the union, taking into

consideration the number of employees involved, the manner in which

they are involved, the extent of the reorganization and the

establishment level of the ministry."

The document concludes with No. 20, headed, "Supervising Joint Committee," which says:

"A special joint committee composed of equal

representatives of the union and the employer, with a chairman

acceptable to both sides, shall be charged with the

interpretation of

this policy and the resolution of problems associated with its

application to specific ministry reorganizations."

My information is that all the cases handled by this committee have

been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. But how many of

these points have been explained to the public of British Columbia? How

many points have been explained about how fair this government has been

and how fair it will continue to be with the employees caught in this

economic downturn?

It's well known that things are tough all over. Economies are down

in Europe. Japan is not experiencing the dynamic economic upturn that

it's been used to for many years in succession. The United States is

just coming out of a quite severe recession. Things have been tough in

Canada and British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you and to

the members of the opposition that you give this government two more

years. Give it the opportunity to put its restraint program and its

policies into practice, and you'll look back two years from now and say

what a tremendous job the government has done in the province of

British Columbia.

To give you an idea of some of the things that are going on in other countries, let me read an

article from Time

magazine, August 15, 1983, on the subject of state budgets. I'd like to

read into the record quotations from this

article about our neighbours

to the south:

"'If we continue to borrow from the future to pay for

the present, we risk destroying the present.' 'If we're not willing to

face up to more taxes and make the decision soon — we can kiss the

recovery goodbye.'

"Eleven Democratic Governors signed a letter to the

Vice-President that complained: 'We are weary of self-serving

statements calling for reduced spending and taxes without

public-serving statements of how to accomplish such things.'

"The combination of the recent recession, cutbacks in

federal grants to the states and the balanced-budget requirement in

nearly all state constitutions has forced many Governors to take

politically difficult belt-tightening steps. In the past 18 months 32

states both increased taxes and cut spending. In 1983, thus far, 27

states have approved across-the-board budget cuts, up from 17. Hiring

limits have been imposed by 42 states, government workers laid off by

22. Between January 1981 and March 1983, 11 states increased their

income taxes, 19 their general sales

[ Page 922 ]

taxes, 18 their alcohol tax — Utah raised its levy three times

in 26 months — and 14 their cigarette tax. Increases in gasoline and motor fuel

taxes occurred in 31 states. Both higher income taxes and sales taxes were passed

by Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Jersey and Nebraska.

"The Governors fear that more such drastic remedies

may lie ahead, with unknown consequences for their political futures.

Lamented Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander: 'It doesn't matter if

you're Republican or Democrat, the deficit is too large.'"

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the government of British

Columbia will be proven to be among the leaders, as we were the leaders

in implementing a restraint program some 18 months ago. We will go down

in the record as being among the leaders in cutting back the government

service, to provide a more economic government in the province of

British Columbia. Mark my words, two years from now the public will

thank us for the bold, tough decisions that we're making today.

[3:15]

MR. MACDONALD: We're in the dog days of August, debating a budget that should have been presented before March 31.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And we're having a nice bit of repartee from

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) in the corner. I don't know

what we'd do without him.

I want to say a few things before I say something else about what

was said by the speaker who has just taken his seat. He said we're in

trouble all over the world — I think he was speaking of the western

world — and so we are. Governments are firing people. There's

unemployment, and unbelievable hunger and deprivation, in some of the

big cities of the world. That is not a social democratic plot or the

result of failure of democratic socialist policies; it is the direct

and very serious and grave result of the failure of the policies of

people like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and Bill Bennett….

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank goodness for strong leaders.

MR. MACDONALD: We hear it from the corner again: "Thank

goodness for strong leaders." It is a major tragedy for the western

world that while some of the free democracies of the western world have

embarked on social democracy, a planned economy of plenty, and jobs and

fair distribution of the product, the United States is showing the most

alarming signs of a rich aristocracy of unbelievable wealth and

privilege on the one hand, and long lines of hungry people outside St.

Glide United Church in the city of San Francisco: people who want to

work and can't work. We see in this budget today the same tendencies

that I am talking about. You can call it Reaganism, for want of a

better word. We are seeing a budget that robs the poor to reward the

rich, and I will give examples of what I am talking about in the few

short remarks I want to make today.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), at one point of his

remarks, said: "What's a dollar a day?" He was referring to the

increase in actual figures from $11.50 to $12.75 for extended long-term

care. That increase is $1.25 per day; it is closer to between $40 and

$50 a month. It does not mean very much to a great many of the people

of British Columbia, but it means an awful lot to those near the

poverty line. That extra $1.25 means an awful lot to the people who

depend upon public services, who are retired, who are trying to get by

on an inadequate pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Half a pack of cigarettes.

MR. MACDONALD: I hear from the comer that it is half a packet

of cigarettes. There is no heart whatsoever in this budget or in the

kinds of comments we are hearing from the Social Credit members in that

corner of the House. They do not understand what $1.25 per day extra

load means in terms of want of amenities to a great many of our

citizens in the province of British Columbia.

The budget does nothing about the pockets of privilege that exist in

our society. There is no movement toward job creation in a planned and

orderly way, or fair distribution of the bountiful resources that are

available if properly used. I would like to mention two examples of how

absolutely absurd this budget is even in terms of restraint. The member

who took his seat mentioned the rentalsman's office. There is a side to

that office, which the NDP set up in 1974, where all that multiplicity

of disputes between landlords and tenants could be solved through the

rentalsman's office in an expeditious and inexpensive way. Dispute

resolution was extremely successful, given the multitude and complexity

of the problems involved.

In this budget we see the whole of that burden of dispute resolution

being thrown over to the courts at what will undoubtedly be a greater

expense to the taxpayer in terms of the extra judges that will have to

be provided, the courtroom costs, the clerks in the court, the

paperwork, the technicalities, the lawyers. Is that a saving, or is it

a false economy?

The government says that we have saved because we have abolished the

motor vehicle testing stations. They have saved, and they are proud of

this because they are downsizing government, and they have been able to

terminate no less than 150 employees in the motor vehicle testing

stations. Those employees, it's true, will join the ranks of the

unemployed. They may, I hope, in time find alternative employment.

There will be a great deal of suffering among their families; they may

very well have to relocate and tear up their roots where their children

happen to be in school. How can that, when we look at the good of

British Columbia as a whole, be boasted of as a saving? What will be

the cost of releasing faulty cars onto the highways of the province,

causing accidents through mechanical defect? What extra bills will flow

into ICBC, resulting, in terms of their payments out, in additional

auto insurance premiums to the people of the province? What will be the

cost in death and injury on the highways of this province, caused by

having faulty cars that have not been properly checked running around

on our highways? I know many citizens of the province will make sure

their cars are in order, but vehicle stations are to catch those who

don't, and there are lots of them.

Quite apart from the human costs involved in death and injury to the

people concerned, what are the actual bottomline costs set out in this

budget? A saving of 150 people,

[ Page 923 ]

thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment, and very

substantial additional costs loaded upon our hospital and medical

services. That is not an economy at all.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Apart from the false economies in the budget, let me mention two

cases of the budget being so without heart that it is difficult for us

to call it a budget that can be supported on the basis of any ethical

considerations. You had a CIP program which gave disabled young people

an opportunity to go to a workshop. I know one paraplegic who worked

about 20 hours a week at the Richmond opportunities centre making

labelling tags, which are used in industry for various products. He got

the $50 over his welfare, which covered his bus fare to and from and

the incidental expenses of working. He wasn't really gaining anything

more except within himself, because it gave him a sense of self-worth

to be able to do something, to make a contribution. It gave him an

opportunity to hone his job skills, limited as they were because of his

disability. How can anybody, without using the word "callous," explain

the cutting of that kind of program, when the same government that did

it cut out succession duties on rich estates, at a cumulative cost to

the treasury from the time it was done in 1977 of at least $500 million

by this time, money passed on to heirs to perpetuate the inequalities

that are rife in our society? Yet in spite of that, in spite of all the

other pockets of privilege involved, $50 comes off some of these young

people who wanted to work and be given that opportunity.

I think — and I won't go into too many details about it — that the

elimination of the child abuse team is something that cannot be

defended on the basis of any kind of ethical considerations. It's all

very well for us in this House, many of whom have a pretty comfortable

life, to think of our society out there in terms of a mom and a pop and

— what is it — 1.7 children. Happy family units. But there are also,

with the stresses and strains of modern life, a great many broken

family units; there are a great many abused children; a great many

severely retarded or disturbed children; a great many battered wives.

And to cut out that kind of team, the only place they could turn for

assistance, for someone with skills, for counselling to try to effect

reconciliation…. And if all else failed, for the very life and health

of the child, they could take that child into the custody of the

superintendent of child welfare. The only place that many of these

families in trouble had to turn to, particularly the women and

children, were these teams, and the government that eliminates that

kind of thing, while the other kinds of privileges are allowed to roam

free in our society, is a government without cause and without heart.

I recognize, in talking about Reaganism, that the democratic

socialist alternative is a little bit on the defensive these days, and

yet I'm rather bucked up to think of Italy, the latest addition to the

now eight social democratic governments, although the socialist

presence there is just a foot in the door; there's a socialist premier

but he doesn't have a majority in that government. Australia, Sweden,

some of the others — while this social democratic alternative is on the

defensive at the moment, through Reaganism and everything else that's

happening in the world, and the greed and fear that's out there, it is

by no means to be counted out of the struggle in the next short while.

I know it's important for us in the NDP to say: "What do we stand

for?" Someone I met very fleetingly was Tony Crosland, who died three

or four years ago. Before his death he was sitting around with his

friend Roy Hattersley, who is now running for the leadership of the

British Labour Party, playing a word game. The game was, how do you

define socialism in one sentence? Crosland came up with: "Socialism is

about the pursuit of equality, the protection of liberty and the

understanding that until we are all equal, we shall not be free." I'm a

realist. When you talk about equality, I can't think in the terms of

George Bernard Shaw, of equal salaries or wages for everybody, because

given the human being that we know, we're a long way from that. But the

rampant inegalitarianism of the world in which we live today is a

lasting affront to all of us.

[3:30]

Back in the 1930s we had a commission under Harry Stevens, I think

it was, on something called price spreads. We don't give any thought

anymore, or we don't seem to, to what I call income spreads: to the

vast discrepancies between those in our society who have too much, very

often unearned, and those who have too little. But it's time we did

begin to think in those terms. Sometimes, when you see somebody who's

very well off and drawing a big salary, such as $91,000 as the

administrator for a city like Vancouver, you say "fine." But you must

remember that our society is like a poker game. There are only so many

dollars in the game, and what one person wins, another person loses.

Oh, you can correct the game by inflating, but then everybody loses,

and the poor usually lose more in that situation than those who are

well off. But basically it's a zero sum proposition.

Where you have pockets of privilege, you have losers too. We have a

great many losers, even here in this very bountiful province of British

Columbia. I'll look at the private sector and give a couple of examples

of what I'm talking about.

There was a nice little place, Crofton Manor, I think on West 41 St.

It had 162 units and it was a rental unit for elderly citizens. It was

sold by Neil B. Cook at a pre-tax profit of $6 million. He sold the

whole thing to Skalbania for $10 million. The reason he was able to

make such a good windfall on this old people's retirement home was that

they gave the old people six months' notice. They were going to convert

it into condominiums, and I've think they've done that. He sold it to

Skalbania; then Skalbania listed this housing on the market for $16

million. That kind of windfall comes out of other peoples' pockets,

although sometimes the connection seems very remote.

When the cabinet of the province of British Columbia releases land

from the agricultural land reserve by the stroke of a pen, and land

that was assessed and paying taxes on the basis of, say, $400,000

suddenly becomes worth $16 million — I'm just picking a figure out of

the air; sometimes it could be more than that — you have money that is

going toward privilege at the expense of fair dealing among all of the

citizens of the community.

We have income spreads in the public domain — and I'm going to

mention the medical domain — which are totally unjustified too. I could

mention the kinds of abuses that are taking place in law where a

custody case took 95 days in court. I know it got out of control, but

nevertheless it's typical of what's happening. Imagine the cost to the

public of solving something which was certainly not better solved by

the lapse of 95 days, with lawyers and experts on both sides, and all

that brain-scanning. I see a contingency fee of $350,000 in an

[ Page 924 ]

accident case and I say to myself that that is not

justified in the circumstances. Nobody could put in that many hours of

work even at $350 an hour.

Some of the salaries in the field of education are out of line with

what ordinary people make working for a living in our society. The

spread is too high. I'm thinking of school superintendents. I could

give examples where the school districts are overstaffed and top-heavy

at the top, and teacher-aide poor at the bottom. Teacher aides are

people who should not be on welfare or on UIC; they should be able to

make a living. In other words, there should be more job sharing and

more equity in terms of the returns that people get.

In the medical field the payments from our Medical Services Plan are

up 22.9 percent — these are two medical practitioners in the year

ending March 31, 1983 — over the previous year in a period when many

people were suffering dire privation. Many others were on UIC or trying

to get by because of unemployment. Some of the rewards under that

Medical Services Plan going to top doctors are so astronomical as to

amount to social larceny. The gross payouts from the plan, which do not

include the little blue books — such things as services to the Workers'

Compensation Board, accident reports that are made available in

lawyers' offices and so forth — are topped by an eye specialist who

makes $684,000 in this time of so-called restraint. That was a 54

percent increase over the previous year. We're told that the doctors'

offices consume 30 to 40 percent in overhead. I've run an office myself

— it wasn't a medical office; it was a law office — and I know that the

overhead goes down as the income increases in terms of the percentage

of overhead to income. I think 30 to 40 percent is way out of whack.

I can think of some specialists — and I pay tribute to them in terms

of their professional skills — like skilled surgeons who have a nurse

and a phone, but their overhead is absorbed by the public. Some of them

make anywhere from $250,000, $275,000 to $300,000 a year. If money were

in bountiful supply, fine. But why is that kind of a thing allowed to

happen when other people are in desperate poverty? I don't think it

should. I know when you scan the blue books, which report the gross

medical incomes, you also find some, mostly general practitioners, who

are probably making too little. Their gross might be $80,000 or $90,000

a year; their overhead is reasonably high; their hours of work, fuelled

by a great deal of dedication, are very lengthy. So I don't complain in

most of those cases; in fact, I pay tribute to them.

But at the same time, with the kind of medical expenses we are

having, it seems imperative that we begin to look at new medical models

— to look beyond the fee-for-service medical care and begin to look at

clinics, preventive in nature where positive health and well-being can

be promoted, and illness can be prevented before it becomes too

expensive. Here we could employ — because this is going to be terribly

important in the future — more of our people, paramedicals doing useful

work and receiving appropriate training, and not leave it all to

qualified physicians and surgeons. Our public health services, which

are treated now like the poor cousins in our health planning, could be

upgraded with a view to the promotion of general well-being and public

health.

Dr. Jory has had his hearing on charges which have been set out in

the newspapers, and I make no comment as to whether the charges are

justified, whether service was needlessly supplied, whether the service

was adequate, or whether the rewards were justified in this particular

case. But that kind of examination into the medical system should have

been held in public. I do not know any of the ordinary people of this

province who can have their trial, whether it's a civil or any other

kind of trial, behind closed doors. The Jory case was one where the

public, who foot the bills in this medical scheme of things, had every

reason to be concerned and interested, and to see what kind of probing

and examination was taking place. Trials and hearings of that kind

behind closed doors are, in my opinion, not called for and are matters

of great public importance and interest.

I am shortly going to take my place, Mr. Speaker. The Premier

sitting there will be relieved, and so will I, and the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and my colleagues. But to come back to what

I was saying earlier, the old solutions are not working: priming the

pump to try to create employment and then, when inflation rises,

running up the interest rates and depressing the economy, creating

price stability…. The rate of inflation has been brought down very

substantially, at the expense of employment and the general

impoverishment of the whole of our society. Those old free enterprise

solutions are not working anymore.

What we have to turn to is something that we can no longer ignore.

We have to think in terms of social planning and planned income

policies. I don't mean some kind of governmental czar sitting there

with a sharp pencil checking everybody's salary, but I mean in terms of

general planning for the fair distribution of income. I think there

will have to be general planning if we are ever to absorb and give

useful employment to the young people who are pouring out of our high

schools. I think we have no alternative but to look toward things like

work-sharing. I do not see any alternative but to follow in the general

direction of the social democratic policies, which, whatever is said by

right-wing rhetoricians and the rest, have been successful in Europe in

holding inflation down to at least half the level of ours, in keeping

their unemployment rate down to at least half the level it has been in

North America. All of this talk of the Premier's — which he means, I

suppose, in good faith — that we have to downsize, to privatize and to

get rid of public servants, more people, if they're in the public

service, into the ranks of the unemployed, as if you've accomplished

something by that, as if, in the case of the 150 people in the motor

vehicle testing stations, you've accomplished something by having them

unemployed when they were doing a useful job and saving dollars in the

total picture of things….

I have the terrible feeling that many of the people in the

government and in the Social Credit Party say that for every job lost

in the public service there's a social gain. It may not be a social

gain at all. I hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael)

stand up here and say that they have severance pay, a pension plan,

etc., as if there was something wrong with that. Is that not the goal —

to give working people who do the useful, hard work of society enough

to send their children to school properly clothed and with a future, to

be able to send them on to college and a good living? Don't sound so

sad about somebody who's making enough to bring up a family. That's the

way it sounds to me. You seem glad when a job is lost in the public

service, and you say that's a victory for whatever you might call it.

MR. REID: Not so.

[3:45]

MR. MACDONALD: You seem glad.

Anyway, I sit down. I have faith in the social democratic future.

[ Page 925 ]

MR. REID: Have faith in Social Credit.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no faith whatsoever in Social Credit. I

have no faith whatsoever in the kind of monetarism that is being

followed under the leadership of people like Ronald Reagan. I do have

faith in a planned economy which can produce employment for all on a

shared basis in some cases, with a fair distribution of the product,

and which can use the abundant resources that nature has made available

to the human race to produce an era of prosperity for all.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. second member for Vancouver East made an

interesting comment. He said that social democracy was on the defensive

these days. The main reason why it's on the defensive is twofold: in

social democracies, or in democracies which have known socialism,

there's a high level of both unemployment and inflation. Reaganomics,

Thatcherism, monetarism: if they have a substantial difference in

message for these times, it is that at least you can cure the inflation

problem; you can do something about inflation. You may not be able to

solve the employment problem overnight, but you can lower the rate of

inflation. That has a social message as well, because inflation is

probably the most savage way to reduce the incomes of many people, the

great majority of whom are relatively helpless in those circumstances —

the elderly, those on low incomes or, worse still, unemployed. So a

society in which both those evils are tackled is perhaps the ideal one.

A society in which, first, inflation is tackled effectively and,

subsequently, unemployment is at least a society better than those in

the so-called social democracies, which have become unpopular around

the world, which have suffered from both unemployment and savage

inflation.

Basically, the message has been the message of the socialists and

social democrats to the people at election time. It is this: we, your

government, ourselves as government, can spend our way out of

unemployment. They imply they can spend their way out of inflation,

which of course doesn't happen, because printing money, if it does

anything, reduces the purchasing power of the currency of the land and

adds to the fires of inflation. Inflation is typical of social

democracies, and with inflation all the upset and the transfer of

incomes, which really defies the objective of a social democrat, and

that is equality.

The hon. member said that you will never have freedom in any country

until you have equality, until everyone is equal, until we're all

clones. We're not identical one with the other. We're not equal in

every way — physically, intellectually, in appearance, in terms of

background, whatever. There are bound to be differences. And God forbid

that we ever reach the time when we have a government in this land

which believes that we must be equal in any way, have equality imposed

from on high. That's not freedom as I understand it. It's not freedom

at all.

We've got a problem in this country; there's a problem in the

western world. We've got problems of unemployment, admittedly, and

we've got problems of inflation. One of the reasons we still have a

measure of inflation, although the rate of inflation has been going

down, is that there is still a substantial gap in government between

income and spending.

In the United States the Reagan administration is spending $120 for every $100

it's taking in. It has a 20 percent deficit. In Ottawa the deficit is even

larger. It is of the order of 25 percent. In this province, until very recently,

we had a balanced budget. We spent $100 for every $100 we took in in income.

In the great majority of states in the United States, they are required by law

to balance their budgets. When income falls off, when tax revenues flowing into

the state treasuries decline, spending has to decline in line with that decline

in income. We are fortunate here; we're not tied by law to our level of

income. Our income has levelled off in some areas. Resource income, for example,

has fallen by half; it has declined substantially. Our spending curve has continued

upwards. Our income curve has flattened. As a result we now have a deficit.

We had a modest deficit two years ago, a deficit in the last fiscal

year of the order of $1 billion, and have a projected deficit of the

order of $1.5 billion. That $1.5 billion represents a 20 percent

shortfall. In this year that we're living through right now, we are

spending $120 provincially for every $100 we're taking in. We've

caught, momentarily I hope, the disease which has been common in Ottawa

for years — certainly since the early 1970s — and has been general

worldwide, has been typical of the social democrat or socialist

countries. We have to work our way out of this problem. We have to

narrow the gap. It'll be narrowed, because revenues will rise as the

economy of the western world improves, as our export markets improve

because the economy of the United States improves over the next 18

months to two years.

So our income curve, which has flattened, will begin to turn upward.

But we're spending at a rate which cannot continue. We've got increases

in expenditures which we cannot fund.

I really can't believe much of what I read in the press these days.

I can't believe much of what I see presented by the media. They're

talking as if we have in this province an uncaring — right-wing, they

call it — punitive administration. But what in fact do we see for this

year? What do we see in the budget we're examining today? We see

spending up again another 12 percent — not a flat expenditure relative

to last year but a 12 percent increase. If we allow a couple of

percentage points for this slowing inflation trend, we have a real

outlay by the provincial government which is up of the order of 10

percent.

Where is that money going? It's going to increased spending on

health care, increased spending on hospital construction and equipment,

increased spending on education, and a major increase in expenditure in

the area of human resources or welfare. Now admittedly there are more

people working through their unemployment insurance, etc., but can you

believe there is more health care out there, there is more money for

education out there, there is more money flowing out to people in need?

You wouldn't believe that if you read much of the press of recent days.

There's a certain amount of hysteria. There's hysteria particularly in

one area. It is the area of the public service, where there is an

intention to do some trimming; not dramatic trimming but trimming of

some order. One person in four in this province is a public servant.

One employed person out of four employed persons is a public servant.

There has been a declared intention to cut back.

But clearly the cutback doesn't apply to all of that one in four,

that 250,000. There isn't a cutback in health care. There are 50,000

employees or more. There's no cutback there. There are more jobs there

because of the increased spending.

[ Page 926 ]

There is no substantial cutback in education, because education

spending's up. Education salaries and wages are up. There may be some

trimming in the primary and secondary school areas because our school

population is continuing to drop, but I'd be surprised if the number of

teachers out there was less than the number out there last year.

There's worry and concern because their role in those particular

categories of education is being diminished by demographics. But still,

there's no major layoff contemplated in the area of education; there is

none in health. There is increased spending in public works. There is

increased spending on public transit, for example. This increase in

spending has to add up to more jobs, because 80 percent of that money

pays salaries and wages. So automatically the budget means more

employment on balance rather than less. The cutbacks in employment are

in the old-style ministries, the ones we have known to be around for a

long time. There may be a cutback of a few thousand out of 250,000.

Allowing for all this additional spending out there, there is an

upside as well as a downside, and that upside is of the order of 10,000

or 15,000, so the downside losing 2,000 or 3,000 public servants — many

of whom have only been employed for a matter of months or a year or two

or three and many who will be retiring anyway — is not sufficient to

offset the stimulative job-producing impact of the budget. That is an

important message to get across: this budget is in deficit: this budget

spends more than income: this budget is producing more jobs. On balance

there are more jobs out there this year as a result of this budget than

there were last. You can't call it a negative budget; you can't call it

a budget which is punitive to people on balance. That is certainly true.

I would like to turn briefly to the income side. I don't share all

of the pessimism of the Minister of Finance, but understandably he has

to be careful in a period like this. He must be conservative in his

projections of income. If he comes in with figures which turn out to be

somewhat on the low side, at least he is in a happy position of being

able to announce quarter after quarter that income is up and that he

has budgeted cautiously and in such a manner that the province doesn't

have to borrow any more than was otherwise necessary.

Just a moment on borrowing. For the first time in our history a

large chunk of our deficit is money going to pay interest on recent

debt. About a quarter of the projected deficit is earmarked to pay

interest on this debt. It is a large amount — of the order of $150

million. Think of other countries, of other economies and think of the

federal deficit. A very large proportion of the national budget of this

country now goes to pay interest on accumulated debts. They have

accumulated over many years; we have accumulated debt essentially over

the last 18 months. Hopefully this deficit position will disappear, our

debt problem will phase out, and interest payments won't continue to be

a sizeable item in our income and expenditure account for this province.

[4:00]

I believe that now is the wrong time to substantially increase

taxes. Certainly we must practise restraint in spending, but I believe

that at this moment in time to increase taxes that will upset the

confidence in business is the wrong thing to do.

Let us remember that our B.C. taxes on business are already high relative to

those in competing provinces like Alberta and Ontario. They are much higher

than similar taxes on industry and commerce in neighbouring areas in the United

States — Washington State, Oregon and so on. We already have the highest corporate

income tax — that is the tax on large firms — anywhere in Canada. It is 16 percent

of taxable income here in B.C., 15 percent in Ontario, 14 percent in Saskatchewan

and 11 percent in Alberta. It is 5½ percent in Quebec, compared to 16 percent

here in B.C.

Clearly we tax industry heavily. We tax large industry more than

other provinces. Our small business rate is sensibly placed at 8

percent. It is marginally below the rates charged in Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and the maritime provinces, but our small-business rate is

well above Alberta's rate of 5 percent, Quebec's small-business rate of

3 percent and Ontario's, where the provincial corporation tax as a

result of recent budgets has been held at zero until, now, January 1,

1985. We discriminate in favour of small business by charging a half

rate as compared to large business, but we still charge higher rates on

all business, including small business, than most of the other

provinces of Canada.

I was glad to see that the budget has now put a cap on the water

rental tax. It will keep our hydro power rates from going up for the

rest of this year through to 1984. This is certainly good news to our

power-intensive industries, those doing much of the resource-processing

in the province, those exporting semi-processed forest products and

mineral products to other parts of the world.

I'm glad to hear that the property tax exemption on machinery and

equipment paid by small firms will also be raised. It will help small

entrepreneurs throughout the province. Still, it doesn't give them an

advantage, because this tax is the exception rather than the rule in

other provinces in Canada, and a rare exception in the United States.

We shouldn't tax capital anyway, especially when it's used in

production, because production means jobs. We're concerned about

unemployment.

One move that concerns me very much — and I have had discussions

about it with the Minister of Finance and some of his staff — is the

redefinition of our provincial tax on ships' bunker oil. The minister

is changing this tax to an ad valorem tax of 20 percent, enough to

drive all of our ships' bunkering business to U.S. ports or overseas.

It means a virtual end to bunkering in the port of Vancouver, and it

writes finis to plans which the private sector has had for ships'

bunkering in our new and expanding port of Prince Rupert. That's wrong.

I hope the minister will do what he said he may do: that is, to take a

good, hard look at this particular tax. It will certainly drive

business away. It will prevent new business which we might otherwise

have had in northwestern B.C., and that certainly would be too bad.

I think we should do away with the corporation capital tax. I for

one have said in three election campaigns that this was likely to be

the outcome of the election of a Social Credit government. I hope this

comes about shortly. There is really no reason why we have a tax of

that kind. Essentially it's a tax on production. It's a tax on

investment. It's a tax not only on plant and equipment but also on

inventories and on borrowing. A firm may be small, but if it has to lay

out $1 million or more for inventory, it attracts this tax. Regardless

of whether or not that firm subsequently makes a profit or is able to

make a go of its business, it still pays a tax — one that is unusual

and rarely charged in other parts of the country.

The outlook is encouraging. We see recovery being reported generally

throughout the western world. There is a decline in unemployment and an

increase in purchasing power. There is an increase in spending in the

United States

[ Page 927 ]

and throughout western Europe. Recently the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that in its

view the Canadian economy would recover faster and more markedly than

that of any other country in the entire western world. That's the

opinion of observers who have had some success in making forecasts. If

Canada is recovering more rapidly than other parts of the western

world, certainly British Columbia will lead the Canadian recovery. It

has done so in the past, and there's every reason why it should in the

future. We should see an improvement not only in the revenues of the

government but in employment, in more jobs.

There are several

tangible reasons for being optimistic about improved employment in the

province. One has to do with railway investment. I think it is likely

now that the Crow rate legislation will be passed in Ottawa by

Christmas, assum ing it's passed; I gather that both the Liberal

government and the official opposition, the Conservatives, will support

it in a somewhat amended form by then. We'll have in this province the

equivalent of a northeast coal project every year for the next

half-dozen years. It will fit in nicely with the northeast coal

investment. The manpower on northeast coal will be able to move down to

the CNR and CPR expansion, the tunnelling which the CPR is going to do,

the trackdoubling, the straightening of track and so on. The railways

are talking about many hundreds of millions of dollars a year being

spent in British Columbia over a period of time. So here is a

sustaining type of investment which will keep our heavy construction

industries occupied through the middle 1980s.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Well, that one is a 90 percent probability; that's not facetious.

Another

megaproject which will come off in the late 1980s, with preparatory

work beginning in the next year or two, will relate to the export of

natural gas in liquefied form overseas. That gas won't be entirely from

British Columbia; indeed, most of it will come from northern Alberta

and per haps in the longer term from the Beaufort Sea area. But

that gas will go out of the port of Prince Rupert to Japan and other

countries. It will require the construction of a major pipeline system

across British Columbia and of course the construction of liquefaction

facilities in the Prince Rupert area. That's a multibillion-dollar

project. It's a project of a type that will have an important spinoff

in terms of employment in the province. I think there's a 50 or 60

percent probability that it will happen, given the right political and

other climate in this country.

Another project that I would like to see go ahead is one which has

been advocated in modified form by the Aluminium Co. of Canada. That

great Canadian firm should have an opportunity to do more

resource-processing in this province — in this case, processing a

resource imported from other parts of the world, bauxite, and where

possible some further fabrication of light-metal products in the

northeastern comer of the province. The Aluminium Co. of Canada has

been doing its best to try to sell its project to the people of the

north. It's having some success. It must tailor it in such a way that

the unfavourable impact on the environment is minimized. It's another

megaproject. It's a big one. It can mean continuing jobs, after it's

completed, running into the hundreds. All of these jobs involve high

rates of pay — big income consequences for the province.

In the longer term, I think we're going to be seeing some of the

coal wastes in the Kootenays utilized. We've got many resources which

in the fullness of time and given a relatively free-trade environment —

good relations between countries…. We'll see job-producing

projects here — good ones. clean ones, certainly ones that pay well and

will employ a lot of British Columbians. The outlook in the long term —

that is, beyond the next few months — is good. The outlook is excellent

if the essential, broad-brush programs of the government continue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for the budget. Obviously I have

reservations about the proposed tax on bunker oil; I would like to have

seen the capital tax removed; they're reservations of that kind. But I

don't see how the Minister of Finance really could have done anything

else.

The opposition is saying: "Don't restrain, or at least don't cut

back the kinds of programs we've come to like. Admittedly they're

programs introduced by your government, but we've come to like them. We

don't want them cut back at all." The vast majority of those programs,

certainly the people programs, are being expanded in dollar and, on

balance, in employment terms. I can't see how the opposition can vote

against the spending side of the budget. On the income side, there is

very little we can do about it until the economy recovers. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to vote for the budget with, admittedly, a few

reservations, but it's the only budget we could have under the

circumstances.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have a chance to make

a contribution in opposition to the government's budget, if you wish to

refer to it as a budget. We really haven't had a budget in this

province for some time — I think it's been about a year and a half.

It's interesting that the government is trying to tell us that

they're on a restraint program, when they're budgeting for something

like $1.5 billion that they don't have. So much for their fiscal acumen

and management of the economy.

Before I proceed to talk about the budget, I would like to reflect a

little bit on the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia

today. I've been here a long time, and I hope to be here a little

longer. During the rally a few weeks ago, a number of public sector

employees and others in the community joined to protest this budget and

to protest some 26 pieces of legislation that the government had

introduced along with the budget. They were very disturbed by the

thrust of the budget, the completely new approaches by the government

as far as its mandate was concerned and the kinds of programs that it

was attempting to implement. In fact, there were some 26,000 people

standing on the lawn in front of the Legislature, and they requested

that the Premier give them a few minutes of his valuable time, and he

was unable to do so. This was only a month or so after he had just won

an overwhelming mandate in the May 5 election.

I notice there are a number of members in the back benches who are thumping their desks, obviously applauding that great day.

[4:15]

The problem is that those people were angry because Mr. Bennett, now

Premier, had told them that he would be concerned about their welfare,

and that they should trust him and have faith in him, and that with his

overwhelming majority he

[ Page 928 ]

would be able to carry out a program that would improve the economy

and make more equal opportunities for more citizens. Those were

promises prior to the May 5 election that those people were

demonstrating against because they hadn't been fulfilled. As I recall,

there were a number of security guards throughout this precinct trying

to protect the government, I suppose, and the cabinet from those

people, for fear of someone taking matters into his own hands. That

hasn't happened in this Legislature during the years that I've been

here, to my knowledge — that we've had to virtually protect the

government from the people who had elected it.

Now we find that we are still being advised that the security is

tight, that even at this moment procedures are being taken to protect

the government — I don't know what from, but I think there is a message

there that things have really changed in this province. This government

has provoked people from all walks of life and has caused the members

of the Legislature to be advised by the hon. speaker of the Legislature

— the seat you now sit in, Mr. Speaker…. I suppose, as a

temporary Speaker, you have no formal title; but here is what the

senior Speaker has to say:

"For the next short while the RCMP will be assisting

the office of the Speaker in conducting a review of building security

and safety procedures for all staff in the legislative buildings.

Members of the force will be contacting offices throughout the building

to discuss security and to answer questions which staff may have

relating to security procedures. It is hoped that members will offer

their usual cooperation in this undertaking, and any members and staff

wishing additional information should feel free to contact these

officers, who will be temporarily occupying Room 021 in the building

basement."

The Speaker claims that this requires our usual cooperation, but I

have never, in 11 years, had such a memorandum from the Speaker, and I

don't know why we should have to have one now, except that the

government seems to have lost its courage.

About a month ago I said that I didn't like to call people names,

that I believed we were mature members of the Legislature and should be

able to conduct our business with respect for one another, and deal

with the problems at hand. But I feel somehow that this government

deserves to be called a coward. I know that is not out of order; but if

it is, I'll use any substitute which the members opposite wish me to

use that would mean the same thing, because "coward" is the way I see

it.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We'll go through it again, Madam Member, because, Mr. Speaker, I've listened very intently….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member started to speak before he was recognized.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I don't need the microphone. I've

listened very intently for the last six or seven minutes to the debate

of this member, and I have yet to find anything in what he's saying

which would relate to the question before us. The question before us is

the budget. I would ask you to call that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is my understanding that it

has always been a courtesy of this House to allow a great deal of

latitude when discussing the budget. So I would ask the hon. first

member for Vancouver Centre to continue.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly feel that

what I'm saying is relevant to the budget. I can appreciate that

member's attempt to admonish me for referring to his side of the House

as cowards. I've been around for quite a while, as many of the members

know; I've been in a few battles in my day, and I know when I'm in a

fight and when I'm not. I would say that with this budget this

government has struck the first blow against the people of British

Columbia. I say that it is a coward because now that it has struck the

first blow, it has gone out and virtually destroyed people's homes,

people's lives and livelihoods and opportunities after they have worked

so hard and trusted this government, have committed themselves to

contracts and tried to do something honourably. They have gone out and

taken advantage of defenceless people by decreeing that they shall

cease and desist: the handicapped, the infirm, the aged, people who are

in no position to defend themselves. And they have done so by violating

constitutional rights, fundamental rights and freedoms. We've just

celebrated the first year of our new patriated constitution of rights

and freedoms. We've been so proud, after all these years, to have the

British North America Act become a Canadian document. Yet the very

first thing this government does is to go out and offend not only the

people within this jurisdiction, but people throughout Canada and, in

fact, all over the world.

So when I say this government are cowards, I say that advisedly and

with great thought. I have not said that lightly. I say it because they

have gone out and struck everybody out on the streets right in the eye,

and they sit here smugly with the police protecting them. Then they

have the gall to accuse me of being irresponsible by defining, as

succinctly as I can, the characteristic that describes that group over

there, and describes the budget.

Mr. Speaker, this government does have options, but interestingly

they don't wish to use the option they really have, because they are

cowards. They want to give the impression that they are respectful of

the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia, respectful of

the parliamentary system and the rights of the members of this

Legislative Assembly and, therefore, do not wish to break tradition and

use their authority.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I take offence at the word "cowardly" and would ask the member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair accepted your usage of

the word. I suppose it's fair to say that on one or two occasions it's

acceptable, but in all fairness, hon. member, it has been used a number

of times now, which in my opinion could make it offensive. If you would

be so kind, maybe you would withdraw the use of it the last time.

MR. BARNES: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you

to indicate to me how you determine when a person is a coward: one

time, two times, three times? How many times does it take before a

person is or is not a coward? I called them

[ Page 929 ]

a coward once; I called them a coward twice. What's the difference?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we did hear what you had to say

and the Chair has been very reasonable. Would you please continue and

desist from using that word.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to dwell on that point.

I'm not that concerned about whether the members are offended; I'm

merely stating an observation. If they are offended by that, then I

will be glad to withdraw the word "coward" if they will withdraw their

legislation.

The point I'm trying to make is one that I don't think anyone in

this House has made for fear of getting themselves into some kind of

box. As I said earlier, I've been in fights many times, and when

someone strikes the first blow at me, I feel no obligation whatsoever

to deny any power that I have to lower the boom on them. This

government has struck the people of British Columbia very hard with

this legislation. They have created ripples all over the world. We're

getting protests from all over the world: from the clergy, from social

workers, from school teachers, from the universities, from private

citizens with their own businesses; people all over the world who care

about having a society that respects the delicate nature of a

democracy, upon which we all rely and expect from each other in order

to ensure that we can walk the streets safely and enjoy our lives and

the things we have worked hard to win through our efforts and our

honest labour. Now they are beginning to tear that apart, tear the

people apart and demoralize them. I think that's a cowardly deed for

the government to do.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I will withdraw it, but I will continue to say it, because that's exactly what it is — cowardly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member will take his seat, please.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may assist,

standing rule 40 says: "No member shall use offensive words against any

member of this House." I would suggest that my hon. colleague has

continued to use the term "cowardly, " and Sir Erskine May, nineteenth

edition at page 445, makes specific reference to that term as

unparliamentary.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Yes, against a group as well as an individual.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully call to your

attention the fact that in chairing debate it is difficult at the best

of times. It is true that if the member is referring to a single member

as a coward, then indeed standing order 40 would be applied and the

member would be required to withdraw. However, in describing a deed as

cowardly, the member is within his rights. If another member interprets

the authorship of a cowardly deed as being himself, that cannot be

defined in

section 40; that's only left to one's conscience.

So if the member sticks clearly to defining a deed as cowardly, he's certainly within the standing orders of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would, for the last

time, I think, ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre if he

would please continue, and refrain from using the terminology that he

has used.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall do my best. But

you realize that just as the government has done what it feels it must

do in good conscience, I must respond in kind. So when I make that

statement, it is because I sincerely believe there is no other way I

can describe their actions.

[4:30]

Consider what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

had to say when she withdrew a $50 monthly grant to people who are

physically handicapped; people who are acting as volunteers by putting

in some 20 hours a month of their time for something like $1.25 an

hour; people who are living on incomes of less than $400 a month

themselves, and who had to use that $50, incidentally, just to get

transportation to go and provide a service for people who are in need.

She said it wouldn't matter much; I think that's an offence to those

people. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's break it down. We had a program called a community involvement

program. In some jurisdictions it's referred to as a community

incentive program. In any event, it's a very small amount of money,

$50, but that $50 has been withdrawn from some 2,600 people in this

province who relied upon it in order to maintain a subsistence

existence, who were themselves the kind of people this government

claims it cares about: the volunteers, people who are willing to give

up their time and do something on behalf of the community.

So they withdraw that program. What has it done?

AN HON. MEMBER: One bottle of wine.

MR. BARNES: One bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse, $37.50. They get a little change.

This is a very serious and sinister problem. I won't bother to

accuse the government or call them any names, but I still say that your

deeds have provoked a great deal of anger and unrest in the community.

You have now had to tighten security. Can you imagine tightening

security in a free and democratic society where everybody works

together? Why are you tightening security? Why did we get a memo from

the Speaker telling us that we're going to have to cooperate with the

RCMP? What's the reason for that? We've never had that kind of problem

before. Why doesn't the Premier go out and talk to these people when

they come to him? He didn't have any trouble talking to them prior to

May 5, but now he has no time. He even cracks jokes. He says: "Oh, I

even get that many people out to my garden party. I don't care anything

about 25,000 or 30,000 people." We get 50,000 people in Vancouver out

to a rally, and he says: "Oh, that doesn't make any difference. Those

people are all a bunch of lefties, a bunch of commies, " or whatever he

likes to call them. That's the kind of Premier we have in this

province, absolutely disgraceful — and you say you don't want me to

call him any

[ Page 930 ]

names. They attack the clergy; they attack people's fundamental

rights and freedoms, people's sense of integrity, people's willingness

to cooperate.

You know what happens when you demoralize a person, when you take

everything from a person and push him up against the wall. You force

him to over react or to try to protect himself. You force him to go

back to his native instincts, his survival instincts. The reason I say

this government deserves to be called a naughty name is because they

must know that. They must have realized that they were provoking the

people. It must be part of their economic strategy to force people out

of this province one way or the other: ride them out, frighten them to

death, scare them to death, get rid of them. "We don't want anything to

do with you. Just leave." The Provincial Secretary says: "Well, if they

can't find jobs, let them leave town." That's the attitude you have.

Your strategy is a fundamental, very tragic throwback to an age that I

cannot describe, when you believe that in this day and age when we have

centralized society — societies have become so highly industrialized

that they are interdependent…. You have the gall to say that

we're going to send them back to the extended family, who can look

after their needs. You know that there are no institutions existing

today that can afford to take such a burden on. There are no resources,

no matter how well meaning or well intentioned individuals, churches

and service clubs are. They all need help.

That's why I say you have offended this society in a way that has

crippled it and has demoralized the people. The people are hurting. I

say you are naughty, naughty. Imagine that: naughty, naughty. You know

what? You could get this budget passed if you really had the courage.

You don't need to try to tell the people that it's the opposition that

won't let you pass the budget. You didn't have any trouble passing all

kinds of retroactive legislation. You've been running this government

on borrowed money, treasury bills, for over a year. You've been doing

all kinds of things through orders-in-Council. Why is it that all of a

sudden now you're trying to create a situation that will make it appear

as though the opposition are causing all your problems? Hogwash! We're

not causing you problems; you're causing the problems yourselves.

You're trying to set us up.

In the parliamentary system filibustering is a right of the

opposition. You know it's our democratic right. We have the right to

filibuster, but we cannot pass legislation. We're not the ones who pass

it. You have the mandate and the big numbers. If you're not cowards,

why don't you go all the way. You've already destroyed the economy, the

society, and taken away all the fundamental rights of the people. Now

you say you're democrats and don't want to do anything that's

unparliamentary or undemocratic. So you're not going to close anything

on anybody. Big joke. You guys could close off, all right, but you're

scared. You want to find an excuse. You've got to get out the back door

now. You've got to find a way out.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do. You haven't got the courage to do what you started off to do. You're starting to get chicken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam rises on a point of order.

MR. PARKS: Standing order 43, Mr. Speaker, says that we

shouldn't have to go through tedious repetition. I sat here and heard

that hon. member say: "Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Yes, you do." That's

getting darn tedious.

MR. REID: And repetitious!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: When a member has the floor, it is the rule of

this House that constant interruptions from one person would demand the

expulsion of that member from the House. On frequent occasions the

half-member from Surrey — standing order 20, Mr. Speaker — is

constantly interrupting with mindless words that seem to be repetitive,

but at times are indecipherable. It is important to keep decorum in the

House, and it would be appropriate to ask the member to leave the

chamber if he is unable to control himself, no matter what function

he's having difficulty with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the member for Kootenay.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, if you are to enforce that rule

rigidly, all eight members of the New Democratic Party who are in the

House would have to leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is…. The second member for Surrey on the same point of order.

MR. REID: I take offence to the member who got half as many votes as I did in the last election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a….

MR. REID: He called me half a member when I got twice as many votes. I should be called two members in one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll deal with these one at a time.

With respect to standing order 43 raised by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, the members are all aware of what constitutes

tedious and repetitious debate. I'm sure the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre is well aware of that. I'm sure he's going to progress

in his debate with new material and carry on in a parliamentary fashion.

With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, standing order 20 clearly indicates that a member who is

grossly disorderly must be asked to withdraw from the House. The Chair

has not found that to be the case at this point, although I will remind

all hon. members that it is most unparliamentary to interject when

another member is speaking.

[ Page 931 ]

Finally, though, the hon. second member for Surrey has found an

expression used by the hon. Leader of the Opposition unparliamentary

and offensive to him as a member of this House. Therefore I will ask

the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he will withdraw that term that

was found offensive.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that in May or Beauchesne

there is no description that I would define as unparliamentary in

describing a member as half a member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is unparliamentary, hon. member. It reflects upon his integrity and his ability to….

MR. BARRETT: Under May and Beauchesne it's described as half-wit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. And the definition is…. However, if the member finds it offensive, I will withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre will continue uninterrupted on the budget debate.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Speaker. As you can

appreciate, I had considerable notes compiled — hoping to be able to

share these with the members of the Legislature — dealing with all of

the grievances that I've been receiving from all quarters of the

province. It just became so unbearable to deal with all of these

frustrating letters and representations and petitions from social

workers, organizations and individuals who are suffering as a result of

this budget. This so-called government of fiscal responsibility claims

that it and only it has the ability to manage the affairs of this

province fiscally, and that the other people in the province are best

to do the complaining and to act as opposition, but not to have any

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, how long has it been since we've had a budget in this

province? How long has it been since we've had legislation in place

that this government can use with statutory authority? Do you know how

many acts this government has taken without statutory authority? We

have legislation on the order paper before us to be debated that is

over a year old and that this government has used — all retroactive

legislation. Practically everything that this government has done this

past year and a half will have to be retroactively approved. What kind

of government is that? What kind of management is that? When is it

going to end? When are we going to get some statutory authority for the

actions that this government is taking? And now they say we're

stalling. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain says that we

are stalling. How can that possibly be?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Look, let's take some action.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Are you prepared? Are you prepared to withdraw that legislation?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Are you prepared to withdraw that repressive

legislation that you've brought in denying people their rights in this

province? Do you realize that if….

Thank God we do have an opposition. What do you think would happen

if we had no opposition whatsoever to you people? What would you do if

there was nobody over here at all? You would have trouble trying to

protect yourselves against your own acts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: We're probably doing them a great favour, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: We're doing them a favour, because they don't seem to have the ability to protect themselves from themselves.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon. second member for Little Mountain will come to order immediately.

MR. BARNES: I'm going to refer to a statement made by the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She says that some

things can't stay "all in the family." This is from an

article in the

Victoria Times-Colonist . I received it on February 5, so it's

approximately of that date. This minister states: "Now if we're talking

about a family's religious practices, cultural habits or lifestyle,

then I completely agree." In other words, it's all in the family, if

that's what we're talking about. She agrees. She says:

"But if we're talking about a family's treatment of

children, then I take issue with that attitude. I believe that

children, because of their dependence, their innocence and their

inability to defend themselves, require special protection beyond that

which is given to adults in our society."

I agree with her. That is the reputation that she has led us to believe she has lived up to over the years.

[4:45]

"I am not going to mince words here or skirt the

issue. The issue is that adults do not have the right to brutalize

children, to break their arms, to hang them up by the wrists, to

sexually abuse them or to perform any other kind of cruel, sadistic

punishment. When this kind of thing takes place — and it does happen —

then as a society we have the responsibility to do something about it."

That is the present Minister of Human Resources.

"In fact, as a society we are doing something about

it. In British Columbia we have a Family and Child Service Act. In this

way the ministry and the court system act on behalf of us all to

protect children

[ Page 932 ]

in our society from abuse and neglect. Our experience indicates

that evidence in child abuse cases is often cumulative."

Something that has to be prevented and worked at. In other words, it is not something that just happens and goes away.

"Most of us do not think about child abuse. It is easy

to turn our heads and pretend that it doesn't exist, that it doesn't

happen in our community. But figures show that it does. In British

Columbia last year my ministry investigated 3, 504 cases of probable

child abuse. Of these, 2, 886 reports proved to have some foundation

for concern. In 673 cases children were removed from their families, 35

children were hospitalized as result of abuse, and six child deaths

were attributed to abuse. Criminal charges were laid in 133 cases. I

would rather face controversy on this issue than risk the life of one

more child."

As she says, "when it comes to children it is not 'all in the family' as the TV serial states."

This is why I say there is something wrong. I say the government is

naughty, and you know what that is equated with if you go back to the

earlier statements I made in my speech — which I will not refer to

again, because I want to be parliamentary; this is a serious debate and

I do not wish to offend any of the members. I am suggesting to you that

something has happened to that hon. Minister of Human Resources.

Something has happened to her integrity and her concern for children,

her concern for the family in British Columbia — and her concern for

her own self-respect, when you come right down to it. She has

campaigned on this most of her career. I have listened to the people

talk about that hon. member and they have said: "One thing we know

about that minister; no matter what else, she loves children and she

cares." What has happened? What has happened to the child-abuse teams?

What has happened to those people? What has happened to those

specialists who used to go into the homes and look after the battered

children and try to counsel the family and keep them together? What

happened to the integrity of the family that we cared about so much?

What is going down, anyway? You know what is happening? We are facing

an ideological showdown with those people over there, and they are

calling it restraint. There is nothing to do with restraint here. It is

incredible. You are going to tell me that I am out of order for using a

word like "coward, " and I won't refer to who that should fit. Here is

someone calling what they are doing restraint. This is almost the same

thing that Hitler did when he was taking the Jews to the gas chamber.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You are calling it restraint, but this is a

diabolical plot to deny people their fundamental rights and freedoms in

this society. It is about time we started to fight back.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order, please. As I

mentioned earlier, interjections and heckling are out of order. If the

hon. member now speaking could use more temperance and moderation in

his language as we are advised to do, then we could maintain order in

the House.

MR. BARNES: I will do my best to be moderate and temperate,

Mr. Speaker; but you must appreciate that this is not a situation that

makes that easy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND . On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver

Centre drew a comparison with a very unfortunate indident that took place in

Europe in the 1940s. I think the comments he made are an affront to every citizen

of this province and of Canada. I would certainly hope that he would withdraw

that rather intemperate remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order.

The member used a term that the Chair would find offensive if it

been directed to an hon. member, but it was not directed so I do not

find that term offensive. But I would ask the member to use moderation

and temperance in language.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to offend anyone. I merely wish to

exercise my rights and privileges as a duly elected member of the

Legislature by coming here and telling things like they are. I am not

interested in offending anyone. I'm not the government; I'm

representing the opposition. I'm trying to protect the people of this

province. I'm also trying to protect that government from itself. So I

have no cause for any kind of apology or withdrawals. What am I going

to withdraw? I didn't put the bills on the order paper; you put them on

the order paper. You withdraw the bills

You seem to be offended by the comments I'm making. Why aren't you

offended by what I consider to be an indescribable sense of

self-righteousness on the part of you people? Have you any idea of what

you are doing to the people of British Columbia with your legislation,

with this irresponsible kind of attitude you have towards the people?

Do you think I'm making up these stories? You can come and see them for

yourself. We've got correspondence from all over the province. The

Premier said that 50,000 people can gather in Empire Stadium but it

doesn't mean a thing, that they're all a bunch of crypto communists.

What are you? What gave you the right to come in here and do what

you're doing? You never said a word about it before May 5.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Would you feel better if it were 45? Are you

denying the figures that were printed in the media? What would you call

them, Mr. Second Member for Little Mountain?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The House will come to order immediately. The member continues. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: It's very interesting, isn't it, Mr. Speaker, how

these people seem to try to grab anything they can get that will divert

one from the subject at hand? They do not intend to defend that budget.

They do not intend to go to some of those community resources and talk

to the people who are suffering. They don't want to hear what's really

happening on the street. They're not concerned. I'll bet you that not

one of them has gone into any of those places to find out what's

happening in the homes where they've destroyed

[ Page 933 ]

those people. Even I didn't know what post-partum depression was

until I got this job as the critic for the Ministry of Human Resources,

but I can tell you that it's a very serious problem that women have in

this culture and in this society as a result of stress, strain and of

abandonment and the difficulty of trying to survive. Females in any

case are having a hard time in this society, so when they are abandoned

by men who are not able to support or sustain what they start, many of

these women become frightened and want to hurt themselves or their

children. All kinds of things happen. This minister who cares about

children and families is saying: "We're going to cut off programs. We

don't care what happens, just get lost." Fundamentally that's what

she's saying. I say it's wrong. And you know it's wrong. You have no

resource in place to do anything about it.

Today I asked the minister to tell me her plans. What do you have in

place, Madam Minister of Human Resources, to deal with those people in

Tranquille, those 300 mentally retarded of all ages who are going to

have to go into the community. She said: "Well, the volunteers will

take care of them." I said: "How? These people require specialized

attention and specialized care. In most cases they're going to have to

have round-the-clock attention. What are their prospects?" She said:

"Well, it will be taken care of." I said: "Would you specify how you're

going to do it?" You people plan what you're going to do; you don't do

things ad hoc. You don’t just let things happen and make a decision. I

found out that she didn't even know she was going to do this during the

election. They just decided to do this after getting the results of the

polls. They found out that there are a lot of people out there in

British Columbia who were desensitized as a result of hard times and

selfishness, perpetrated by those people who would exploit them. So

they have become careless in respect to our system of democracy and of

individuals' rights. So they've allowed themselves to respond in an

affirmative way to some of those polling questions and have said things