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, SEPTEMBER 1, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1185 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports

Reports of Select Standing Committee on Private Bills. Mr. Pelton –– 1185

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1185

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1187

Mr. Blencoe –– 1195

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1983

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

CANADA I ENTRY IN AMERICA'S CUP

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't have a specific introduction today, but I have a statement that I would like the members of the House to consider.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, the gentleman isn't here, but you will

be pleased to have the chance to honour him after I've made this

statement, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) will just bear

with me.

Members will know that Canada 1 ,

Canada's entry in the yacht classic off Newport, based at the Secret

Cove yacht club in the district of Mackenzie, British Columbia, had

served with distinction. One of the members of the Environmental Appeal

Board, Mr. Lloyd Campbell, has a son who crewed on the Canada 1 .

His name is Donald Campbell. He is, I believe, the only British

Columbia resident to have served as a crew member on that vessel from

the very first day. He will be returning to British Columbia with his

family today, after having tried valiantly on behalf of Canada to wrest

the America's Cup from its present owners. I suspect that perhaps our

Australian friends will get it instead. Nonetheless, his father has

served this province with distinction. He is one of our well-considered

citizens and I would like us to honour him.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's first and second

reports, which were read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Report no 1:

"Standing orders have been complied with relating to

petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled

An Act

Respecting Okanagan Bible College.

"Your committee recommends the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted.

"Report no 2:

"The committee recommends to the House that Trinity

Western College, due to the withdrawal of their petition for a proposed

bill, be refunded the application fee of $300.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. PELTON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and that the reports be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am more

than happy to be able to resume my place in the debate on the most

important budget in the history of British Columbia. This is the budget

that gives British Columbia new opportunities, a new sense of

well-being and another sense of leadership of all the jurisdictions in

Canada. This budget is indeed a historic budget in the history of

British Columbia.

It is interesting that we usually would not have the opportunity to

find out what the people of this great province truly think about this

budget for another four years, but last Monday we had the opportunity

to test the waters and to find out what the people of this great

province thought about the budget. It is not much wonder that the

leader of that little socialist rump group over there didn't go out and

test the water, because he knew that the people of British Columbia

were supporting the conservative policies of this government, were

supporting restraint and were supporting downsizing the government, and

they proved it. He got thrown out of that area once before and had to

pay $80,000 for a place to sit and cackle. He's a lame-duck leader and

a carpetbagger. Once a social worker always a social worker.

[10:15]

I've been listening with a great deal of interest to what the

socialists opposite — and I see they've all left the House — have said

in retrospect, because they lost again. They have been saying that they

lost because the Liberal vote collapsed. Mr. Speaker, I want you to

think about that for just a moment. I ask you this question: if the

Liberal vote collapsed, where did it go? It certainly didn't go to the

socialists, even though they've been in bed together for years. Their

policies run neck and neck. It sure didn't go to the NDP. No, it was a

significant day in the history of British Columbia when the people of

that riding, which is traditionally a socialist riding and thought to

be one of the strongholds of the NDP in western Canada, came out and

said: "Yes, we support what Premier Bennett and his Social Credit

government are doing in British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, when they went out and talked about this budget in Coquitlam,

they said: "Yes, if you vote for the Conservatives, it's a vote for

the Social Credit cutback in government. That's a vote for what the Social

Credit government is doing with their budget." They tied the whole by-election

to the Social Credit budget. The people came out and they said, "Yes, we

support sanity in government. We support commonsense policies; we support policies

that will be for the long-term good of not only British Columbia but, indeed,

of all of Canada." The by-election has taken place, and I've had the

opportunity to mention those few little things in passing.

When the effects of this budget have fully settled in on this

province, we will probably be one of the most affordable places in

North America in which to do business. It will not only be an

opportunity for business and industry to come here and establish a

business, knowing that we run a lean government, but it will give those

existing businesses in this province an opportunity to expand, an

opportunity to be more cost effective and an opportunity to be more

competitive and more profitable.

[ Page 1186 ]

We have heard a lot of talk from the NDP opposition against this

budget. While they hold up the business of the province, talking about

the same old thing for over two months — "spend more, spread the

wealth" — with no positive policies as to how to improve the economy of

this province, people are coming into my office saying: "We want to

dust off those plans we talked to you about a couple of years ago and

we want to come, establish and invest in your province." While the

opposition is crying, pouring doom and gloom over the world, people are

coming to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) and saying: "Hey, we are going to move our offices here;

we're going to open new mines; we want to talk about new development."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the NDP, those little socialists

opposite, haven't really got the message. That's why they were defeated

on May 5, that's why they lost the by-election and that's why they will

continue to go downhill: because they are still tied to a philosophy

that might have existed in 1930-31, but is just out of the realm of

reality in today's world.

When I had the opportunity to talk to the people of the OKI

electronics corporation, they said to me: "We want to discuss your

budget and your policies." I explained to them what it was all about:

that we were downsizing government; that we were going to make this an

affordable place to do business, along with all the other atmosphere

that we have created here, along with the great Discovery Park and the

new high technology incentive programs under my colleague the Hon. Pat

McGeer. I talked to them about that, and as they were leaving I asked

them what they thought of British Columbia, and they said: "Because of

your policy we will recommend to our parent company in Japan that we

establish here in British Columbia."

Think of the dribble you have listened to from the opposition and

then think of the positive things that are happening. Think about what

the real thinking people in British Columbia are saying about our

budget. We recognized, as a government, that we were maybe a little too

fat. Our Premier recognized that we should have restraint. I tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that it is time the union leaders in this province rethunk

their position. It was amazing to me to read...

AN HON. MEMBER: Rethunk?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's a new word.

...in this morning's newspaper that the BCGEU chief

adviser, Mr. Richards, was advising his union people not to take a new

position, if it was offered to them, with the government. Now there is

a man who is really working for the good of the union members in this

province. Don't take another job because it might hurt the union

hierarchy. They're more interested in that than they are in the

well-being of the workers they are supposed to represent.

I can remember when we used to have people working in this province

for Seagram's. Seagram's — do you remember it? They're long since gone,

and no jobs for any of those people their union bosses tried so hard to

protect.

I was talking during the election campaign to a gentleman who used

to work for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. That shipbuilding

industry and the union workers there worked so hard for their employees

that today they're all having a huge holiday. Due to the fact that the

shipbuilders on the Clyde couldn't produce their ships on time,

couldn't make deliveries, couldn't reach their budgets, the

shipbuilding industry went elsewhere.

MR. BLENCOE: You're boring.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I hope I am boring you, because you've bored me so much since we started that I've been bored to tears, my friend.

There have been a number of businesses that have left British

Columbia. We've analyzed them. But what this budget is all about is

making British Columbia a more cost-effective place in which to do

business. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the vitality of the

British Columbia economy, the employment levels and the high standard

of living enjoyed by our people are directly and inextricably linked to

the ability of our business and industrial community to export goods

and services. Make no mistake about it. You can listen to the

opposition talk about diversifying our economic base all you want to.

When they criticize and chastise our best customers in public, you

would expect those people to come here and invest if they were ever to

be government, God forbid.

Canada, together with other developed nations, is becoming

increasingly dependent on international trade to maintain its economic

well-being. That is a fact of life. One quarter of world production is

now exported, double the proportion of a decade ago. Since the early

1960s exports have grown in real terms about one and one-half times

more quickly than has world production. In other words, between 1960

and 1980 exports increased from less than one-fifth of Canada's output

to almost one-third today. Today two million Canadians, about 20

percent of the nation's workforce, are directly employed in producing

goods for export.

As I have said in this House many times before, people are not

beating a path to our doorstep and crying for our goods and services,

manufactured products or the very few raw materials that we do export.

Those goods and services, manufactured products, lumber products and

coal are available from other nations. If we cannot compete and if we

do not have the quality products and if we don't sell....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's too bad somebody wouldn't give you

away, my friend, and I'll tell you why they never would. Nobody would

have you; that's why no one will ever give you away.

We must be competitive. We must be a reliable supplier. We must

welcome investment, and we must welcome customers. We can't do as the

Leader of the Opposition has done, stand publicly and chastise our best

customers, or do as the ex-Minister of Highways did when he stood on

the floor of this Legislature and said: "Yankee, go home." We can't

chastise our second-best customer, the Japanese, as the Leader of the

Opposition did many times. That's not the way to bring about business.

But this budget is the way to ensure that British Columbia will remain

a viable trader, and thus protect the jobs of those involved in

producing goods for export today and in generations to come.

British Columbia is one of the premier trading provinces in Canada.

A growing portion of its workforce is engaged in producing for the

export market. In addition to the resource exports which rely heavily

on foreign markets, the export orientation of the manufacturing sector

in this province has

[ Page

1187 ]

consistently been double the national average. That will surprise those little

socialists who only want to talk about giving away our natural resources.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I hear a number of

interjections from the other side. I know that member can't restrain

himself, but the phrase I keep hearing over and over again is: "Tell

the truth!" I think that's an allegation that should not be made

against the member who is speaking in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The fact that interjections are being heard at

all at this end of the chamber would indicate that one of our prime

rules about interjections is not being kept in the traditions of the

House. I would ask, first, that the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe), who by the way will have an opportunity within the next 10 or

12 minutes to put his points forward, keep his interjections until that

time, and second, that we continue with the debate.

Nonetheless, the point of order raised by the minister is one that

has some validity. For a person to use the expression that has been

used indicates that parliamentary language is not perhaps being used to

its best advantage. I would ask all members to bear that in mind as we

continue in the debate.

[10:30]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On that point of order, I want to say that

I did hear that interjection from the member for Victoria, but I

thought he was talking to himself.

I want to say once again that in addition to resource exports which

rely heavily on foreign markets.... I want you to listen to this. The

export orientation of the manufacturing sector out of British Columbia

has consistently been double the national average. In order to keep

these and other British Columbians gainfully employed and on the road

to economic recovery, we must enhance our cost-competitiveness and

ensure that the major driving force, our ability to increase export

sales, is encouraged to the greatest extent possible.

I have a few figures which I would like to share with the

Legislature on exports. In 1972 British Columbia exported $2,759

million worth of goods and services. In 1982 — which was, as you know,

Mr. Speaker, a poor year in the world economy — British Columbian

exports were $8,756 million; that is an increase of over 320 percent in

this decade. I might add that you couldn't really say that it's been in

a decade, because our exports declined in that frightful period of 1973

to 1975. During those three terrible years when this province was ruled

by the socialists opposite, our exports actually declined. While the

rest of the world economy was on the upswing, ours was on the

downswing. So you would have to say that the increase in exports has

actually been during the last seven years, an increase of approximately

32 percent a year. If you wanted to be a little bit political, you'd

have to say that it happened in the last seven years, for a 46 percent

a year increase in exports since this government has had the

opportunity to lead the manufacturing and business community in British

Columbia.

Another important and significant factor about our export trade is that in

1972 some 58.5 percent of our exports went to the United States of America;

a lesser amount to Japan, the United Kingdom, other economic communities and

certainly other nations. As you know, we set out the policy of this government

to diversify our exporting and sales base so that we would not be as heavily

dependent on the United States. We have been somewhat successful in that regard,

because today, instead of exporting 58.5 percent of our goods and services to

the United States, we export only 44.2 percent, while our exports to other areas

in the world have grown substantially. For instance, our exports to Japan are

up from 16.9 percent in 1972 to 24.4 percent in 1982.

Another significant factor is that the other nations of the world,

excluding the U.K. and the European Economic Community.... I refer to

such nations as the Philippines, China, Korea, Australia and New

Zealand. In 1972 we exported 8.6 percent of our goods and services to

those other nations. Today, because of our policy of diversification

and because of the aggressive manner in which we have solicited and

assisted our business community to open up new markets, that has

doubled, with 15.2 percent of our exports going to those other nations.

That is because we set out to tell the world that the businesses,

government and people of British Columbia were interested in doing

business with them.

It's because of the policies of this government that we have allowed

our manufacturing and lumber industries to be competitive. That is why

shortly after we formed the government in British Columbia in 1976 the

mining industry said they would invest billions in new plant to make

them more efficient. That is why the lumber industry, shortly after

1976, laid out plans whereby they would invest billions of dollars in

plant modifications in order to keep them competitive and to keep

people employed in British Columbia. That is why this budget is so

all-important to the long-term good of all British Columbians. That is

why it is so important to the young people of this province, because

their future depends on our industry being competitive and profitable

so that we will be able to compete with the other industries in the

world. That's why this budget is a budget for the future, one for the

young people who are being born in British Columbia today.

We could have taken the easy route, hidden the figures and said

everything is well in beautiful British Columbia. We have taken the

difficult route because it is the best route and one which will secure

for future generations those opportunities that we have enjoyed while

we were growing up and doing business in this great province. I want to

say once again that I am proud to be able to stand in this Legislature

as part of a team that hasn't taken the easy route; we have taken the

long-term, difficult route.

We led the restraint in this province, and we've lived to see other

governments in other provincial jurisdictions follow. Once again we are

leading in downsizing government. Politically we will be left out on

the clothes-line to take the lashes and to weather the storms. When the

thinking people of Canada and British Columbia look at what we have

done, Mr. Speaker, then they will follow. This budget will go down in

history as the turning point for new opportunities for all Canadians.

I'm proud to be part of that team.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I rise to support the budget and to

congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for

showing the financial leadership not only within our province but for

the rest of our country. Along with congratulations to the Minister of

Finance, I would like to congratulate all of the government team, who

never worked harder or more collectively in trying to meet the

financial conditions that face the people of this province and the

government as we attempt to recover from the extreme recessionary

effects that have struck the industrialized world.

[ Page 1188 ]

This budget might be termed a realistic budget — a budget that faces

the reality of today. We have been through the decades of the sixties

and seventies in which the industrialized world had a very high growth

rate and governments responded with larger spending, reflecting the

ability of their economies to pay. But the projections for growth in

the economy as we come out of this recession in the industrialized

world are much more modest. It means that governments everywhere will

have to tailor their spending and their programs to economies that are

not as buoyant as they were in the sixties and seventies.

Another harsh fact that governments have had to face — and we as the

Canadian people have to face — is that while we in British Columbia

have traditionally tried to balance outgo for current account with

income within the ability of the taxpayer to pay.... We have been

successful in doing so during minor recessions before and in good

times. Not all governments in this country have practised that type of

moderate, responsible government. Many — as has been advocated by

members of the New Democratic Party in this Legislature, not only

during this session but in the good times — were advocating that the

new way to finance was to have deficit financing and spend money beyond

the ability of the economy to pay and the revenues generated by the tax

system. Those governments today are in great peril. Services they

provide are in great danger of not being continued in the future.

People in those areas, who went into deficits during good times, now

face even greater deficits in more difficult times. They have created a

burden of debt that along with interest rates is taking away the

spending power of governments in the future to provide not only

desirable services but the most essential services of all.

It's very easy for members of the New Democratic Party to pretend

and state that they are more compassionate and caring than any other

British Columbian. I suppose that when you lack policies you go for

style, even though that style bears no resemblance to what is needed to

govern this province. When you are afraid to advocate policies that

will build for the future, you carry on that type of debate and you

also carry on a type of debate that attacks most viciously — some of

the harshest and most vicious criticism that I have ever heard in this

country toward a government that is trying to do a job. I have heard

from them phrases that I never expected to hear from any

parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker. I have heard from them and seen from them

not a willingness to try to work our way through these difficult times

but a bitterness coming out of another successive defeat, a bitterness

in which they are willing through rhetoric and through hyperbole to

attack and to try to divide the people of this province at a time when

they should be coming together. They have attempted to distort every

single program, every single thing this government is doing, and put

upon it the worst possible light, not recognizing that in doing so they

become the enemies of recovery; the enemies of those who are without

work in this province; the enemies of the future; the enemies of our

seniors, who need to be guaranteed that government will always be able

to continue to finance essential services; the enemies of the young,

who want to know that they will have an opportunity in this province in

the future.

[10:45]

It is very strange, and one of the things I don't understand and

perhaps I see it changing — that traditionally the young in a greater

proportion than is normal are attracted to socialism when in fact it is

the socialist parties who are spending their future by advocating

massive deficit financing. It is the socialists who invented and

advocate government by Chargex. It is they who really would spend the

future income to be earned in this province by industry, business and

people working in jobs, to satisfy their need to be loved, to show

compassion today, to advocate that every single service can be

continued at a time when governments have had to face the reality of

today and make some hard choices so that we can guarantee that future.

If you think it is easy for a government to take the type of

criticism we have, if you think we invite it, we don't. We knew that in

seeking a new mandate on May 5 and expecting to win it as we did, we

would be faced with governing in probably the most difficult time in

Canada's history since the Great Depression. It is a time when

governments can no longer afford the easy way of creating expectations

and trying to meet every expectation, every promise and every program,

and — when the people didn't have enough money to send in the way of

taxes — spending their credit. We knew that in conducting that campaign

and winning it we had to conduct it and let the people know what this

government was going to do, and we campaigned on a policy of restraint,

restraint that would guarantee our future.

Nobody likes restraint. I don't like it and neither do the people of

B.C., but every British Columbian that I know, every British Columbian

out there in the private sector, has been forced into restraint that

they didn't visit on themselves in the last two or three years during

the recession. During the opportunities I have had to travel around

this province and talk to those who are unemployed, they didn't like

the restraint thrust upon them. It is not a chuckling matter. They

didn't like the fact that they had lost their jobs. They didn't even

like the fact that the company they worked for was losing not only

money in these years but losing the equity it had built up over the

years, because they knew that the restraint forced on that company and

the loss of equity would threaten its financial viability to be a

secure employer in the future. They learned during this period not to

accept the rhetoric of the NDP, who tried to pit management against

labour, neighbour against neighbour, and investor against the workers.

I think what our people have learned and what society has learned in

general is that we are interdependent upon one another and that there

is no unlimited amount of cash hidden away in the large corporations or

the small corporations. In fact we have learned now that the larger you

are the more vulnerable you are when international markets are forced

into recession.

We also learned that in penalizing them, which the New Democrats did

when they were government with their attacks on business and

investment.... I remember the speeches well, and the viciousness of

those speeches. They knew that corporations and small businesses don't

vote, and they catered to some very basic human elements that they

thought would work, trying to attack business in a punitive way

verbally and through taxation. When business is overtaxed, when

business is over-regulated, particularly in a province like British

Columbia, which depends on international trade for its well-being, it

becomes more vulnerable. International markets recede and the people

who suffer are those who work in those industries, whether it's mining,

forestry or manufacturing.

[ Page 1189 ]

I think we have to stop the easy political rhetoric that comes so

swiftly from the lips of the New Democrats as they try to create those

divisions, those distortions, and recognize that now is the time for

all British Columbians to pull together. The economy we have built over

the years is not an economy that's internal to our province. Two-thirds

of British Columbia's gross provincial product is earned by

international trade. If we did not sell abroad to the United States,

the Pacific Rim countries, the European Economic Community and emerging

economies, then British Columbians would have only one-third of what

they have today. Therefore it is very important to have a budget that

recognizes that we cannot have costly governments running out of

control, building up deficits beyond those which we have to endure

during these difficult times; governments that will create a burden of

debt and a burden of interest charges, and that will indicate and

impose taxation levels in the future which our people and our industry

cannot afford. That is the biggest threat to future jobs in this

province, the biggest threat to providing essential government services.

One member of the opposition, not known for its arithmetic skills,

suggested that this government was saving only $50 million in the

budget. I think you now have an idea who it was, and remember the

statement: it was the former Minister of Finance in the New Democratic

government. What that member has overlooked is that the restraint

program embodies a number of programs, starting with the compensation

stabilization program, which in itself saved $80 million last year, and

which will save, compounded over each and every budget, hundreds of

millions of dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia. What he's so

glibly overlooked — and I see the member for Esquimalt smiling and

laughing as I say this — is that in the campaign our government took

some very strong criticism from the New Democrats, who said they would

restore the renters' tax credit, which was one of the things we would

have to cut, and the renters' grant, and other areas that would also

save hundreds of millions of dollars over these budgetary years.

How quickly they forget that those measures are being dealt with in

this Legislature at this time. How easily they overlook the hundreds of

millions of dollars, the billions of dollars in accumulated debt that

will be saved because a number of budgetary measures that we're taking,

hard as they are, will prevent us from having a debt by 1988 — billions

more than we will have in coming through these recessionary periods.

How easily they disregard the consequences of all the spending they

advocate in a cheap attempt to get votes or to create political

divisions. In this year alone, coming out of last year, we had the

lowest rate of increase in a provincial government in Canada. We had a

deficit even though we came in under our spending estimates, which is

the one area we can control. We could not control the falling revenues

that occurred because of the drop in the economy which devastated our

province, our country and the industrialized world, but we did what we

could. Just to service the deficit from last year's and this year's

budget, taking money away from essential services, costs $180 million

in interest charges. And if we hadn't had the CSP last year it would

have been higher. If we hadn't started on restraint last year — in

1982, the first government in Canada — that deficit would have been

much higher and the interest rates more punitive. Those members over

there can't argue that we're only saving $600,000 here or $700,000

there, when what we're after is a cumulative saving on a continuing

basis for current services, and then say that last year was different,

that we could have had more debt and that they were right then, because

the interest we saved with the CSP and those other program cuts is

substantial.

The program we started last year seemed to come as a surprise to

some members, but our intent to downsize government, to reduce the

numbers employed in the provincial government by 25 percent, was

well-publicized last year, and we embarked on that program in what we

hoped would be an effective way — through attrition — and over the year

we had achieved about 50 percent of our goal. We were able to do it in

as fair a way as we could, but we found that we could not meet those

targets without the additional opportunities that are there in the

private sector, unionized and non-unionized. In tough times we're

forced to cut for the benefit of our people and restrain our budgets,

which are really only an extension of every single British Columbian's

family budget. What we've had to do is restrain our costs in order to

save for the people of British Columbia. That's what we have attempted

to do, and that's what we're still trying to do, because it is the best

guarantee that we'll have those essential services in the future.

Certainly it's not an easy task to undertake.

MR. MITCHELL: Why didn't you bring the budget down in January or February and be honest?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm always interested in hearing from the cop-out from Esquimalt.

MR. MITCHELL: All we want is the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to give the member a few facts —

as I have been — in trying to show why this government's intent is to

bring in a budget that is lean without being mean. The meanest thing

you could do to the people of this province is follow the policies that

you've been advocating in this Legislature and on the campaign trail. I

think the public have found you out. You're willing to spend not only

their taxes but also the future credit of our people to purchase

political votes to the detriment of future services and the future of

this province. You've been willing in the election and since to try to

purchase those votes at the expense of future industry by imposing a

future tax system that not only would not attract business and industry

to this province but also would drive those businesses and industries

which depend on competing in international trade out of our province.

[11:00]

I think the people of this province should know that this budget is

one that has tried to balance our need to try to encourage some

employment now, which was part of our election campaign.... We put

money into accelerated public works which would have been done but

which created economic activity in this year, which provided

transportation systems that assist our economic activity — our truckers

and our transportation — and provided safe travel on our highways, and

which provided much needed drainage and diking projects. That is part

of this budget this year that will not have to occur in future budgets.

What our Minister of Finance has done is try to concentrate on

constraining those items of continuing cost that would compound the

deficit over time. Our budget this year will spend a large amount of

money for every British Columbian. Even the deficit, which the New

Democratic Party would have much higher, will cost about $600 for every

man, woman and child in this province — money that we've

[ Page 1190 ]

borrowed in their names with this restraint budget.

That's about $2,400 for every family of four. I've tried to add up some

of the programs we've cut that add up into hundreds of millions of

dollars. I've talked about how much we're saving through the CSP, which

that party opposed and which they said in the election campaign they

were going to dispose of. This year we have brought in even more

realistic guidelines for today.

We haven't attempted to be unfair with our public servants. Everyone

must know that nobody is prouder of the job they do and can continue to

do in this province than I am. Our public servants do a good job. But

as I said a few minutes ago, in the private sector for the last two or

three years our people have faced the harshest form of restraint.

Businesses have lost equity; many have gone bankrupt; people have been

laid off and terminated in the private sector over the past two or

three years. When those members talk about our being harsh with the

public sector, I would like them to know that over the last two years

of the recession one in every three resource workers in this province

lost his job. One in every four in other areas of employment lost his

job; one in every five in manufacturing lost his job. They faced

restraint. That's reality. Do they think that there should be one group

of British Columbians that does not face the same restraints, who are

paid for as an extension of their budget? Does that party think that's

fair? We only ask that everyone in British Columbia be treated on the

same basis, and that when the people in the province who have been

hurting, have faced layoffs and have had a couple of rough years.... We

don't want to make it rougher by sending them a tax bill to preserve a

position that doesn't face the harsh reality of the marketplace as they

have. That's a double restraint placed on them to preserve others from

having to face market conditions.

We must have the opportunity to run a lean government and have our

managers manage. All we've asked in meeting our target of downsizing

government is the same ability that the private sector has when the

money isn't there, programs have been removed, jobs have become

redundant and there's no work to do. On behalf of those taxpayers out

there, we can terminate and lay off on exactly the same terms and

conditions that have occurred in the private sector. That's fair,

that's equitable, that's responsible. The New Democratic Party has

advocated in their debate against the CSP and our ability to manage....

Their opposition to Bill 3 is that government should protect only some

from the recession. What they are saying is that even though many have

lost their jobs in this province, they would have government continue

to be the employer of last resort at their expense. What they are

saying is not fair and equitable to all British Columbians.

If you feel that government should pick up everyone who lost his job

in the last two years and run a deficit, then why weren't you out there

advocating that for every forest worker that was laid off? Why didn't

you advocate that for every miner who was laid off, the government hire

him? Why didn't you advocate that for every manufacturing worker who

was laid off and lost his job, the government hire him? Why? Because

you've got a double standard. You show no sense of responsibility. You

don't care about those people. You're trying to live up to a political

deal you made before and during the last election to get the paid

support of a few public sector union leaders who bought advertising all

over this province and who followed me around from meeting to meeting —

quite visibly and at great cost — and who spent a lot of money so that

you could deliver on the bargain that they would have a privileged

position in this province. You made a deal, but the thing is that the

unemployed miners and working miners and the unemployed forest workers

and the working forest workers and those in manufacturing knew just

what you were talking about and they understood the deal you made. They

believe in fairness and equity, and nobody likes to see anyone laid

off. It's tough to do in the private sector. It's tough to have to lay

someone off; it's tough to be laid off. It's tough in the public sector

as well, but the rules must be the same for each and every British

Columbian. And in doing so, we'll have a leaner, more efficient and

more affordable government.

This budget, which is a restraint budget, recognizes those facts.

This is a budget that not only restrains our own government; it also

asks other public agencies under provincial jurisdiction to share in

that fight. It asks those in education to care enough about the

continuation of the education of our young people not to demand more

for themselves than taxpayers can pay at this particular time. In doing

so, they ensure that the education system will endure and grow and

provide the type of education and skills that we want for our young

people in the future. We ask no more than that. It is a fight in which

everyone must help to get us through in these difficult times, in order

to preserve those services.

It's the same in the area of health care. Right now the government,

the Minister of Health, is consulting with the medical profession and

others. We know that the greatest enemy of health care can be when the

costs outstrip our ability to deliver all aspects of health care to our

people. We need cooperation between the professionals and those who use

the system in order to get through these times and not have to impose a

burden of continuing costs, which is the greatest enemy of health care.

The same for services to all our citizens.

During this debate the opposition has concentrated on only a few

areas where the government has made restraint cuts. You would think

this government had targeted only the Ministry of Human Resources for

reductions; that somehow we were picking on those who work in the

social service areas to bear the brunt of government downsizing. The

members opposite fail to recognize that the largest cuts will come in

ministries where maybe you can't make as strong an emotional appeal to

the public, but the people mean just as much to me as those who work in

Human Resources. It's just as tough for those laid off in Highways. Far

greater numbers of employees have been laid off in forestry. Don't you

care for them? What sort of political commitment do you have when some

workers in the public service area deserve more attention from you than

others? It's a very difficult thing to do.

As we get through this period and effect those savings, those who

work in the public service will have greater security than ever before,

because they will be providing the most vital and essential functions.

They will no longer be subjected to what have been, and what I consider

to be, unfair attacks about the "lazy public servant," which they are

not. In terminating them you couldn't do it just on efficiencies,

because in many cases they were efficient. That's why we've had to

remove whole programs and administrative offices in order to make the

cuts. That's the only way it could be done. That's why we had to go

beyond the use of attrition. The vacancies could no longer be filled,

because they were starting to get into the area of specialization for

professional and technical workers, whose ability we needed for a

productive

[ Page 1191 ]

public service; as well, to use the type of management tools that are in the private sector.

This is not done because we love restraint. I think the public

understands. Families have had to cut their budgets. They know that

when you earn $17,000 a year you can't continue to spend $25,000

because you want to see every show, have every toy, have a boat, drive

a camper. They know; they have had to cut back, and that's what

government has to do. When income levels drop because of an

international recession, any responsible government worthy of election

responds by tailoring its expenditure to that drop.

Mr. Speaker, I have to give you some idea of why this is important.

In downsizing to meet the changing world economy, we'll have affordable

government. In downsizing we will never have to impose the type of tax

increase and system that is indicated by the type of budget deficit and

accumulated debt that we would have had, had we not undertaken the

measures which were started last year. If we had developed the budget

this year we would have had to approximately double everybody's income

tax in this province, just to meet the spending levels of this year in

balance. Do you know that if we had wanted to pay off the debt just

being accumulated under restraint of the last two years, we'd have had

to triple the sales tax to 21 percent? If we kept up that type of

spending, and if we kept the spending programs that you advocate we

retain — tax credits and others — if we hadn't embarked upon the CSP,

which you opposed, and which is going to save hundreds of millions of

dollars over the next five budgetary years, including last year, then

our province not only would have no money for services but the economic

growth that we hope to stimulate to occur much faster than in the rest

of the industrialized world and the rest of Canada could not take

place. British Columbia would then have a tax regime of costs such that

no business could survive and no good business could compete.

[11:15]

1 know that it is easy for you to attack businesses. They make such

a great target and they have ever since the thirties and since Marx

first led you down that path. But we're in a more competitive world,

and it's going to be much tougher to attract new business and to retain

those businesses and industries we have. Therefore it's important that

British Columbia provide the economic stability that's predictable,

because all of the people who invest or do business can read a balance

sheet — even though you can't — and they can project into the future

the costs that government would impose — even though you don't care —

and all of them can make the decision to move their business, industry

or manufacturing to another part of this country or of the world. That

would mean that we would have a loss of economic growth and jobs when

what we need in this province is more investment, business, industry

and jobs for our people. That's why we're embarked on this program.

It's not just restraint on government for the sake of restraint, or

some wild philosophical ride.

Yes, I believe in it, but it is essential that we develop this

restraint program and that we stick to it, as we will; and as we show

the rest of the world and the rest of Canada that we're going to have a

much lower projected tax system in this province because of it, we will

be the most attractive area there is for new business and industry to

locate.

The New Democratic Party, its spokesmen and some of its apologists

are suggesting that those things that have been said about the budget

and the controversy are having people look at British Columbia in a

different way, and that business and industry won't want to come here.

Exactly the opposite is true. We are getting inquiries today from

business people. Two of my cabinet ministers were talking to a very

substantial group the other day and they said: "You came here to

British Columbia to make an inquiry. Weren't you scared off by all the

rhetoric of the NDP of what this government is doing?" And they

answered: "We wouldn't be here if you weren't doing what you're doing.

We wouldn't even bother to come and inquire in British Columbia."

Over the next weeks and months you will see a number of

announcements of head offices coming to British Columbia and of new

business being located here. Our government's economic strategy from

this budget is to do what we set out to do, and what we said we'd do in

the election: create jobs in the private sector by encouraging business

and industry. When we complete these budgetary proposals which will

guarantee our future, I and my ministers and this government will

embark on a program throughout this country and the world to tell the

people what is happening in British Columbia: that we are a safe haven

for investment and that we can have their investment here and create

the jobs that our people want. I heard the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe) laugh and giggle at that. That's the member who bores

this Legislature to tears with his tedious speeches, the young member

who needs training wheels for his mouth.

This issue is the most important issue, and this budget is the most

important thing we've ever done. It's tough. Have your fun attacking

it. Go to the extremes you've gone to, Mr. Opposition, and Mr. and Mrs.

NDP over there.

The people of this province understand that this restraint program

is the best sales tool we will have in attracting investments. It's the

best thing we have going in this province. People of the province are

looking to the future; they're not looking for 1930s solutions from a

bunch of aging socialists; they're looking for modern solutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, the time at your disposal has expired, unless leave is granted to continue.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've been

in this Legislature since 1966, under a succession of three Premiers,

and I've never, ever heard the Premier refused leave to speak in this

House and to continue to speak.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, obviously the government will have its way. The Premier can speak all day for all I care.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair heard a no. If it is the wish to put the question again....

Hon. members, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the

assembly, through you, for their graciousness in granting leave so that

I might continue.

Interjections.

[ Page 1192 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)

takes offence at the words "aging socialists." Obviously, by looking at

the member, you'd know I wasn't referring to her. But the statement is

apt when the brightest, rising young star at the last NDP national

convention was Tommy Douglas. The state of their youth movement....

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to re-emphasize the point on deficits. While

debt and how it will affect our ability to have future economic

development and employment, not only in this province but this

country.... That's why it is important that this Legislature and this

government continue to lead the country on the only economic program

that will guarantee economic success and jobs for our people in the

future. It's not enough that it just happen here in British Columbia.

Other provinces in Canada, and particularly our federal government,

must embark on a program of containing the cost of government, and

tailor it to the ability of our people to pay. It's no longer fiscally

prudent, nor is it within the ability of this country to afford Mr.

Trudeau's government running wild with their Chargex cards.

The federal deficit has doubled in the last four years. You've got

to understand the ramifications of what is happening to the cost of

government in this country. The federal debt — that's the total debt

that's been built up in all our years since Confederation, a debt that

financed two world wars and the great recession — has doubled in the

last four years. It is costing approximately 30 percent of all the tax

dollars that we send to Ottawa to finance that debt. Years of deficit

financing through what we now know as "the good old years" and "the

good times" have taken their toll as we are forced into deficits — as

are all governments during the tough times. We have in Ottawa an

example of what we will have in British Columbia if we don't put and

keep our financial house in order.

We don't want to see 30 cents of every tax dollar in the future

going to service the debt incurred today. The young people who want to

be educated in the future have got to know that the money will be

there; it won't be there if 30 cents of every dollar is going to

service debt. Seniors who expect the same level of care that we now

give our seniors won't have that level of care in the future if we have

to pay 30 cents of every provincial dollar to service debt.

Yet that's the type of debt that we would have been embarked upon

had we not had years of Social Credit balancing of revenues and a

government determined, even in these tough times, to limit the rate and

the amount of deficits and the rate at which debt has accumulated.

Within five years that debt would be many billions more than it will

be, which will be difficult enough. Yet on the other side of the House

they have advocated and spoken against every single measure that we

have advocated. Starting last year with the compensation stabilization

program, the removal of the renter's tax credit — tough as it is —

rental aid.... All of these things they have said they would retain.

That would mean a debt and a deficit that would lead to 30 cents of

every dollar being lost to our citizens in the future that has been

effected in Ottawa.

I think you can understand why they do that, because the New

Democratic Party has been a most effective instrument in minority in

Ottawa in bending the Trudeau government to its spending habits. They

have pressured them. They have kept them in power when they were in

minority, and they even made the worst possible decision that any group

ever could: they restored Prime Minister Trudeau to power once he had

been defeated. They brought down a government there that may not have

been perfect but that was trying to deal directly and fairly and

factually with the people. They told them what the costs in oil would

be, and the New Democrats kicked them out. They restored Prime Minister

Trudeau so he could triple the amount of taxation that was put on oil.

It's no wonder that your fortunes are inexorably linked together.

It's no wonder that in the Coquitlam-Moody by-election recently in

which your national leader came out and wanted to attack our

programs.... He was fooled by your statements. You've done it do him

again. I feel sorry for Ed. You told him: "Boy, we've really got the

public behind us now. Look at the headlines we're getting out here. The

people are against restraint." You said: "Ed, the people in British

Columbia aren't very bright; they believe what we're saying." So he

came out and put everything on the line for you. He said: "This will be

a referendum on the Social Credit government's restraint program in

Coquitlam-Moody."

You got out there and you did the same thing. You sent in the very

popular ex-member Mark Rose, who had won by a tremendous 5,000- or

6,000-vote majority before, and his replacement was favoured to win

until you came out with that. All of a sudden, poor Ed gets out here,

he listens to you, he believes the people that write what you say, he

believes the people that help you say what you do, and of course he put

everything on the line. And what happened? You turned a 5,000- or

6,000-vote majority into a 3,000- or 4,000-vote loss, and you've

exposed yourself to the country and embarrassed yourself once again.

[11:30]

You're not consistent losers because you're not nice people; I'm

sure you are. But you're always wrong. Your tendency to be vitriolic,

your tendency to continually....

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, hon. member, the member for New Westminster seeks the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would address the Chair. It would seem to me that the rest of us follow that rule.

MR. SPEAKER: We all should, hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that member who just

came into the House, and who's been absent most of the morning, had

been here, he would have known....

MR. COCKE: I was looking at your vouchers on restraint; that's what I was doing.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You'll have ample opportunity to continue

the style to which the public has been accustomed and the style which

will guarantee that you will continue to be losers for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, they have no concept of dealing with the broad issues, the major

areas and sound policies. But I do say this: as the member himself has just

suggested, they are excellent when it comes to vicious little attacks on expenses

and ministers and people who are trying to do a job. I'll give them that.

They do that very, very well. They're experts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's losership.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, they do that very well.

[ Page 1193 ]

But the point I was trying to make, and it was really only an aside

on your political fortunes, and far be it from me to try to help you

because I think you're beyond redemption. Even Michael Valpy wrote in

today's Globe and Mail about Coquitlam–Port Moody and what you

did to poor old Ed again. He now projects that because of your style in

B.C. you're going to lose Svend Robinson in Burnaby, James Manly in

Cowichan-Malahat, Nelson Riis in Kamloops — actually, you almost lost

him to the Tories a little while ago, until you used some method to

stop him. Then, of course, you're going to lose Sidney Parker of

Kootenay East, he said, and Lyle Kristiansen of Kootenay West. And, he

said, you're possibly going to lose Pauline Jewitt in New Westminster.

Mr. Speaker, the point I've been trying to make on the budget and

the necessity for restraint is that not only is it designed to preserve

essential services in the future but it's designed to be perhaps our

best economic tool in attracting new business and industry and

retaining what we have. An affordable tax base is the most attractive

thing to new business and industry. Unaffordable areas in this

competitive world are driving out business. We've seen it happen. A

number of years ago in Britain the cost of their taxation and lack of

productivity made industry unaffordable in that country, and, of

course, many of their people who would have had jobs there had to leave

and come to Canada where the private enterprise system was working then.

I know our people will always be productive, and they won't be part

of our lack of competitiveness. The biggest detriment to our future

would be a government cost that built up. That would provide taxation

that is unaffordable at the municipal, regional, provincial and federal

level. We're doing something about it in this province. This budget and

all of the cuts have a continuing application in budget after budget

that will compound the savings of what the debt would have been. They

will save us from having to impose some of the taxation levels I've

talked about that would have to be set if we were to try to pay for

those things, even in the restraint budget that we are advocating

today. They would be much higher than that if we attempted to meet all

the spending demands made during the election — and in this House since

by the New Democratic Party.

The rest of Canada is looking at this province, and they're not

looking at it aghast, as the New Democratic Party hopes. They're

looking at it as maybe a breath of sanity during times when governments

run amuck with their credit cards across this country. They're looking

at us to set an example, as we did last year when we brought in our

restraint program. I remember the opposition then. It's very

interesting that you don't hear them talking much about the

compensation stabilization program since their retiring leader's speech

in Nelson during the election. They said it was the worst thing that

ever happened, except the public supported it. Every other government

in Canada has followed it to some extent — not far enough — and the

restraint practices we're advocating now, I guarantee, will be followed

by every responsible government in this country.

I want to deal with the silly charge that this government is going

beyond its mandate. Our government was probably the first political

party to enter an election campaign and tell the people the tough

facts. We didn't make glowing promises of all the things we were going

to give them and all the programs we were going to keep. We told them

the tough news. The renter's tax was going, and along with other

programs we would save hundreds of millions of dollars, because they

weren't affordable. We told them that the way to the future was jobs in

the private sector; the answer wasn't big government. We were elected

on that basis, and the New Democratic Party was defeated on the basis

that they said: "We'll spend more money; we'll build a bigger deficit;

we'll create a bigger debt and government will spend all of your money

in some attempt to build the economy." Well, one thing you can't do is

spend your way out of this economic difficulty that the world is in.

This government put its broad policies of restraint before the people

of this province, and we are only continuing what we set out to do on

behalf of the people and on behalf of the future.

for which they don't have a mandate, I guess it's those governments

that get elected in Manitoba. They promised the people everything, then

they imposed things like a tax on jobs, counterproductive to creating

employment. Now they are taxing every job in Manitoba; you have to pay

a tax just because you are working. I don't think they had a mandate to

do that. Nobody had ever heard of a job tax before.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to answer that criticism, and I reject that

argument that this government didn't have a mandate. We would be

failing our mandate if we fell into the trap of trying to purchase an

end to demonstrators, and special interest groups, and the opposition

filibuster and the opposition taking the time of the House day after

day. If we responded to that, we would be failing to meet our mandate,

and then there would be justifiable criticism of the government.

You have got to know that the task of government will be tough for

many years. In 1980-81, when we had record resource revenues of $1.32

billion.... Even at that time, when we were building surpluses and

special accounts to guard against what is part of the pattern of the

world industrial economic cycle — peaks and valleys — to guard against

difficult times, the members of the New Democratic Party suggested that

we go into deficit financing to see if we could spend even more, to

enrich programs that were already meeting the needs of people. They

wanted to spend more. Today we are making 60 percent less out of our

resources in this tough recessionary world. This year the revenue will

be only $520 million. Surely we have learned the lesson that we can't

count on the uncertain direct revenues from resources for continuing

programs. People of this province must be able to finance and pay for

the services they receive in a year.

It means that we are faced with tough budgetary problems because of

that, not because we haven't managed well. When you get a 60 percent

drop in resource revenues and a drop in the economy, obviously

government has to restrain its budget, constrain its cost and set

priorities. That's what being government is all about — making tough

choices. When you are faced, as this government and this Minister of

Finance are, with the federal government cutting back its contribution

to social programs by $725 million between 1983 and 1987, you have got

to know that that provides an even more difficult challenge in

continuing those social services, when one of the partners in the

contribution and the sharing is reducing their contribution by that

amount. That means that the Minister of Finance and our ministers on

the social side had to do a number of things in order to preserve the

most essential. If we had those dollars then government would be easy,

but we don't and we won't and we can't destroy our economy by putting

up taxes to a level that would be self-defeating and would cost us

business and industry, rather than attract them.

[ Page 1194 ]

Those who advocate deficits on a continuing basis are one of the

reasons this country and the industrial world got into the trouble we

are in. Deficits by government, mounting government debt under the myth

that governments never go broke, has been exploded. The

socialist-Liberal financial and economic theories of the sixties and

seventies, rather than being moderate, are probably some of the most

destructive, and have visited these difficult times upon us.

We now see a number of countries in this world that, through deficit

and debt and inflation that runs into figures that are astronomical,

are on the verge of collapse. The international concern among the

financial community is how to refinance these countries. We have also

seen that worldwide inflation, rather than being acceptable, has caused

many of the ills. While it masked for a while a lot of the problems —

it looked like we would have a booming, growing economy forever — there

were injured parties even during inflation that governments lost sight

of: those whose savings were eroded; our seniors; those who had built

up assets, a hidden tax.

The greatest tax of all now is that inflation, even though it is

subsiding, still has us paying the highest interest rates in real terms

that we have ever paid. The spread between the inflationary rate and

real return on money is even greater because of the additional factor

that governments are still out of control in their spending. That is

why our people and our business are suffering with high interest rates,

which we must bring down and restore, and you can't do it artificially.

You have got to have some reality in there, and government deficit and

debt is one of the reasons that real return on money is paying the

highest levels ever and that our people are imposed on by interest

rates that make it impossible for them to own homes, as they did

before, and to finance business and finance economic activity. That's

why it's important that we continue with restraint, to set an example

which will be the answer to lowering interest rates.

[11:45]

There's also a very beneficial effect here in British Columbia

because interest rates, as well as hurting our people in all the normal

ways, affect our most basic of industries. Interest rates affect

mortgage rates and affect the number of housing starts in our primary

markets, particularly in the United States. A rule of thumb is that for

every 1 percent more on mortgage rates, 100,000 homes don't get built

in the United States. That's 1,500 jobs lost in our forest industry —

directly — and, through the multiplier effect, a number of jobs in the

service industry, jobs of those who would serve that economic activity,

are lost.

That's why it's not acceptable to have glib and easy criticism or

solutions. The solutions to our dilemma and problem — not only in this

province but in our country and the world — are very difficult and

require hard choices. That's why the bulk of the public of British

Columbia support this government. They're not marching with signs.

They're not standing on the lawn. They're not harassing individuals in

their homes and disrupting their neighbourhoods. But they're watching

all that and those who encourage it and invite it. They're watching

them for the way they've invited that kind of confrontation. They are

also seeing that those very same people have no solutions of their own.

They're seeing that, rather than being a part of the solution in this

country and province, those people have chosen, for a very narrow

political reason — perhaps for revenge at losing another election — or

for whatever reason.... They see that they're not willing to be part of

the type of cooperation, consultation and development of solutions that

will help to see us through this recessionary period and provide a

stronger future. The people are watching and listening to these people.

They're also watching those who would be their advocates, those who

would carry their message. They're taking a look and assessing their

reliability as well.

The public is in a very sober mood, as it should be, having come

through and being still in a very tough recession. We've had 200,000 of

our people out of work. Although 100,000 more people are working since

January 1, we still have a very unacceptable level of unemployment in

this province. They have to have some hope, but they won't have any

hope from politicians and political parties that aren't prepared to

offer the right solutions or any solutions at all. They have no hope

when the criticism becomes the story and the solution becomes something

to attack. But they do have hope with a government that's willing to

take that type of criticism, and they do have hope when the government

is making the tough choices to guarantee the future. They do have hope

when they understand that we're all in this together and that we're

going to have to work together to get through it.

They also realize that nobody should be immune from the recession,

that no group should have privilege. The burden should be equally

shared by every British Columbian. Many who have suffered are

applauding the efforts of this government to manage our affairs and to

bring equity and fairness to those who have been cushioned through the

recession; to put the same market conditions on them — not to penalize,

but to share the burden and be a part of the solution.

The people of British Columbia support this budget. They support

this government, and this government will never back down. This

province will never be run by demonstrators and protesters as long as

we're government. This government won't be cowed by threats of violence

and threats against the government or its members, because for every

member here there are a thousand ready to take our place and carry on

this fight. The government won't be stopped by delaying tactics and

filibusters, and while it may seem cute and artful to some of the

younger, newer members to carry on those tactics, it isn't being lost

on the public, and they support this government for seeing it through,

as we will. This government is going to achieve our goals because they

are right. But we are quite willing, as we have proven, to consult on

those measures that we've put forth, to make sure that they meet our

objectives and to eliminate any fears that are being created in the

minds of some.

We've brought in amendments to Bill 3. Those who would consult

rather than go for cheap, scare headlines have provided a lot of

opportunity for this government to improve the way in which we carry

out our restraint, and I thank them. I thank our ministers for

undertaking those discussions which don't get headlines, which don't

wave signs, but which are achieving the solutions in an even better

way. We will continue to do that because we are a government that

consults, and that is the way we'll win. We will lead through

consultation where people become a part of the solution. Those who

oppose us think the way to get us to back down is to get another cheap

headline in the paper or to describe this government and its members in

all sorts of extreme terms. That is not the type of cooperation and

leadership that's expected from oppositions as well as from government.

That's not what is expected during these difficult times. It might be a

political game this country and this province could afford in

[ Page 1195 ]

affluent times. Heck, once in this province we even

thought we were so rich we let the NDP in for three and a half years to

govern.

The way to do it is through consultation. I'd like to thank those

who have embarked on this process with us — some of them from the

labour movement, employers and professionals, many of whom are now

assisting the Health minister in what he's trying to do in

consultation. I'd like to thank them, because that's the type of

citizenry that this country needs.

In closing let me say I not only support the budget, the minister

and my colleagues, who are all a part of this program, and who had a

say in its preparation as never before, but I support the people of

this province through this budget, because I care about the future and

so does my government. The easiest thing we could have done was come to

government, keep spending, avoid confrontation and leave the problems

as extreme as they would be, as unacceptable — even more unacceptable

than what we face now — as they would be for someone else, as many

governments and many politicians have done. That's not the British

Columbian way, and that is why I support this budget and that is why we

have this budget. I want to say that the Minister of Finance has shown

great courage and leadership in our country.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a great privilege for me to stand and wrap

up debate for our party, a party that believes, still, in people, in

truth and in honesty in government. We have heard this morning a

desperate attempt by the Premier and by the Minister of Industry to

bolster their budget and to defend their policies and their

legislation, which the people of British Columbia have no intention of

supporting at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the previous

speaker was afforded the courtesy of concluding the majority of his

debate in silence, and I think it is only fair that members show the

same courtesy to the member who is currently addressing us.

MR. BLENCOE: This government has embarked on what it believes

and what it's trying to tell the people of British Columbia is a way to

save the people of British Columbia, our industries and our economy. It

has embarked on a program that really has no sense of reality or truth.

If this government had been honest and forthright with the people of

British Columbia, it would have tabled its intentions and its budget

before May 5. It would have told the people of British Columbia the

truth about what its intentions were if it was to form government: the

intention to declare war on the essential services that Canadians and

British Columbians have accepted for a long, long time. It would have

told the people of British Columbia that it was going to declare war on

children and on families.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, it would.

It would have told the people of British Columbia that it didn't

believe in child-abuse teams, family support workers, human rights or

supporting the handicapped of this province. It would have told the

people of British Columbia that it wanted to bring in a three-tiered

system for health care, that it wanted to go to user fees and that it

wanted to privatize some of the more basic components of a civilized

and progressive society. They got elected under false pretences. In our

estimation, Mr. Speaker, and in the estimation of the majority of

British Columbians today, they were elected under false pretences. They

do not have a mandate to destroy the social fabric of this province.

Today the Premier talked about restraint and taking away the rights

and privileges that British Columbians have enjoyed for a long time,

yet he cannot table the figures to defend those policies. We have

discovered that this Premier, who talks about restraint for everybody

else but cabinet and himself, spent $2,700 on an item that would pay

for five handicapped persons in the CIP allowance for one whole year.

Do you know what the item was that was billed from Stirling Ward in

Vancouver last year? Portraits of the Premier to send to his friends

and relatives all across this province. On September 25, 1981, the

Premier ordered $836 worth of coloured prints of himself. That wasn't

enough. On December 3, 1981, he compounds that anti-restraint move and

orders 500 black and white 5 by 7s and 250 smaller prints — $1,900, for

a total of $2,700. And they talk about restraint! They cut back the

handicapped allowance, and this Premier sends pictures of himself all

across this province and Canada. What disgusting behaviour! It has

nothing to do with restraint, and they know it. They are a fraud.

Nobody believes them at all.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw Your Honour's attention to the time: it is 12 o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada