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 )

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

213 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 213

Mr. Skelly –– 213

Mr. R. Fraser –– 215

Mr. Lauk –– 219

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983

The House met at 10.06 a.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's a great day in British Columbia. The

sun is beginning to peek through, but the significant thing is that we

have the opportunity to seat our newest member of the House. Thank

goodness, today we will see the new member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Parks).

Mr. Speaker, I addressed the budget debate at the end of the day

yesterday, and I have a few minutes left to wrap up some of the things

I want to say about my feelings for this budget, this province and the

leadership in this province at this time.

The citizens of British Columbia, and indeed the whole country, I

believe understood and still understand today that we are undergoing in

this province, and in the whole of the nation, the beginning of a new

era, one which will be fashioned by the demands of the public for fair

play for all people — not just for some, but all. They will not jump to

pay the demands of union bosses, nor will they tolerate governments

that try to outdo each other spending our tax dollars and that, in many

cases, have led the private sector in terms of wage settlements and

pushed the cost of living, inflation and interest sky-high for the

people of this country. We in British Columbia were told clearly on May

5 by the citizens — the whole country has told us — "We have seen the

future and we can't afford it." This government has recognized that,

and it seems, by the talk we had from the official opposition, that the

only people who haven't recognized it are the members of the New

Democratic Party, the socialist opposition in this House, who still

believe that the way to right the economy is to spend, spend, spend.

The budget addresses restraint. It stresses restraint to recovery,

and that's the operative word: "recovery." We are on our way to

recovery and we can only do so with the kind of blueprint that has been

laid out for us in this province, and with the cooperation of the

people and all sectors of society, I think we will achieve that goal.

I quote an address that was made in November 1982. It was clearly

spoken by the Premier of our province, the leader of our party, and the

people of the province understood it. They understood it so well that

they returned this government with a resounding mandate and a

resounding majority. I want to quote two paragraphs of the address to

the Social Credit convention, and through the convention to the people

of British Columbia.

"I believe you want us to act on — and we will —

reducing the cost of government dealing with the relevancy of boards

and commissions and the bureaucracy that has grown up outside

government that somehow we have felt does not provide the service or

meet the need of the people, and yet is providing a cost that our

society cannot bear. We will look into that.

"I think one of the other areas that we have some strong

direction from you was that you want us at all levels of government to get on

with the job, a job we have promised for a number of years and have not completed,

and that is in reducing the red tape and restrictions that government have provided,

that restrict people from getting things done and getting on with the job, and

we will do that as well."

Mr. Speaker, our Premier has spoken clearly and loudly. He has given

direction, and the people have followed his direction. On May 5 he gave

that commitment to the people of the province, which we are carrying

out in this budget today. Government in British Columbia, governments

throughout this nation and the national government are on the threshold

of a new, responsible and commonsense era which has been dictated to by

the people of this nation and surely by the people of this province.

Government cannot end a recession all alone. We require the cooperation

of all British Columbians to meet the challenges today and in the

future. We look forward to every British Columbian's continued

cooperation.

This is a daring, courageous and long overdue budget. I support it totally in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Before I begin, I would like to introduce three

visitors in the gallery: my wife Alexandra, my daughter Susan, who will

be 10 this month, and my son Robbie, who will be 8 this month.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this budget debate, and

there are only two issues that I would like to address: first, the

value and the cost of individual rights and freedoms in this province

and in this country, and second, the role of a democratic government in

protecting those rights and freedoms. I believe that both these issues

are in contention as a result of the contents of the throne speech, the

budget speech and the legislation which was tabled in this House last

Thursday. There's always a problem in dealing with these issues in the

Legislature. They're so abstract that everybody goes to sleep when

they're mentioned, and as a result, the opposition is often forced to

muck-raking, to pointing out specific instances of government

extravagance and corruption, in order to get the attention of the

public and the media. We end up dealing with ministers' tendencies to

indulge themselves in Broadway plays, expensive wines and foreign

travel, and we seldom talk about how those things relate to the

individual rights and freedoms that we are elected here to protect.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have here in my hand $1.53 worth of postage stamps not quite

enough stamps to send five letters anywhere in Canada. But the cost of

these stamps represents some pretty important services and expenditures

that are provided by government for the citizens of this province. I'm

using them to demonstrate how little, in real economic terms, it costs

the people of British Columbia to finance some very important services

of government, and how false it is of this government to use economic

reasons to justify the undermining or elimination of those services.

[10:15]

The first target of the Social Credit government's budget was the

Human Rights Commission and the employees of the human rights branch.

They were eliminated last week on the pretence that "savings will be

realized by the elimination of highly paid professional staff used to

support regulatory processes." Yet an examination of the estimates and

public accounts over the last eight years reveals that over the eight

[ Page 214 ]

years of Social Credit government the human rights

function has cost the citizens of this province less than $7 million.

Last year the commission and the branch cost the citizens of this

province an average of 57 cents each. That's less than the price of two

first-class postage stamps to send a letter anywhere in Canada. Clearly

there is no economic justification for the elimination of these

agencies.

Why, then, is it being done? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the reason

can be found in the bigotry which is the basis of the new right

movement in Canada, the United States, and Britain — a bigotry which

all too often surfaces in this Legislature and which indicates the

underlying lack of respect for the dignity and worth of human beings,

regardless of differences based on sex, origins and individual

characteristics. There is no doubt that the Human Rights Commission

embarrassed the government, because they made public the fact that this

government in British Columbia has the worst record of any province in

advancing legislation to protect human rights and in enforcing the

current legislation. And while some of the recommendations of the

commission made in February of this year were included, the new act

appears even less enforceable than the Code and more susceptible to

interference by government.

This government has always claimed to have the strongest

environmental legislation of any province. Yet what good is legislation

if it is seldom, if ever, enforced, or incapable of enforcement? Now

the government has indicated that it plans to adopt the same

window-dressing approach to the Human Rights Code. Who will benefit?

Who has the protection of this government, Mr. Speaker? Bigots. And who

will pay? Minorities.

It is clear that what has oozed to the surface in the Social Credit

Party of Alberta has always been present here in British Columbia. Now

this government is attempting to cover its shameful act of bigotry by

eliminating the Human Rights Code for reasons of cost of government and

lack of productivity. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: what is the protection of

human rights worth? What do you think the citizens of this province are

willing to pay to have human rights protected and the human rights

statutes enforceable? I'm convinced that they would be willing to pay

the price of two postage stamps.

For that reason alone, I oppose this budget. It is an ill-disguised

attack on the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this province,

and, as one reporter stated, it's only the beginning. I looked at some

of the articles in the Province and in the Sun

that describe the way the human rights officers were evicted from their

offices. The hit man, Mr. Chamberlain, said; "I'm just following

orders." Where have we heard that before? "When Hall phoned Paris later

that day she said: 'I don't know what to do. I'm scared. I feel like

I'm in Chile.'"

Where have we heard that before?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

said there was a new era coming in this province and that this budget

represents a new era. It's certainly a new era for this province, but

it's not something that this country or this world hasn't experienced

before. It's a new era for us, but it has been experienced before.

What about the justification for eliminating the office of

rentalsman and for the changes in the Residential Tenancy Act? Can that

be justified on the basis of its cost to taxpayers in this province?

During the eight-year term of this government the total expenditure for

the office of rentalsman and for the Rent Review Commission will total

just over $21 million.

That's an average of less than $3 million a year, or 96 cents per

citizen per year — the price of three first-class postage stamps.

This government trumpets its support for enshrining property rights

in the constitution. Of course it defines property rights as those

rights we enjoy after we've stolen the property from its aboriginal

owners. Governments have traditionally restricted the unfettered

enjoyment of property rights, in order to protect the rights of

individuals, through zoning, land use, minimum wage and labour

standards legislation. According to the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association, even anti-slavery legislation in the United States was

opposed on the basis that it violated the rights of private property,

which were provided for in the U.S. constitution. But through changes

in the Municipal Act and especially through the attack on the office of

the rentalsman, this government has served notice that individual

rights in this province will again be subservient to property rights,

that human beings are something less than possessions and that tenants,

because they don't own their home, will be restored to the same

second-class citizenship under which they suffered a decade ago.

A few years ago this government restored the right of private

property owners to vote in local elections. Last Thursday it restored

the right of an individual property owner to ignore the development

directions established by the citizens of a community through zoning

and planning bylaws. Now it has virtually eliminated what few rights

tenants and landlords enjoyed on the excuse that the rentalsman

function was part of an overweight and intrusive bureaucracy and part

of expensive big government. As a result, protection of individual

rights has again been plunged back decades. For what price? For 96

cents, the price of three postage stamps or a glass of beer. Mr.

Speaker, how can you put a value on the security of tenure of your own

home, whether you are an owner or a tenant? What would you be willing

to pay to ensure that you aren't thrown out on the street without just

cause, or that you aren't subjected to unreasonable increase in the

cost of occupying your home? Would it be worth 96 cents a year, Mr.

Speaker? Because that's all the taxpayers of this province pay to

support the functions of the rentalsman's office and the Rent Review

Commission. It's shameful that this government places no value at all

on a tenant's right of occupancy, or on a landlord's right to repossess

in the event of non-payment of rent or unreasonable damage. Those

rights were little enough under the current legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this province, during the 1970s, had a strong and vital

economy, as the budget speech reported. It was an economy which was

capable of providing its people with a high standard and quality of

life. Yet in seven short years this government has changed British

Columbia from a have province, contributing in a positive way to the

Canadian economy and to the growth of that economy, to a have-not

province which is a drain on the resources of this nation and on the

resources of its people. How did that happen? The government itself

claimed to have exactly the opposite intention. They said they believed

in balanced budgets. Yet during the last four years they have overspent

the budget by over $2 billion; even during times when the economy was

good.

They said they wanted to cut social service spending, yet welfare

and unemployment are now the second largest payroll in this province,

after retail sales. And more people are dependent upon government

transfer payments now than at any time in the past.

[ Page

215 ]

They said they wanted to reduce the burden of government, first through deregulation

and now through downsizing. Yet the cost of government has doubled in the last

decade in spite of their quick-fix solutions. They have exhausted the assets

of the province by draining the special and perpetual funds, by selling off

the ferries and buses, by selling off and giving away public corporations that

were making or were ever likely to make a profit, and by giving away mineral,

petroleum and natural gas rights. They have driven Crown utilities so deep into

debt that they will not likely recover without economically-damaging rate increases.

One speaker in this debate called that "accidental Reaganism." Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing accidental about Reaganism, or about the

intentions of this government. Nothing that this government has done to

turn this province from a vital, positive economic force into a

floundering, rudderless creditor state has been unplanned. This

government was financed into office to turn British Columbia into a

have-not province. They were put into office to turn the public sector

into a public milk-cow to be sucked dry by private interests. They were

instructed to so encumber this province's Crown agencies with debt that

they would no longer be able to be the engines of the economy, but

would become burdens on ratepayers. And now with this budget we have

reached the final stages of the process: the elimination of human

rights protection, the restoration of private property rights over

individual rights — reversing a two-century trend towards individual

liberties — and the final dismantling of the countervailing power which

all of the people exercise through the government in order to protect

themselves from the interests of the few.

Mr. Speaker, in its general direction over the past eight years,

nothing that this government has done has been accidental. They were

put into office to prevent the people of this province from ever

realizing their economic independence through the agency of a

democratic government. They are financial fifth-columnists,

public-sector saboteurs and economic traitors. And as Mr. Chamberlain

says, they are only following orders.

One of the problems with parliamentary democracy is that it's

difficult to define where it begins and difficult to know when it ends.

We can't point to a date like July 4, 1775, or July 14, 1789, and say

that's where our freedoms began. As Tennyson said, in our system

freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent. In our

country, so many decisions were made over such a long period of time,

from the legislative achievement of power of the purse back in 1805, to

the renunciation of the monarch's right to a legislative veto in 1849.

Some decisions were made so near in time to us that we do not realize

how crucial they are to democratic process — decisions such as the

Human Rights Code, the elimination of property qualifications to vote,

the creation of the ombudsman's office and the office of the

rentalsman. It is only after these are gone that we realize that they

were here in the first place. Perhaps because they weren't won with

blood we don't value them as highly. If they are won a second time,

they may not be won so easily and with so little sacrifice as the price

of a few postage stamps.

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to share in the welcome given by the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to the new MLA for Maillardville-Coquitlam,

John Parks, who will be joining us later. With respect to the fact that there

was a long delay in his swearing-in process and some court proceedings along

the way, I would say that every man and woman is entitled to his or her day

in court. As the former member wished to try that process, I would agree that

he should have the right, and I would never deny anybody that right.

With respect to the budget speech, I would like to compliment the

Minister of Finance and his staff on a fine job. Certainly lots of hard

work was put in by the staff and the minister. I know they worked many

hours. There's no doubt about the effort put in there, and I thank them

and him on behalf of all of us here in the room and in the province.

The mandate of May 5 was a renewed mandate for the government. We were

renewed by our contact with and input from the people of British

Columbia. We were renewed in spirit by the fact that we knew that

everybody realized that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Restraint is certainly the order of the day, and restraint we have.

There has been some talk that the government has not told the people

what to expect or what they would get. I have got some quotes that I

will include in my presentation today. I'll start with this one by the

Premier of the province on December 13, 1982, in which he says:

"I sense a mood of realism has taken hold in the public

mind over the past six or eight months that bodes well for the future. One example

of that realism was the decision by doctors, municipalities, people in the education

system and the provincial government employees to settle within the guidelines

of our restraint program. Compare that to the difficulties in some provinces,

particularly Quebec, in getting agreement with public employees to similar programs."

I would say that the people of B.C. clearly understood, and that is why the

government was re-elected on May 5.

[10:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In particular, I would like to thank the members of the media who

made a point of making headlines out of almost every single item in the

budget. It was important for us that they do that, and it was important

for the people of British Columbia to get the news from the government

directly from the media. They did make a lot of headlines and the

people did understand.

With respect to my own constituency of Vancouver South, I can tell

you that as of yesterday we had not received one complaint about the

budget speech. Interestingly, we've had some phone calls with respect

to how to apply the various implications of the budget. As I explained

to everybody in my maiden speech, the riding is made up of big

business, small business, rich people and poor people — a cross-section

of every member of our society, be they immigrant or native-born

Canadian. The fact that the entire community down there understands is

amazing. I think that was the message given to us again on May 5.

MR. LAUK: The phone is off, eh?

MR. R. FRASER: The phone is not off the hook; it's hooked up 24 hours a day. But thank you for letting me put that in there.

The word is the same around the province: everybody really understands what's happening.

[ Page 216 ]

Restraint, as we all know, is just common sense: income versus

outgo. Every homeowner, householder, tenant and person in the community

understands that. You can't spend yourself out of debt. There's no way.

We are getting the message of self-reliance. We're trying to give

people a chance to survive on their own. If they need help, they will

get help. Certainly the seniors of the province and the pioneers of

this country, as I pointed out before, made it because they understood

self-reliance. However, as we all know, there were days when they

helped their neighbours in need. That mood still exists. We should give

our children the chance to have the same feeling of self-confidence and

self-worth. That is the message in this budget: making it on your own

and getting help if you need it.

I would remind everybody in the audience and in the province that no

one said it would be easy; no one thought it would be easy. In fact,

going back to the message from the Premier in October 1982, he said:

"It may be, if the economy continues to plunge, that

we will simply not have the money coming into government to pay for

such things as health services and Human Resources. If that happens, of

course we're going to make sure that those services to our people

continue. We are not going to all of a sudden allow them to be cut off.

It may be that at the end of the fiscal year next February or March,

say, we will have to borrow to maintain services."

It was October 1982 when the Premier said that we

will not cut off services to those who need them, and if we need to

borrow to pay for them, we will, to get through this difficult period

of recession — which we are doing. He added: "But we are going to

maintain essential services. It would be the height of stupidity to say

one day: 'all right, we're out of money; now everything stops'."

The simple commonsense approach to the budget, the economy and the

times is understood by the Premier, by the government and, I think, by

every member of the House, and certainly by everyone in the province.

That's what we're talking about when we talk about the CSP, the

restraint program. In fact, every minister in the government has been

talking about that sort of thing. Back in February 1982 the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said: "It

is a period the world has not known since World War II. It is a period

that our people must adjust to in a positive way, not in a negative

way. It is a time when we must stress our priorities and how we're

going to get through this difficult period." That was February 1982.

The message has been going out for months. The fact is that maybe we

haven't all been listening. But we have all heard it now.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development said

further: "Over the years expectations have reached a level where

governments were asked to build up a host of expenditures on various

programs and services. These expenditures grew from a level of about 20

percent of our gross production in the early fifties and sixties to

about 40 to 60 percent today." In other words, the cost of government

has about doubled since the end of World War II. Those were the days

when we seemed to have money, not only the taxpayers but also the

government. The government only has the money it collects from the

taxpayers. So the government had the money to pay for the programs, and

the taxpayers were doing well.

Those days have changed. We are now in different times, as the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development said in February

1982. He added in 1983: "But the timing is still uncertain, depending

on the intelligence of the government's policies and planning." There's

no doubt about the fact that essential services will be maintained; the

government has said they will. But the fact is that priorities must be

established, and so they will be. The essentials will be maintained.

The options will be dropped — that makes sense. We could, I suppose,

spend unlimited amounts of money, if you wanted to bankrupt the

province, possibly forever but hopefully not for long. No matter what

is done here, we're trying to make it work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On June 23, 1983, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) made

some interesting remarks, which I'll comment on later, but we'll put

them in now. In the Vancouver Sun , January 23, 1983, he said:

"'The government has been contracting out more and

more work previously done by provincial employees, but restraint has

forced the pace to increase. Four years ago a quarter of the ministry's

work was done by the private sector; now half is done by non-government

workers. Reforestation and firefighting services will not suffer.'

Waterland said that 'whenever the private sector can do a job more

efficiently, the government will move in that direction.'"

He was talking then, as it were, about the move to privatization.

Again I thank the media, because they understand the thrust of the

throne speech and the budget speech. The mood of the people and

certainly the mood of the government is to privatize those things which

can effectively be privatized for the benefit of all citizens of

British Columbia.

A report of the Minister of Forests quotes the Minister of Finance:

"Government has grown too large. Since 1971-72 the provincial

government has more than doubled the amount it spends for the average British

Columbian. Even after accounting for the increased expenditure resulting from

inflation, there has been an 60 percent increase in real expenditure for every

man, woman and child in the province. One must surely question whether people

are receiving 60 percent more or better services from the government over this

period."

In other words, what he is saying is that there were very desirable programs

and some optional programs, but not always essential programs. Sometimes the

inessentials have to be cut. This is one of those times.

Going back to a statement from the Premier in 1982, he was telling

the story, as we all know, and there were no deceptions there.

"If there is a government anywhere in this country

that is going to match the people's spending with their ability to pay,

it's this government. If there is a government that can ensure future

services to the people because it is managing the finances well and

responsibly so that we can have progress we can afford in the future,

it is this government. If there is one government for the times in this

province, it is this government."

Mr. Speaker, the message has been out there for a long time. There

is simply no doubt about that. We cannot keep overspending. Nothing is

free. Everything is paid for by the taxpayer, really and truly.

Essential services are there. I think

[ Page 217 ]

it would be reasonable to say to everybody that no

one wants his programs reduced. No one would like that. No operator or

manager or administrator of any program thinks his program should be

reduced. But all comprehend the need. Everyone will have to put more

effort into solving his own problems. Self-reliance is achievable for

many; the rest need help from their families, social agencies,

governments, etc. They will get it. Those of us who can be productive

must be, so that those who need help can get it.

I quote from Mr. Lanskail in the area of business, which we talked

about in the budget. "I'm happy with the philosophic direction the

government is taking — more responsibility for the private sector,

which can do a far better job cost-effectively of managing and

enhancing the forest resource of B.C..... He's talking just about the

forests; but there are people out there who think the private sector

can do it better, and certainly now is the chance, if they want it, to

show us that it's true. If someone out there can run a better bus-line,

then now is the chance. There's no doubt about that.

There's a small line on page 16 that I think should be repeated, or

referred to at least, Mr. Speaker. It talks about the transfer of

portions of other government services to the private sector, including

legal, architectural, engineering and similar professional services.

It's a line which could become very significant.

As you know, I am a professional engineer in private life, and I can

assure you that the consulting engineers in this province are very good

at exporting their services, relative to other engineers in the

country. We number about 10 percent of the engineers in Canada and

account for far more than that in export services. I would like to

remind everybody in British Columbia that every time we export

engineering services we are exporting a clean and renewable resource.

Every time the consulting engineers of B.C. get a job overseas, they

hire between three and five subordinates who go on the payroll. Every

time the products of B.C. get included in the design of an overseas

project, we help people working in the factories. In fact, Canadian

engineers have a good reputation throughout the world. I would like to

see us do more exporting of engineering talent, which means that we

will get the new market, the rebuild market, and the replacement

market. There are so many things that we can do if we help the

consulting engineering practice get bigger and better. Anything we can

contract out from the government to help them gain expertise and

training makes sense to me, and to everybody working as a result of

that employment in the private sector. There can be no doubt about that.

[10:45]

The budget talks about restraint. The budget talks about good economic times

being times in the past. Certainly when we looked at the highways a few years

ago we saw so many boats, trailers and motor homes. It seemed that everything

was normal and natural. If you didn't have a boat or a camper or something,

it wasn't normal. There were days not too long ago when construction workers

were working when they chose. Many of them were taking long extended holidays,

and I have no objection to that. I think the more money people make the better

off we all are here. Certainly for those who need help from the government the

taxes that those people pay are a great benefit. But when times become more

difficult, things that did seem normal now seem to be an option. You do not

need things like boats and campers to survive, and so we find that people in

the community and the province are doing what the government is doing, trimming

the non-essential things. The government has been obliged to get back to basics,

and the government did it. It made sense, but you will note also in the budget

that the essentials were expanded. Health care, education — essentials! That's

bridging the gap and that's why there's a small deficit.

Getting into health care, we understand that certain members working

in hospitals and elsewhere are making very high salaries. I don't

object to high salaries. I do object, however, to salaries that go

beyond the level of the job description. I think that should be

addressed and I hope it will be.

Getting into health care again, you'll notice that the mood of the

people these days is one of trying to stay in good health on their own

by jogging, better diets, getting into racquet sports, doing all those

things that promote good health. Certainly hospital care and education

are good ideas. One of the things we have to do is to give people the

idea that they should stay in shape and good health on their own, not

go to the hospital to be repaired. The sports thing is in the budget

and I can go for that.

In talking about health care, I have a letter to the editor in the

Sun of July 5, 1983, and it bears reading, Mr. Speaker. It says: "I was

born and raised in Texas, and lived there all my life until two and a

half years ago, when my company sent me to Vancouver to manage its

Canadian branch." We'll skip paragraph two, which summarized, Mr.

Speaker, says that she had to go to the hospital during the strike, but

the third paragraph says: "I wonder if the people of B.C. know how

thankful they should be for the way the hospitals here are run, and for

B.C. medical." That lady now lives here and is grateful to live here.

Sometimes I think we take things for granted in British Columbia and in

Canada. Certainly any travelling I have done has been an eye-opener. We

are so lucky to live in Canada, and so extremely lucky to live in B.C.

The minister said no one would be denied access to health care. That

makes sense; I like that. He talked about user fees. There was a small

increase in user fees, if you want to use that term for hospitals. I

can defend user fees as making sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, three postage stamps a day.

MR. R. FRASER: Three postage stamps? You need a little more

than that for the increase. What user fees do is put disposable income

into the pockets of everybody else. The cost of $8 or $9 a day to stay

in the hospital.... Would anybody in the province not take a $300-a-day

hotel room that's going to cost them $10? Nobody would object to that,

for sure. How can they object to spending a few pennies of their money

in the hospital at $300 a day? That makes sense to me. I can defend

that, particularly when we know that no one will be denied access to

hospital care. But costs cannot be completely unlimited; something has

to go if we spend all our money in health care. I think it's the

balance that we're looking for.

The federal minister doesn't seem to agree with the balance; she

seems to think that everything will go on forever and ever. I don't

agree with that. There has to be a melding; some things have to go.

Choices have to be made and priorities have to be set. Good gracious,

we have to keep our costs in line, or we simply can't do all the things

that we want to do in the essential services area.

The Minister of Human Resources referred to the cost yesterday, so I

won't go over that again. But, indeed, we learn again and again that

the implementation of user fees is

[ Page 218 ]

the only way to put discretionary dollars into the

pockets of non-users. It doesn't matter if it's hospital care or

sports. If you play you should be entitled to contribute something to

the system. That is what we're suggesting people should do, but they

will not be denied essential services — that's important.

As the government has said, it will not be easy. It may not be fun,

but it's going to be useful. Everybody understands that. The teachers I

talked to all support the restraint program, and certainly some of them

must have voted for the government. They want efficiency in the system.

They understand that. What responsible teacher wouldn't? They want to

work with fellow teachers who are also willing to work. In fact, when

we talk about efficiency and working, I think one of the greatest

things the government can do is to let the teachers decide who is

teaching the best. I have no feeling for keeping people in positions of

employment simply because they've been there for a long period of time.

Those days are really gone. This budget would give those teachers who

want to teach a chance to teach with others of a like mind. I

understand that. Those who can't work to the level they should be at in

a system can either upgrade or move elsewhere, or get retrained. We

can't carry people who are not carrying their own weight, because if we

do we can't provide essential services to those who really need them.

Every good teacher supports that kind of a program because he knows the

kids will come out better. That's why they want to go to that. Back to

basics in education.

In suggesting the teacher-pupil ratio should change, 17 to 19

doesn't sound like a big increase to me, but every teacher has a

slightly different idea of how big his class should be. Some teach

better when there are only 15 in the class, and others teach better

when there are 25. We're not suggesting that every teacher should have

19.2 students; we're suggesting an average of 19.2. Some teachers do

better with large classes. All we're suggesting to the teachers is that

they teach and fit it into the system and make it work, so that the

children of the province get the education the taxpayers are paying

for. That's what we're looking for: that the children of the province

get the education they deserve, and that every taxpayer is paying for.

There was an

article in the Province

recently about tenure. It was suggested that tenure was necessary

because of academic freedom, but what it comes down to now is that

tenure is job security for life regardless of performance, which is

completely and absolutely wrong. In the newspaper editorial the

president of the faculty association of Simon Fraser University said:

"If I am appointed without term, then my contract expires the day I die

or retire." Nothing to do about input from him. Nothing about hours,

about effort, about benefit for the students. No, no — he's appointed

forever. Completely and absolutely wrong!

Nobody is entitled to a job appointment forever. No one. If you

can't keep it going, you're gone. Every worker in the province in the

private sector, and that includes myself — or did, until I was elected

to this Legislature — knows he has to keep working from day to day,

from hour to hour. No work, no pay. That makes sense and that's why

people work hard. They want to; they want to keep their jobs. It seems

to me that educators are in no different a position. If you wanted to

give someone tenure for two or three years, or some kind of a contract

for two or three years to do a special project, I would understand

that, but a guaranteed job forever is not something I can go with in

any way whatsoever.

There has been a lot of discussion about what was coming down. Some

people didn't hear it, perhaps because no one really wanted to believe

we are in a recession. We believe it now. It was not of our making and

we will not be the total solution, but we will not withhold our part.

We will put it in. Everybody in the province will put it in if they

want to cooperate.

There was some mention of privatization of things like ICBC. I would

not suggest how to do that, but it's something I think I would be

prepared to look at. With respect to insurance in general, I would like

to talk for a second about public liability damage. There are people in

the province who carry very low public liability insurance, whether by

choice or by accident I don't know. If you have low limits of public

liability coverage and are involved in an accident against which there

is a large damage claim, the driver — or the insured in this case — can

be burdened forever with an enormous debt, which is of no value to

society or to him. Worse than that, the victim, who gets a large award

on paper, may end up getting no cash at all. That is even worse than

the driver who is burdened, or the insured who is burdened. There are

countries in the world which have unlimited public liability insurance.

I would like to see ICBC, or whatever agency does the insurance work in

B.C., have a look at what it would cost to provide that kind of

coverage, where that is the coverage that the victim really needs, let

alone the driver. It shouldn't be too hard to do that. We can all pay

for that, I think — all of us, all the drivers.

There is talk about small business and letting it grow. There are

lots of people in small business. Some 98 percent of the people

employed are employed by small business, apparently — some incredible

percentage like that. I wouldn't say that was correct, but I think it's

close. Many of those small businesses will never amount to much in

terms of size, dollar volume, or whatever you want to call it. But the

people in those small businesses evidently like it there. They chose to

be there; they wanted the chance to make it on their own. I think every

chance that this government can give them is correct; every possible

break with respect to costs of government is wonderful. For sure, if we

do find a hotshot with a small business out there, he's got a much

better chance of making a go than a large company. And you will happen

to remember, I suppose, that the biggest timber company in the province

was at one time a one-man show. Small businesses can make it. We should

give them every single chance to make it.

There is talk about people regretting the 1 percent increase in

sales tax. In fact, from my point of view, Mr. Speaker, the sales tax

is very likely the fairest tax of all. It hits the people with money to

spend and hits them often. It doesn't hit the people who haven't got

much money to spend, because they don't get taxed if they don't spend.

What could be more fair than that? Talking about sales tax, I do know

that the sales tax in the state south of the border is higher than ours

and people still keep buying meals there. They certainly are buying

clothing and merchandise there. Seven percent is not difficult. I don't

think it'll affect any sales. With respect to restaurants we know — I

believe it's on page 76 of the budget — that the sales tax here is

lower than in almost any other province. I thought that the $6.99

dinners were a terrific idea. Those are the little guys out there

promoting business, making it work. I thought it was great. There will

always be some people cheating, I suppose, and dividing the meal in two

— and saving 49 cents, 24 cents or whatever. There is very little

[ Page 219 ]

we can do about that, I suppose. But the mood of

most people is that they're honest and they'll pay. Most restaurateurs

are honest and they'll charge.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Is he the Red Baron? The sales tax will stay;

the sales tax is fair, We can live with that. Everybody can. The

fairest tax of all is the sales tax. There are other taxes far more

difficult to handle than sales tax.

I was pleased to see the acknowledgment by the government that the

homeowner grant for first ownership was really not working. The fact is

that it probably raised the prices of the houses people were buying, so

it didn't amount to anything except that everybody in the province was

paying for the houses of those who were buying with grants. I don't

think I can go along with that. Certainly the houses would have sold

with less money, because if you've got to sell the house, you'll sell

it. The price will come down. The cancellation of the first-homeowner

was right. I agree with that.

[11:00]

There was information in the budget about spousal support, about the

fact that the government would be ensuring that those wives or husbands

who were abandoned by their spouses would have some help from the

government in getting support. I agree with that. A marriage breakdown

is a tragedy. Its cause is unknown. And the number of marriage

breakdowns in this era is alarmingly high — 4 out of 10, I understand.

Maybe we don't know the reason why marriages are breaking down, but the

fact that they are breaking down does not relieve one from the

responsibility of supporting the other. I can certainly support the

idea that spouses should be supported by the ex-husband or -wife

wherever possible, and not by the general taxpayer. I was shocked to

hear that one court award for a wife divorced from her husband, who is

making over $30,000 a year, was about $100 a month, because otherwise

her Ministry of Human Resources allowances would be cut off. That's

incredible. That's wrong. We shouldn't all be paying for that.

We haven't talked much about legal aid, Mr. Speaker. As I said at

the very beginning, I would never deny a man or woman his or her day in

court if I had my way. With that in mind, it is hard to look at items

like legal aid and not provide unlimited funds — if you have them. But

the fact is that there are not unlimited funds. The fact is that if we

cannot agree on the level of funding for legal aid, which we may not be

able to, there's certainly no doubt that we can agree that the most

needy should get it first. It's funded by three bodies: the federal and

provincial governments and the Law Society. I would suspect that the

legal fraternity — which I say is a fortunate group, like engineers —

are probably going to have to put in a little more volunteer time to

help with legal aid if they really believe in it. I'm not castigating

the legal profession in the province. I'm well aware of the fact that

lawyers are already putting in a lot of volunteer time for legal aid,

and I'm suggesting that more should do likewise. They should share

equally and I hope they do. I'm sure that the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) can attest to that.

The budget spoke of rent controls. It was judged to be necessary in

times of almost zero vacancy, but only then. After that it was time to

remove it. From my point of view rent controls are largely an illusion.

They don't do what people think they are going to do. From my

perspective, rent controls really stop the construction of rental

accommodation because the investor is simply going to get a return on

his money somewhere, and if he can't get it from his apartment block,

he's going to get it in the bank or some other place. Let us give the

landlords a chance to make a living. That makes sense to me. We hear

that one-third of the claims on the rentalsman were about damages to

the apartments and now that has to be addressed individually to the

tenants. I understand that. He's given the right to evict for failure

to pay rent or for wilful damage. That makes sense. That's good for

everybody.

There's so much material in the budget that I think one could go on

and on. In fact, I would like to, but I think with the information so

far we've got lots to think about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just prior to recognizing the next speaker, I

regrettably point out to all members of the House that the three-minute

light and the red one-minute light aren't working. They guarantee that

they'll be fixed by this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), my old friend from Columbia River, has kindly volunteered his

time and will watch carefully how much time I use on the clock. I can

well understand. He's the one member of 57 here that has the least to

do and all the time in the world to do it. For the first time in all of

his twenty-odd years in the Legislature, we've finally given him a task

that we can trust he can satisfactorily complete.

As is traditional, I want to comment on some of the points raised by

the previous speaker on the other side of the House. I don't want to

attack him in his calling in profession, but we of the professions —

that is the clergy or the law — have never been greatly impressed or

pointed out that when someone describes themself as a professional

engineer that that's not traditionally acceptable. Engineers are not,

in the course of our history, professionals; they're engineers. One of

the problems with giving these people this kind of status is the kind

of presumptuous speech that we just got from the hon. first member for

Vancouver South. He said: "I can understand that. That seems logical to

me." He's a very soft-spoken, eloquent and articulate member — the

Arthur Godfrey of the House. Everything is so simple and, of course, we

were warned what the budget would include. He asks: "Why didn't you

believe the Premier when he warned you about this draconian budget?" In

a moment I'll point out to the House why we didn't believe the Premier,

and why we haven't been able to believe the Premier for many, many

years. After I point out the evidence that supports our point of view

in that regard, I'll ask the member where he was when the member for

South Okanagan made promises, commitments and pledges during and

between campaigns. Betrayal after betrayal. The hon. member says: "Why

didn't you believe the Premier when he warned us that he was going to

come down heavily in the budget?" And the hon. member accepted, of

course, because he's now a politician. If we let engineers run the

country, we'd have nothing but concrete, elevated highways and

freeways, robots running our entire society. Everything would be in a

computer. Human beings would be in resettlement camps, and so on.

Lawyers would be lined up against the wall.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 220 ]

MR. LAUK: I didn't say everything he had to offer was wrong.

I think the hon. member gave the impression that everything was

okay. It was a fireside chat, like "Father Knows Best." We're all sort

of: "Gee, is everything all right, Russ?" The way he said it was just

"like, everything's okay." This is on the day after British Columbia's

night of the long knives, when policemen are running around the

countryside politically assassinating civil servants, seizing their

keys, coming to their homes while they're having birthday parties with

their families.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's false.

MR. LAUK: Is that a false allegation? I expect that will be

pointed out quite clearly. I expect that because there was a report in

the newspapers, if that report is false, it's libellous, and I expect

the government will take quick action in that regard.

The hon. member for Vancouver South said tenure is wrong. Nobody should get an appointment for life. Nobody? What about judges?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all lawyers.

MR. LAUK: You tell me. If you cut down tenure for judges in

this country there won't be equal justice such as we have it. If you

cut down that last tree, the wind of injustice will find everyone in

this society, no matter how high or how low. If judges can be reached,

can be expelled without tenure, justice is absolutely meaningless in

this country. If you cut out tenure for teachers and professors, where

will we find them teaching the truth? They'll teach what they think

they have to teach because of the prevailing philosophy of the

government in power. Do you think that can't happen in this country?

Tenure is wrong in every case, says the hon. member. Nonsense.

The civil service. In 1952 W.A.C. Bennett came to power on the

promise of eliminating patronage in this province. He secured tenure

for the civil service so that changes of administration would not be

like holus-bolus changes of the civil service, so that the people of

this province could rely on stability and quality of civil service. Do

you think any competent civil servant will want to work in the

bureaucracy of British Columbia when he knows that at a moment's

notice, at the Crown's pleasure, he can be eliminated within 24 hours

and some jackboot can go and seize the keys to his office? When he has

to go under guard to get his personal effects and the picture of his

family off his desk, what has it come to in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker?

[11:15]

The question of rent controls is the biggest fraud in the history of

this country. The Fraser Institute is nothing but the mouthpiece, the

hired guns of right-wing politicians and big business executives who

want to enslave ordinary people in this country. Don't kid yourself!

That kind of nonsense from the Fraser Institute is nothing but sheer,

unadulterated, unscientific, right-wing propaganda. I have read the

book — that pulp! — that they put out on rent controls. It contains

deceptions, misrepresentations and selective reports of the so called

negative effects of rent control. They must be exposed for what they

are: the propaganda ministers and lie merchants of right-wing politics

in this country. Rent controls merely make livable, just and fair the

acquiring and use of rental accommodation, especially in our major

urban centres. To argue that it reduces the incentive to manufacture

rental accommodation is totally insupportable. It has no evidentiary

base. Simply because the Michael Walkers of the world and the other lie

merchants of our society keep on saying so does not make it true. A

thousand times zero still equals zero. In areas where rent controls are

in place, in other jurisdictions and in every province of Canada —

except now B.C. and Alberta — rent controls are in place or have had to

be reintroduced after a short, experimental period without them. In all

situations in our country, in most urban situations in the United

States — including Los Angeles, with 12 million people — rental

accommodation and the addition of new rental accommodation has not been

directly or indirectly affected by any rent control program.

As a matter of fact, as this government reduced rent controls in the

West End of my constituency, as they reduced rent controls in the east

side, and in New Westminster and Burnaby, rental accommodation

decreased. To argue that the free market system will take care of

rents.... You show me where one rent in the West End of the city of

Vancouver has been reduced during the high vacancy rates. They don't go

down in the free market system; they only go up. This shows you that

rental accommodation cannot be in the free market system. There is no

such rule as it applies to land and rents. Any honest, straightforward,

intelligent economist and land economist will tell you that — it cannot

apply today, and never could apply. The law of supply and demand does

not apply to accommodation. It doesn't work. Rents go up, they don't go

down.

Why don't we believe the Premier, I ask the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). I'm holding up here an advertisement

which says: "Social Credit will not abolish rent controls." Was that

the problem of the ad agency? Was it some overzealous campaign manager?

It's signed, "Bill Bennett." "Social Credit will not abolish rent

controls." In every major newspaper in the province, a pledge; a

promise; a commitment; and a betrayal. You ask us why we didn't take

him seriously about the budget. We can't take him seriously about

anything. Betrayal.

In this budget, accompanied by 26 atomic bombs, we find that the

legislation in support of the budget is coming into this House under

the guise of restraint and fiscal responsibility; but it is an attack

on basic human rights and will not stand up under close inspection, to

fulfilling any of the needs of restraint. Rather it is being used by

this ideological, overzealous, doctrinaire government to spread and

establish and strengthen their very right-wing ideological system

throughout this democratic province.

Here's a picture of the Premier. He was a bit younger then. Here's

what he said: "Government must serve the needs of the community. Social

Credit is for the individual and against big government. We do not

believe that a central authority is the sole source of wisdom."

Promise? Commitment?

School boards are in danger. Municipal governments are being

eliminated. Local planning has been usurped and taken away by the

central government. And you ask why we didn't believe him. Okay, you

could say this was the campaign in 1975, 1979. Then answer this

question. Who said this on May 16, 11 days after the election, to the

Council of Senior Citizens of B.C. — the bottom of a page of a letter:

"At the same time it should be made clear that the ministry is not

intending to repeal rent controls or accelerate the removal of rent

controls, and rent review is viewed as a permanent

[ Page 221 ]

appeal system." May 16 — who said that? The hon.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), in black and white. Doesn't he

attend cabinet meetings? Wasn't he listening to the Premier either?

Deception after deception and betrayal after betrayal! To say you have

a mandate after these kinds of deceptions is a travesty of democracy.

If you went to the people with this budget, there wouldn't be one of

you sitting in this House — not one. Fifty-seven seats....

MR. MOWAT: We got the majority.

MR. LAUK: You know that's not true.

The Minister of Health, on May 16.... If the Minister of Health knew

that this budget would eliminate rent controls, what do you call him?

What's the only word for a man who, if he knew that rent controls were

going to be abolished in the budget of July 6, or whatever, on May 16

said: "...it should be made clear that the ministry is not currently

intending to repeal rent controls or accelerate the removal of rent

controls"? Nothing can be clearer than that. Now if he didn't know,

who's running the government — one man? Where have we heard that before?

During the election campaign we were told there would be no

increases in health user charges, and that the claims of the hon.

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) were lies. The government had no

plans to increase user charges. They make a mockery of the democratic

process, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit Party makes a mockery of

democracy.

Nowhere in this country can anyone show me that rent controls cannot

work, because they do. They make it fair for ordinary people. It may

sound okay to the member for Vancouver South; maybe landlords can make

a bit more money. A letter circulated in my constituency claimed that

if the NDP got re-elected, landlords would lose an increase of $5,000 a

year. Well, we sure took care of that, didn't we? That's $5,000 per

year on each unit. Those are the kinds of increases the tenants in my

constituency — and in yours — can expect. That's the kind of sleazy

politics that we're dealing with, Mr. Speaker — Social Credit sleazy

politics. A mistake honestly made is one thing, but deliberate

deception is another. We'll have more to say on that, of course, during

the legislative debate on the elimination of the rent control program.

I want to talk a little bit about human rights. The question of

human rights is very important. The measure of a civilized society is

the degree to which all of us — in leadership and out of leadership —

in our society respect each other's differences and backgrounds. It is

not only that; that respect is measured by the degree to which the

governments of a civilization enforce and assert those rights on behalf

of minority groups. It is a sad thing indeed that, under the guise of

restraint, the human rights machinery in this province is being

dismantled. I say "under the guise" because the saving is minuscule.

The devastation and destruction of the unity and cohesion of our

society...is endangered. People with no political axe to grind support

the human rights structure as it has developed over the past several

years in this province.

Last summer my son and I went to Europe. I received some rather

good-humoured criticism for not being present in the House, but I want

to share an experience with you. It was a happy trip. When one's son is

about to reach adulthood, it is the last opportunity for father and son

to be together; it's sort of an initiation into adulthood.

We travelled. I was on my way to a conference. On our way there we

were staying in Munich for a day, and when I discussed it with my son I

decided we should go to visit the World War II memorial — and we did.

It took about an hour. On the way there, by train and bus, my son and

his schoolmate who was travelling with us were joking and laughing and

trying to speak German to a couple of girls on the bus; we were having

a great time. We arrived at the World War II memorial and started the

tour. Less than two hours later we boarded the bus to go back to the

city, and those two lads were very quiet. They didn't speak for the

whole hour on the trip back to Munich.

The war memorial was a place called Dachau. It reminded me of the

major issues of that day and the major issues of today. I suppose the

visit was important for those two lads. They never really took it

seriously. They never knew whether or not this kind of place really

existed; it was something adults talked about in the past war, and they

weren't alive then. It's part of the history books, but they saw it;

there it was. That was the place where 28 social democratic members of

the Reichstag were executed. That was the place where Jews and other

political minorities were executed.

[11:30]

On the front page of the catalogue of the tour of Dachau is the

quotation of Pastor Niemoller: "When they came for the Jews I did not

protest, because I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I

did not protest because I was a Protestant. When they came for me, I

looked around to my neighbours but there was no one left." The

essential quality of a civilization is the degree to which we support

minority groups and respect each others' differences, and that means a

full support of the human rights legislation of this province. It's

moved from one holocaust to another.

I was watching television the other day and a scientist said that he

had entered into his computer all of the major historical events that

we know, and some of the prehistoric that we knew through archaeology

and philology — the events of the human race in its short period of

time on earth. The decisions that were collectively made by one race,

city or state against another, were all there. He added the essential

ingredient, the technological achievement of the twentieth century:

thermonuclear devastation. He pressed the button and asked the

question: what are the chances that the human race will survive the

twentieth century? And this man-made machine, largely created by an

engineer, replied: "One percent."

Why are we two armed camps in this world? Why is it essential that

we stand up and scream and yell that our whole system is in danger of

devastation because we give a little more money to a single parent,

support the human rights act, give a little bit more money to people on

welfare or try to provide jobs for poor and under-educated people? Why

is that so wrong? Why is God going to strike us dead with a lightning

bolt if we do that? But somehow it's okay, it has divine blessing, to

spend trillions of dollars every year on instruments of absolute

destruction. That is sanity? Why are you as an engineer, and why are we

as politicians, so willing to accept the product of scientists and so

unwilling to accept their method of the rational, logical mind? Two

enemy camps. Is it better that we wipe ourselves off the face of the

earth?

Why is this being raised in a budget debate in B.C.? It should be

raised in every village council, every legislature, in every parliament

of the world. Little did I know on the bus back from Dachau that those

boys were quiet because they

[ Page 222 ]

saw the capability of normal human beings — the

Germans are just as normal as we are. I will not condone some racial

slur against the German people. They're the same as we are, and just as

capable of goodness, grace and understanding as of evil, anger,

bigotry, stupidity and isolation. And this is what's happening through

this budget. Do you think the issue's not the same? It is the same.

When you reject human rights, when you say someone because of his

differences is subhuman, you are giving a licence to bigotry and

division within society and a licence to destroy civilization itself.

You cut down the trees that are protecting your civil rights. If you

fail to defend your neighbour's rights, you fail to defend your own.

And who will come to your aid when you're lying whimpering and saying:

"I didn't know it would happen to me"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sleaze,

MR. LAUK: It's not sleaze; it's the truth, and you know it's the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: If it could even be remotely supported that

restraint was the reason for the savaging and gutting of the human

rights structure in this province, then I would not be saying the

things I'm saying today; but it cannot be. No, those boys on the bus

were not looking so much at the holocaust at Dachau as at their own

future. Understanding and a respect for each other means our survival.

It means a change in human nature. It means the leadership of people,

no matter of what party, in demonstrating that kind of understanding

and mutual respect which will allow us to survive.

What a debate there would be in this Legislature if we could have a

resolution moved by the government and seconded by the opposition on

nuclear disarmament in this country. Don't tell me that it's hopeless.

I do not believe the gospel of hopelessness. I do not believe that

simply because we have the BNA Act and the new constitution this

Legislature shouldn't be dealing with the issue. I do believe that if

legislature after legislature, in comradeship and unity, made their

views known, the leaders of the global powers would take notice. They

do take notice when hundreds of thousands of people march arm-in-arm

for peace and human survival, no matter how jaundiced and mad they may

be. But if we accept the gospel of hopelessness, that there's nothing

we can do about it, then like a self-fulfilling prophecy the world will

end. And I say that the approach that the government has taken is one

of isolationism, one of a brittle, crystallized, inflexible,

doctrinaire philosophy of the right.

Politics in this province is no longer the politics of conciliation

and compromise. It is the politics of extreme. It is the politics of

selfishness, of revenge and of greed. That's what the politics of this

province has turned into. Yes, there's a retrenchment. People are

afraid. But you put a political label on it and you are going to be in

trouble. You'll reap what you have sown. It is not a conservative

retrenchment. It's fear, yes; it's isolation, yes. They don't believe

any decision maker anymore. They have heard enough. But to use that

retrenchment and that fear to play upon the basest instincts and

interests of human beings is an abdication of leadership. It is the

crassest path, albeit shortest, to power. But it has its punishments at

the end. The path that the government is travelling along is an

extremely dangerous one, as I said during the address on the Speech

from the Throne. You can rule alone. You can forget the politics of

conciliation and compromise and respect and understanding. But you will

create a desert in order to call it peace.

This budget, of course, is the worst that this province has ever

seen — unnecessarily so. When you talk about whether we were warned

about the budget, this government was warned. This government was told

about the recession of the eighties. They were warned by economists

throughout the world of what was going to happen in the eighties. Did

they prepare? No, not at all.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know they didn't. Where were you when day after

day in this House this government was warned? Three years in a row we

moved motions to reduce government spending in advertising, ministerial

travel, office space, personal expense accounts. Three years in a row

there were over $200 million we wanted to reduce, and there were many

other areas for reduction. Did they do it? They ignored us, Mr.

Speaker, They were warned.

Now they're talking about high technology. The major resource

industries in this province are withering on the vine, and they're

holding pie in the sky as the answer to our economic development.

Rather than looking at the base of our economy and improving and adding

value to the resource industry, diversifying markets, diverting

resources into new markets, taking an imaginative, forward-thinking

approach, they are huddling in their caves. Like the voodoo medicine

man in the ancient tribal days they come out of the cave with a mask on

and say: "High technology, high technology, don't worry, high

technology." Mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

They talk about productivity, Mr. Speaker, and as I pointed out

before, productivity to them only applies to labour. It doesn't apply

to the use of profit, the use of capital, the use of machinery, the

efficiency of the plant, the efficiency of administration of

corporations, the efficiency of government. No, productivity only

applies to labour. The attack on ordinary working people in this

province will be a devastating one indeed, because they are not

considered worthy of a share in the good life. The only regulation this

government supports is regulation to make it fair between investors.

Let's not get too devastating. If you are going to rob somebody on Howe

Street, don't get caught. As I say, we moved in successive years to

reduce this budget. Where were you?

Interjection,

MR. LAUK: Oh, gamesmanship, was it? Why didn't you accept the motions to reduce the budget?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was gamesmanship, that's why.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it wouldn't have saved you money? The hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) calls it cheap political games.

Over $200 million — I don't call that cheap.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order.

[ Page 223 ]

MR. LAUK: If we were making a gamesmanship proposal in those

days, Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister of Education, Bill Vander Zalm,

introduce his own cuts along the lines of the budget reductions we

proposed in the first place? No other minister did. Now if we were

proposing gamesmanship, why would he admit to it? Was that cheap

gamesmanship on his part, too?

Have you restrained yourselves? Have you controlled your own

instincts for cash? Have you controlled your own greed? No. You've

appealed to the public and made their basest fears your campaign

strategy and policy. You've kicked and scratched and fought your way

into the gutter. Jobs for the boys and increases for your friends, but

a 7 percent sales tax on ordinary people. That's the legacy that this

government will have. Well, now you've done it. But you've misread your

mandate, and you'll pay in the future.

Hon. Mr. Chabot moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:44 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada