1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3597 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Macdonald –– 3597

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3601

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3605

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3606

Division –– 3609

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 27: minister's office –– 3609

Hon. Mr. Gardom

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member

for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), I would like to ask all members

to bid a very warm welcome to a couple of gentlemen from that great

riding of Okanagan South. With us today are Mr. Karl Tarkicker, and

also His Worship Mayor John D. Hindle, recently reclaimed as Landslide

John.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's my great pleasure this morning

to introduce two guests in the gallery: first, Mr. Cecil Leong, a

businessman from Hong Kong. Cecil has recently purchased a home in

North Vancouver and is looking to our great, beautiful and vibrant

province for opportunities. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

With Cecil this morning in the gallery is a very close personal friend

of mine, a native of Victoria, Mr. Neil Crockett. I'd ask the House to

make him welcome as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wish to add my remarks to those of our

House Leader and also welcome landslide mayor John Hindle. With Mr.

Hindle we have one of our leaders on the administrative side in the

municipal field, Mr. Stewart Fleming, who is the administrator of

Kelowna. Mr. Fleming has an added feature: he's a fellow Scot. Would

the House please welcome him.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I fully assumed that the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) would proceed with that very

interesting speech he was delivering yesterday afternoon. That would

give me time to collect my thoughts.

MR. REID: There aren't enough days in the week.

MR. MACDONALD: They're collected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

MR. MACDONALD: Oh yes, I'll drop down on one knee and kiss

the ground. Anything else? Any other suggestions? What a guilty bunch!

"Guilty men." That's what Churchill said about the people who…. Bah!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I

enjoyed the speech I was listening to. It was a good speech, although

the minister wasn't using much fuel. I'm going to make a few remarks in

opposition to this budget.

I speak in the budget debate on the morning after the firing of Anna Wong.

Now Anna Wong was making $16,000 as a translator, comforter and janitor —

this story says "bureaucrat" — for 1,300 elderly Chinese in Vancouver's

east side. That wasn't an awful lot of money. It's not a case of one

more unfortunate gone to her death rashly importunate; it's one more unfortunate

gone to destitution. No doubt she attempted to have the grant to that organization

maintained. She will continue to be a good citizen of British Columbia, but

she won't have much money to spend in the corner store. She'll probably

be on welfare; there will be a charge on the public treasury. Welfare rates

have been slashed. She is a good citizen of British Columbia, but has she been

fairly treated by this budget? There's not a compassionate soul anywhere

who can say that Anna Wong is being treated fairly.

I have some comments to make about the secrecy that is becoming so

prevalent in the province of British Columbia. As an example, I take a

hearing that is about to be held in April by the College of

Pharmacists. The college has been given by this Legislature the right

to hold hearings, to discipline members and to suspend a pharmacist

from the practice of his profession. Once I had a case of a pharmacist

in Alberni who began to advertise his prescription drugs; of course,

that was a no-no in the realm of pharmacy at that time and even is

today. He was disciplined by the college, and we had to fight the case

through the courts to get him reinstated in his profession. It was a

secret hearing then, and they continue to be secret hearings now,

unless there is an appeal to court. In terms of advertising, I think

the time has surely arrived when there should be responsible public

advertisement — through the B.C. Research Council or something of that

nature — of the true qualities of prescription drugs and their true

cost so that the public in this wild market out there will have some

chance to protect themselves.

[10:15]

But I'm not talking about that, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about

secrecy. I think this particular hearing in April ought to be public.

The allegation was that there was a methadone mixup. Perfectly innocent

customers of the pharmacy received methadone instead of what they were

looking for, with some dire results for some family members, including

the 13-month-old son of D'Arcy Siebert, who got an antibiotic tainted

with methadone. When the humblest — and the highest — citizen of the

province of British Columbia has to go to hearings, whether it is a

civil or criminal matter, that are invariably open as a matter of

justice, why should the College of Pharmacists, where the public

interest is as deeply affected as this, be holding a secret inquiry?

There is no occasion whatsoever to do so. It is time we opened to the

public the hearings of the professions in the province of British

Columbia that have been endowed by this Legislature with disciplinary

and other powers. They should be public hearings, just as the hearing

that I attended yesterday before the registrar of the court was public.

I refer also to the Dr. Wakeford case. I use this as an example of

unacceptable secrecy by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The

hearing into the case of Dr. Wakeford was, of course, once again, held

in secrecy — and if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, in the darkest of

secrecy. In times past, even the names of people subjected to

disciplinary decisions have not been released to the public, which has

the prime interest in a profession that's working for its benefit. I

don't think for a moment that the college has anything to hide in these

hearings, but the practice of secrecy must come to an end. I notice

that the Attorney-General in this particular case, after the closet

justice handed out in the case of Dr. Wakeford, had this to say: "In

Victoria Attorney-General Brian Smith was asked if his ministry planned

to investigate the case. 'Not

[ Page 3598 ]

that I know of. That is a disciplinary matter for

the B.C. Medical Association and the College of Physicians and

Surgeons. It is not a matter for my ministry.'" How does the

Attorney-General know that it was not a matter for his ministry?

I had a phone call two days ago — I won't mention any names, Mr.

Speaker — from the mother of a student who had been on the bus coming

home late from UBC, and he touched or was supposed to have touched a

young woman passenger on the bus, and he is charged with sexual

assault. He says the incident was minor, but I do not try to prejudge

the case in any way. What I am saying is that we have two levels of

justice in this province, and that the Attorney-General has no right to

say that he is totally disinterested in the case of a physician judged

by his peers in a secret hearing, without the transcripts even being

made available to the ministry — to say he is not interested in that

case, even though four patients were alleged to have done the same

thing that this student is alleged to have done.

That is two levels of justice, or rather injustice, in the province

of British Columbia, and the secrecy is what is to blame. The more a

democratic society hides things, the more trouble we ultimately get

into; the more opportunity there is for abuse; the more opportunity

there is for unequal justice to be applied among the citizens of this

province. I deplore the kind of secrecy that is carried on. I'm glad to

say the lawyers in their disciplinary hearings, with very rare

exceptions which are justifiable where confidential information between

solicitor and client might come out, have opened the disciplinary

proceedings into the forum of public hearings — where, I don't suppose,

many citizens will choose to wander in. But the right to wander in to

proceedings affecting the public interest as well as private interests

is something that is so well recognized by the courts that it ought to

be recognized in other fields as well.

I want to refer to the letter of the Attorney-General to the Vancouver Sun

printed yesterday, March 1. In that letter the Attorney-General of the

province defends the actions of his department in connection with the

ombudsman's release of his report.

I think the actions of the Attorney-General in acceding to the

blocking of public discussion, legislative discussion and public

inquiry, because of the kind of letter that Mr. Mahood wrote, places us

on a very dangerous road to tyranny — a new police state. In his letter

he says: "…all criminal investigations must be respected." That's a

quote from his letter. There are criminal investigations going on all

the time — at least they're supposed to be going on all the time if the

police are doing their job. This new law or rule that is being proposed

by the Attorney-General of British Columbia will lead to the curtailing

of the normal democratic processes because the police are doing their

job.

When I was Attorney-General, I was.... No, I won't say that. I was

mistaken for a plainclothes man once when I was Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker. I was trying to do my job in that capacity and a citizen came

up to me and said: "Are you a plainclothes man?" I was Attorney-General

but I replied: "Yes, I am." He replied: "You look like an old-clothes

man to me." That's my own history, and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) doesn't find it even the slightest amusing. It's very hard to

amuse that hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, what the Attorney-General is proposing in this letter

is something far beyond the normal rules of the courts that we respect.

If individuals are charged and the case is coming to trial, then public

comment about the merits of the case constitutes contempt of court, and

that's enforced by the courts. We have the Attorney-General of British

Columbia saying, "I will seal your lips," and on the most ridiculous

pretext in the Mahood case, with a simple allegation that maybe there's

something wrong in this thing that might lead to an investigation — and

I suppose the police look for that thing all the time. Then later Mr.

Mahood told them that he had no evidence of fraud or commercial crime.

Yet the result has been that the political convenience of the

government has been served by the attitude taken by the

Attorney-General. That it has been served bears no doubt whatsoever.

Forests Minister Waterland was incredulous when he was told of Mr.

Mahood's statement, which was a perfectly normal statement. "I didn't

charge anybody," was what Mahood was saying. "Why all this fuss? Why

stop the ombudsman? Why stop a public inquiry?" The Forests minister

said: "The letter" — the original letter of Mr. Mahood — "says what it

says." The Forests minister shows that he is perfectly sure that what

he was hoping from that letter was protection from discussion and a

public inquiry while this Legislature is sitting. Put it off in time.

Put it off, hopefully, forever. I don't know whether the

Attorney-General holds that point of view. I rather doubt if he does. I

think he really believes that because his officials asked the police to

look into a particular minor aspect of the whole subject, he was

entitled to take the stand he has taken. But I am quite sure that

Premier Bennett and the cabinet considered that this was a very

fortuitous way of putting off this whole subject, notwithstanding that

with interest on the money, if there is any money owing — and there

probably is a lot of money owing — very many millions of dollars could

be at stake.

There are many kinds of police investigations going on in the

province of British Columbia all the time. If a government can say, "I

transfer police activity in its normal investigative role to see if

anything wrong has gone on against any of the criminal laws, and name

this a formal investigation," and as a result of that, democratic

processes have to come to a halt, then, as I say, we're on the road to

tyranny. Any member of the public can stop democratic processes and

public inquiries in their tracks by writing a letter to the

Attorney-General of British Columbia saying: "I think there may have

been an offence committed in these particular circumstances." Then

everything stops, and he may be doing it to save somebody's hide, or

politicians may accede to that kind of thing to save their political

hides. This is a very dangerous kind of police we're getting into. The

police, after all, are very outstanding citizens of British Columbia

and do their role very well, but never let it be forgotten that they

are servants of government. Their budgets depend on government, and

their promotions in the higher echelons depend upon government. Are we

going to turn these inquiries that used to be held in public over to

police forces? We're on a very dangerous course. A government is able

to gain time and secrecy, and the government in this particular case

has done just that. They have gained time and secrecy by blocking a

public inquiry and trying to block any public discussion.

Mind you, the Attorney-General says: "I didn't mind if the ombudsman

sent his report to the cabinet." He didn't mind that those people might

be prejudiced, or prejudice a trial, or that the Minister of Forests

might speak out and prejudice a trial. He didn't mind that at all, but

he didn't want the public to know the contents of the ombudsman's

report — certainly not at this time. He wanted to shove....

[ Page

3599 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who did?

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First you did it with Waterland; now you're doing it with him.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't say that about Waterland outside of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: What? I did say it outside of the House. Everything I've said, I said outside of the House. Sorry about that.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I demand an apology. That's not what was said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has been offended, I'll ask the Minister to withdraw any imputation or improper

[10:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's very peculiar that this member, of all

members, should be offended by that kind of a statement. Since you've

been in office, sir, you have utilized this House to make statements

that I think are disgraceful, and you won't repeat them outside. If you

find that statement objectionable, sir, I will apologize for that

statement. I don't have any difficulty apologizing to people; you do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. If the minister wishes to enter into the debate, every opportunity will be afforded to him.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that very self-righteous political turncoat was lying to this House. Yes, you were.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Now I'll ask the hon. second member for Vancouver East to withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. If we can avoid personal references to any other member in the House, parliamentary….

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You were lying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: You were lying; I'll say it outside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please once again withdraw that statement.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, I'll withdraw it.

You know, I've been in politics a long time, and I've never seen

such a self-righteous and such a guilty group as sit on those

government benches. I don't think you could reproduce them for

self-righteousness and guilt anywhere in the British Commonwealth of

Nations. So don't….

AN HON. MEMBER: Muckraker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's their defence. You know,

whatever comes up, whether it's Gracie's Finger or anything at all, you

just accuse the opposition of throwing mud.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What are you accusing Gracie of? Name it.

MR. MACDONALD: Read the report. You suppressed the whole inquiry into Gracie's Finger and you know it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and would ask you to have that member withdraw that remark immediately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apparently some offence has been taken. Would the second member for Vancouver East please withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I see no occasion to withdraw

that. The government blocked the ombudsman from going ahead with his

investigation into that matter by taking him to court and questioning

his powers until the matter was lost in the courts. It was suppressed

by the government. That's my statement. I don't have to withdraw that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, that's totally unsatisfactory

for me. The word "suppression" in the connotation that the hon. member

is using it almost amounts to high crime in office. High crime in

office, sir, is punishable under the Criminal Code. I find that a most

objectionable and despicable statement, and I find it absolutely

atrocious since it's coming from this mudlark from Vancouver East.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before hearing the next point of

order, I think we have a couple of withdrawals now. I'll ask the hon.

second member for Vancouver East to withdraw any imputation of improper

motive that was referred to the minister. I'll deal with the other item

in a moment.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we can…. You'll have to be recognized

first. I think we can settle the whole thing quite nicely. I’m quite

prepared to….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a question of settling the whole thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is, yes. If I could just ask the hon. second member….

MR. LAUK: I demand to be recognized on a point of order.

[ Page 3600 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will be recognized as soon as I have cleared up this other matter.

Could the second member please withdraw, and then I'll address the concern that I have with the minister.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I recited the facts. I did not

charge any crime. I said that the government, by its actions, had

suppressed the investigation into the matter of Gracie's Finger. I did

not charge a crime to anyone under the Criminal Code. I charged dirty

politics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Now I will ask the minister to withdraw the word that was a personal reference. If the minister can....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I used the word "mudlark." He is a mudlark. If he finds it offensive I withdraw, but….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair finds it offensive.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Fine. Then I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Now I would like to recognize....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, if I may….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member did not withdraw his remark.

He equivocated, and I would like a withdrawal. I find his references

reprehensible, objectionable and insulting to this government, this

member and to every member on the government side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been tradition, I would advise the

minister, that statements can be made against a group of people and not

be found personally improper to the House. I believe the member has

qualified and satisfied the parliamentary tradition.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not satisfying to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has been said.

I recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, when these kinds of controversial

issues arise, one of the best ways to deal with it rationally and

calmly is to recognize a third person's point of order. I would suggest

that….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, irrespective of the caterwauling of these

mental midgets, Mr. Speaker, this House should be operated on the basis

of some kind of relevance and decency. Let me suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that when the allegations....

MR. MOWAT: You've only been here once a week.

MR. LAUK: You've never arrived, my friend. My vacuous and cretinous

friend, with an IQ of.... Never mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's avoid the personal references. To the point of order.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't referring to him.

Mr. Speaker, all hon. members in this House would be absolutely

silenced if they could not make the kind of truthful allegation that

the hon. second member for Vancouver East is making. It is clear from

the evidence that it is absolutely true — and nobody has challenged it

until this day — that the government deliberately tried to suppress the

investigation of the ombudsman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you're entering into debate. I believe I have heard your point of order, and I will....

MR. LAUK: As a result of that, you quite rightly concluded that the hon. member did not have to withdraw that kind of an allegation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With respect to your first point of order,

the Chair is always obligated to address personal references as quickly

as possible, and to hear other third-party points of order at a later

time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is part of my speech, not

the point of order, but I just want to refer to the definition of the

word "suppress." When I used it I was accused of having charged a

crime. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says: "Suppress — to keep from public knowledge; to keep secret."

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's what you accuse Waterland of.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

gets up and calls me a mudlark because I use a normal word like that,

and that kind of thing ought to stop. But it's not going to stop me,

Mr. Member. If you think you can intimidate, me you've got another

think coming.

HON. MR. McGEER: Don't flatter him again.

MR. MACDONALD: Read the dictionary so you will know what the

a crime you'll know it; but I haven't done that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, is that your next little pitch?

MR. MACDONALD: That's a great remark. I'm going on with my speech, Mr. Speaker.

I said I hadn't charged any crime. Many police inquiries have gone

on side by side with investigations by the police. For example, there

was the inquiry in Quebec by Robert Cliché, who has since died, into

labour racketeering among some of the construction projects in that

province. There was Reg Tupper, who is since deceased as well. He held

a public inquiry into the conduct of Walter Mulligan, who was chief of

police of the city of Vancouver. Obviously there were police

investigations going on at the same time. There was the appointment of

Mr. Justice Sloan, after long delays, to look into the Sommers case.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is trying to silence the democratic process. In so doing he is hiding behind the skirts

[ Page 3601 ]

of his officials and saying that somebody — in this

case, the Deputy Attorney-General — has ordered an investigation, and

everything must stop. I think that is an extremely bad precedent, and

we should not allow democratic processes to be made secondary to police

investigations. The Attorney-General in his letter obviously mixes....

And this is a very bad mix, because he mixes law, which he is

attempting to propound, with politics. He criticizes the ombudsman. He

says: "Normal response time in cases where the ombudsman has previously

reported has been at least 60 days." That's a political statement in

the course of this letter. It has nothing to do with the legal point he

is making. He goes on: "There has never been any doubt that the

government will present a formal response to the ombudsman's report."

Who said that? There is a great deal of doubt as to whether there will

be an adequate response from the government if they can gain time and

secrecy through the kind of legerdemain they are embarked upon.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude my remarks by getting back to the

budget. I see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) sitting here.

In terms of his budget, I have two or three very simple questions to

address to him. I hope he is listening. The questions which I hope he

will answer — but which I doubt he will answer — are the following.

The budget pays off in large sums — $470 million, I think — some of

the debt of the BCR. He says that's the old debt. The cost of the

Tumbler Ridge railway extension is estimated at $450 million. My

specific questions to the Minister of Finance are: what is the present

operating profit of the BCR? What is the anticipated operating profit

of the BCR, say, in the next two years? What is the interest load,

which I think is 10.5 percent, on the $450 million cost of the Tumbler

Ridge extension? I ask those questions, Mr. Speaker, because there has

never been a satisfactory explanation by the Minister of Finance of the

problems of cost overburden on the Tumbler Ridge and other

infrastructure expenditures. I think it is time for the Minister of

Finance, at least in terms of the railway, to come to this House and

let us know whether these revenues really can pay the interest on these

moneys let alone repay any of the capital. I think it's pretty obvious

that they can't, and that we're going increasingly into debt through

the BCR, guaranteed by the government.

I will conclude by trying to get into a better humour — after the

kind of remarks I've had from the government bench, and it is rather

difficult — by saying that I think we're really coming to the point of

a new class system in the province of British Columbia. Not too many

years ago in this Legislature we repealed death duties on large

estates. The revenue from those death duties was not all that much,

about $50 million a year. Fifty million dollars accumulated over the

period of, I think, about seven years, would be a large sum of money.

Yet what we're doing in this province is cutting back on people who've

had the misfortune to go on to welfare, doubling the fees of students

at BCIT and at the universities of British Columbia and slamming the

doors of equal opportunity upon the young people of the province by

increasing their costs of education in every direction, while at the

same time saving millions of dollars — at least $50 million is the old

figure — from the estates of people who have too much rather than too

little.

That is the introduction into British Columbia of a new unjust class

system, which all of the people in this province — from Duff Pattullo,

the Liberal, to, of course, the CCF and many others — fought against.

We are creating a most unjust society in this province of British

Columbia. We are reducing to destitution, while other sources of

revenue go untapped, people who are entitled to live a decent life;

people who for the sake of the economy should have some extra spending

money that they can spend throughout the small and large businesses in

British Columbia to spark a decent economy.

[10:45]

The termination of Anna Wong is an example of what's happening. One

of the little people cut off from a livelihood that was just enough to

live on in these days of high costs — $16,000 a year. I suppose she

paid $400 or $500 rent, not very much. To do that, to block an inquiry

into allegations which so many people say are well-founded — including

Ray Williston — and losing millions of dollars by poor scaling in the

forest industry, is the disgraceful kind of thing that we're seeing in

this budget. What we see is the old biblical denunciation that to those

who have shall be given, and to those who have not, even that little

they have shall be taken away. That's what this budget is doing. It

doesn't have any heart, and it doesn't have any sound economics, and

I'm going to vote against it.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a

gentleman, an MLA from the sister parliament of that free-enterprise

province of Saskatchewan, who is in our gallery above me. I would ask

the House to welcome Mr. Cal Glauser, who is the MLA for Saskatoon

Mayfair. I trust he has enjoyed the lively debate here this morning.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I totally support the budget of

my colleague the Minister of Finance. It is a correct and bright

budget, and certainly one for the times.

I'd also like to make a few observations about some of the speeches

that we have heard in this House, most recently this morning. Every

member of this House receives a degree of protection that is not given

to other members of society, and that is immunity for statements made

in this House. Coupled with that immunity is the responsibility upon

members to know their facts before they state them. This law, in case

any of our colleagues are unaware of it, and I do presume most of them

know of it, is stated in our Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, which

chapter 229 of our statutes. I would just like to read the first

part:

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

"The Legislative Assembly and its committees and

members have the privileges, immunities and powers that were held and

exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and

its committees and members on February 14, 1871, so far as not

inconsistent with the Constitution Act and whether held or exercised by

custom, statute or otherwise. For greater certainty, but not so as to

limit or restrict the generality of this section, the following

sections are enacted."

So we brought the law of the United Kingdom to British Columbia, effective February 14, 1871. What was that law at

[ Page 3602 ]

that point in time? We find from Beauchesne or May statutory recognition of the privilege. I'm quoting:

"This recognition by law of the privilege of freedom

of speech received final statutory confirmation after the revolution of

1688. By the ninth

article of the Bill of Rights it was declared 'that

the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in parliament ought not

to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.'"

That does not give members in this Legislature or in any legislature

or on any side of any legislature or on any side of Parliament in

Canada freedom to defame.

I would like to quote to you a very interesting

article from the London Times , June 21, 1980. They say this:

"The absolute privilege accorded to parliamentary

proceedings is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The ninth

article

declares that 'the freedom of speech, and debate or proceedings in

Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or

place out of Parliament.' No suit for defamation will be entertained.

But that does not mean that parliamentary speech must be wholly

ungovernable."

The editorial continues:

"As with all parliamentary privileges, the first question

to ask about this one is: what purpose it is supposed to serve? It has its origin

in Parliament's assertion of its competence to debate and legislate on matters

touching the royal prerogative. Monarchs, especially Tudor and Stewart monarchs,

were sometimes disposed to regard that claim as impertinent, unwarranted, disloyal

and deserving punishment."

That is the reason for the immunity, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to develop

this premise.

"The matter was not placed beyond all challenge until the revolution of 1688."

That's a long time ago — about 300 years.

"Parliament had won the crucial right to control its

own proceedings. Once that had been settled, absolute privilege

remained to serve a different purpose. But the purpose is not to be

defined by reference to unbridled speech, rather by reference to the

ability of Parliament to discharge its constitutional function."

Also, the editorial refers to a large omission from textbooks on

parliamentary practice. "Should a member not give notice to the persons

he intends to attack?" I say yes. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to

happen in here? "Should he not have exhausted all other means open to

him to get at the truth of the allegation before publicizing it?" I say

yes, and I'll tell you why. It distressed and disturbed me — the

minister is not here; indeed I wish he was — to read in The Globe and Mail ,

which is considered to be the best newspaper in the country, in its

editorial of February 23, 1984, this reference to the ombudsman: "He

said that Forests minister Thomas Waterland had tried to interfere with

his probe by asking one of the contractors who had complained to try to

'get the ombudsman out of the investigation.'" These people over there

accepted that as fact. The hon. minister denied it. Did they approach

him? No way, at no time. We cannot have unbridled speech, Mr. Speaker.

Should he not have exhausted all other means open to him to get…?

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the minister said we accepted that

as fact. Would he quote the words from Hansard that establish that, instead

of giving us these.... Quote the words.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you didn't accept it as fact, that was certainly the inference I had.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I do not believe that really is a point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The London Times

editorial, June 21, 1980, continues: "Should a member not give notice

to the persons he intends to attack? Should he not have exhausted all

other means open to him to get at the truth of the allegation before

publicizing it?" They accepted it as fact and publicized it left, right

and centre. "Is it not quite wrong to use the privilege…as a quick and

noisy way of testing suspicion?" That's the practice we've had to face

on this side of the House.

In the London Times , May

21, 1980, Bernard Levin, dealing essentially with the same issue, says:

"If MPs are to have that privilege, they owe the country a scrupulous

determination not to abuse it." It's been abused in here. It was abused

with the Minister of Forests. And was it ever abused with Dick Vogel!

It was abused in the Vogel case by the first member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Barrett), by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

and by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). Will he apologize?

He says: "No, I won't get down on my knees." I'm not asking him to get

down on his knees. I ask him to stand up like a man and say "sorry" to

the Vogel family, to his wife and his children.

MR. MACDONALD: Quote my words.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll quote Les Bewley. This is what he said

about you: "Yet with the obvious approval of — I'm not going to use

names — the first and second members for Vancouver East and the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds, eagerly seizing on those lies…"

MR. MACDONALD: Is this a quote?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm quoting Les Bewley, former judge of

the Supreme Court of British Columbia; You well know him: "…eagerly

seizing on those lies and openly contemptuous of any presumption of

Vogel's innocence, stood up in the Legislature the day after the CBC

broadcast and proclaimed that 'the Deputy Attorney-General was abusing

his office on behalf of his friends and friends of the government.'" It

was proven not to be true. He had to go to the courts of this land, and

he won a libel suit, and you still won't say you're sorry to his

family. I don't call those big people, Mr. Speaker.

I would assume the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

is not distressed about Lord Denning, who is considered to be the

leading judge of this century. Lord Denning was concerned about this.

In the Times of Friday,

November 21, 1980, he said: "Another power capable of misuse was that

which conferred absolute privilege on MPs over what they said in the

course of parliamentary debates or proceedings." And he refers to the

issue there, and he says: "I would not suggest that the absolute

privilege should be taken away; but it shows that MPs are expected to,

and

[ Page

3603 ]

should, act with a due sense of responsibility." That's not too much for anyone to ask.

I would like to go one step further. This is just a personal

opinion, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps if people are feeling that they

are on dangerous ground in here when they are making speeches

concerning people who are outside this House, maybe we should change

the law to have them request the privilege and say that there would be

no privilege in here unless that type of privilege is requested. It's a

thought. It would require examination. Hopefully when we get into the

rule situation in the later stages of this parliament, thought can be

given to that premise. Once it is said, the hurt's done.

MR. MACDONALD: What was said? Quote Hansard . You're afraid to. It's a cowardly attack.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to confront that great brave lion with the Vogel case, which he won't even apologize for.

I'd like to say a few words about the future of our country and,

indeed, where this government and this budget are taking us. In my

view, it has proved to be one of the trail blazing acts that have been

taken in Canada in about the last 35 years. The course for success and

for the realization of everybody's desire for the improvement in the

quality of life for the whole of the country is definitely going to be

chronicled as the course that British Columbia has been taking and is

now taking and will continue to take.

We all know it is not easy. We all know it is not without problem,

but we all know it is responsible. There is terrific linkage between

the elements that constitute economic leadership — restraint,

controlling deficits, productivity and getting off the back of the

private sector. If all of those elements are acted upon together, they

can prove to be the road, and the only realistic achievable road, to

recovery.

Restraint. We know what that is. It is belt-tightening, holding back

a little, making do with less and sharing — helping one's neighbour and

not relying on the public purse to do everything. I think our Minister

of Finance has dispelled the mythology of cradle-to-grave security, and

I thank him for that.

The kind of restraint in the public and private wage settlements is

absolutely unparalleled and desirable. Without that, inflation can no

longer continue to decline, and if that doesn't happen, there's no way

that Canada, and most particularly British Columbia, will be able to

remain competitive in the marketplaces of the world.

[11:00]

There is very good news in B.C. According to the B.C. Employers' Council,

the average annual all-industry wage settlement increases in 1983 were only

4 percent as opposed to 11.7 percent in 1982. That is a 7.7 percent drop, and

I think it is very convincing and unchallengeable proof that this administration's

compensation stabilization program, which was the first and the best of its

kind in Canada — initiated last year and continuing — is not only highly successful

but nationally pathfinding. This is very clear proof that British Columbia is

on the right track, but we have to emphasize that in the world sense and in

the provincial sense, all Canadians and all British Columbians are still competitors.

We are still facing fierce and increasing competition, so to hack it in the

world sense and to hack it in the provincial sense, this province and Canada

will have to do better than they are doing at the present time. That's going

to be the challenge for everyone in our country and in our province for the

eighties.

We stress, and we're going to continue to stress, not only holding

the line on government deficits in B.C., but moving towards their

elimination. It's just preposterous to take the route of saddling one

generation with the burdens of the past. It's just weak-sistered hope

from some that the future generation would ever indeed have the

capacity or the will to pay for the past. We have in the world today,

as we know, a very critical situation with international world debt,

with the Argentine, Brazil, the Philippines and Mexico loans totalling

about $230 billion. They're kept intact today, Mr. Speaker, but they're

still really in pro forma , if

not in actual, default. I'd say that but for the actions of the

International Monetary Fund, those defaults, if acted upon together,

would produce another worldwide recession. If that happened we would be

moving into a state of affairs in the western world which would be far

more serious than the recession that we're now slowly moving out of.

The second issue is productivity. It's common sense: work a little

harder, work a little longer, work a little smarter and produce more

and do better. If that kind of a work ethic is considered to be

emanations of the devil, I think you can count the B.C. Social Credit

Party and by far the majority of all British Columbians as being one of

his lieutenants. Cutting red tape, eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy,

letting the private sector do what it can do best — that is the route

this government is attempting to take.

Finally, recovery. It's not going to come down a beam of light. It's

not going to arrive by default, and notwithstanding any of these

wishful Pollyannas across the way, there is no money tree. Recovery can

only arrive as a byproduct and, indeed, an effective melding of the

concepts I've referred to. You can't deal with any one of those things

in isolation.

For all of Canada those types of directions have to be taken. We've

got to, though, most of all, emphasize strong growth in our export

markets. To do that we have to be able to compete effectively. If we

can't compete, the other world sellers will, particularly those people

who are now in default, because their principal thrust, with the

deficit they have, is to export and export and export. So we're running

into far more serious competition than we have in the past. It's trite.

Everybody in this House knows that our share of world markets is the

lifeblood of B.C. and that the demand for our products by far, on

balance, is well beyond our provincial control. So we've got to really

fight hard for our portion of those markets, because it's the exports

that fire the economy of the province, and the private sector is the

engine that does that job.

We have to reflect also, Mr. Speaker, that governments are no more

than trustees for taxpayers. We have the primary responsibility and

duty to provide leadership. But governments can't be asked to, and must

not, spend themselves into oblivion. They can't live beyond their

means. They do not create wealth. Sure, they can shape the pie, but

there are only so many slices, and the filling comes from one person,

and that's from the taxpayer. I say — and I'd like to emphasize this

point — that in the kind of economic environment that everyone in

Canada is now experiencing, for some select people who are essentially

subsidized or supported by the taxpaying public to insist on fireproof

protection for their wherewithal is totally unrealistic and, I'd say,

completely irresponsible. These are difficult times. For one side of

society to suggest that only they can be saved harmless at the expense

of the others who can't pay for it is absolute nonsense. Some people

over there in this debate — I've heard these words indicated, although

they perhaps haven't stated

[ Page 3604 ]

them specifically — say to raise taxes. Some say borrow any amount. Some say spend, whatever.

Once again, for just that one sector of society that is under the

public purse for payment, those kinds of courses would be absolute

fiscal folly. Fortunately this administration, under the leadership of

Premier Bennett and of our great Minister of Finance, has said "no, no,

a thousand times no" to that, and we're not going to borrow B.C. into

the poorhouse. We're not going to tax B.C. out of existence, and we're

not going to go on a spending spree that would produce nothing less

than a collision course with economic disaster. We're working to

downsize government, we're working to increase productivity, we're

working to reduce the cost of government to people, and we're working

to move government out of the private sector. Perhaps we could have

done more; perhaps we indeed could have done a better job. But I'm very

thankful to say that we're on track, are doing the best we can at this

point in time, and are looking forward to much more of the same. This

administration has trail-blazed the country, and hopefully other

governments are going to profit from this experience and follow that

course of action. Recovery, in the sense of British Columbia, and

certainly recovery in the sense of every province in our country, has

to be national in scope. It's most critical that the rest of the

country gets on with it.

That brings me to a final observation which deals with what is going

to be happening at the national level. We have a new leader of one

party, the Conservative Party, which might attain the mantle of

national government. We're soon going to have a new leader of the other

party, the Liberal Party, which also might retain the mantle of

national government. I'm very thankful that the other party, the NDP,

will never attain the mantle of national government. Now is the time,

in the interests of each and every Canadian right across the country,

for those two parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and their

two leaders to most clearly and distinctly state precisely what their

policies and programs are going to be, because we are right now at a

threshold in our country. We're either going to live up to our

potential and in every sense become one of the greatest nations in the

world, or we're going to do more of the same. I for one do not want

more of the same from the national perspective. I say that each

Canadian is entitled to know precisely what direction these leaders and

these parties are intending to take us.

I'd like to offer a few personal comments. As I've said before, what

will most productively get Canada out of the doldrums — and keep it out

— and get it into the economic mainstream to an extent it has never

been in its history, will be complete, across-the-board free trade with

the United States of America. I would like to hear what these national

parties and their leaders say about that. We have got to have a

national energy program. The last one, unfortunately, proved to be a

disaster. We have got to get rid of the Foreign Investment Review

Agency. I would like to see — my colleagues are aware of this — the

route between producer and consumer made much easier than it is today.

I would like to see all of the marketing boards in Canada dispensed

with almost overnight. I would like to reinforce the suggestion made by

the late Hon. W.A.C. Bennett that equalization payments should not be

put into the hands of government but should find their way to the

citizens in the recipient provinces. He was way ahead of his time. I

would like to know what the national leaders feel about that.

Canada is in a position right now to do more than it ever has.

Everybody knows that we have an abundance of resources; everybody knows

that on balance we're capital poor. What have we been trying to do over

the past few years? We have been trying to put up a mantel and a moat

and a brick wall against capital coming to our country. We should make

it easy for capital to come to Canada, and make it easy for Canada to

grow from that. I think it's high time that a good look was taken,

under these economic circumstances, at the capital gains tax. I would

like to see what the national leaders think about the tax jungle that

we have in our country today, and maybe the flat tax concept is

something deserving of being looked at. I don't want more of one

national party saying, "We're going to do this," and the other one

saying, "You're not doing enough," then one national party saying,

"We're going to do that," and the other one saying, "You're going too

far." I'd like to have some innovative suggestions come from these

people, and I certainly hope that those innovative suggestions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague from Dewdney says: "Wishful

thinking." I'm a Doris Day optimist. Okay, but I choose to be an

optimist. Maybe, hon. member, if enough people in our country pose

those kinds of questions to those two parties and to their eventual

leaders, I think there's a one-time opportunity that can be grasped to

change the direction of our country, and I say it needs some changing.

Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks were heated. I rarely speak in heat

here. I have been very concerned — and I have to repeat that — about

the style we've had in this House. I think Mr. Bob Williams referred to

the New Democratic Party in principle — the first and second members

for Vancouver East — that he was to have politics of substance as

opposed to politics of style. I think that's a good thing. It seems to

me that the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is trying to move

the party away from the issues of social conflict into the issues of

social concern; I like that. The Sun

editorial said this: "The hon. member for Prince Rupert" — I'm not

using his name in the House because I'm not supposed to — "is unlikely

to win the provincial leadership of the New Democratic Party, but he

seems to be a man of sense." Well, I'd say that's betting maybe....

That's about a 50 percent average. But it also says this: "Speaking in

Campbell River, he said the party 'was on the verge of being

irrelevant.'" You know, we've been through the budget speech and the

throne speech, and I haven't really heard any new programs, any new

policies or any constructive observations made by the majority of the

members on the other side. The one thing that has preoccupied them

throughout is the ombudsman, and that's an issue. Okay, it is one

issue. But surely to good Lord, Mr. Speaker, they should be

volunteering solutions or options to the people of British Columbia. If

they think this government is going down an improper track, if they

don't like our policies and programs, let's hear about it. Let's not

just say, "It's too little," or, "It's too much," or, "What about the

ombudsman?" Come on, Mr. Speaker. They've been elected at great public

expense to do a job, and I think they should do a better one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must preface what I'm about to say by

saying, in all humility, that I do not mean to chastise or lecture any

hon. members in this House. This morning on

[ Page

3605 ]

several occasions, from both sides of the House,

the rules of this House have been sorely tried, I might suggest. I want

to bring to all hon. members' attention the words of that man we all

revere, Sir Erskine May, when he said: "Good temper and moderation are

the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language

is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions

and conduct of his opponents in debate."

I now recognize the second member for Vancouver East on a point of privilege.

MR. MACDONALD: The point of privilege is this: in the course

of the remarks of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, he said

that I, using the privileges of this chamber, had defamed the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and a Mr. Vogel. The minister did not

quote Hansard . Everything that we say, Mr. Speaker, is taken down in Hansard , and he presented no evidence whatsoever. He will not present the evidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not important.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it is. That kind of attack, without

evidence, without quoting the words used — referred to as "reflections

on members" in Beauchesne's Rules and Forms , fifth edition, page 18 — is a serious matter. I want the hon. member to either withdraw that imputation or quote the words.

In the case of the Minister of Forests, I want to set the record

straight. I asked questions, I got answers, and that's the last I said

about it. In the case of Mr. Vogel, I made it plain to this House at

the time that the issue was the administration of justice in three

particular cases, and not Mr. Vogel. That's in Hansard . This member has been unfairly casting reflections upon me in particular, and that is my point of privilege.

[11:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

fully accept the admonition that you made to all members. If indeed I

have been guilty of any parliamentary abuse this morning — and I

probably was — I apologize. I don't have difficulty in saying "I'm

sorry." I apologize unequivocally to all members of the House; I have

no problem whatsoever with that.

Mr. Speaker, you can say things directly and you can say them

indirectly. It's the innuendo that ends up being like a mackerel on the

beach that I don't like, and the hon. member knows what I'm talking

about.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This mustn't go on much longer, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: It's an important point of privilege. The

minister has now said in effect: no, the words were not there, but the

innuendo was there. I defy that minister to produce the words. He has

cast reflections upon me without quoting Hansard , and I resent that. He is totally wrong.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have listened to what has been said,

and I think the matter has been well talked out and well dealt with. Both members

have had their say, and I think the debate should proceed. I so rule.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, if we can briefly return to the

budget for what little time is left in today's session, I would like to

make some comments on the budget.

I think that all of us as well as being members are very private and

personal people in our lives. Very little consideration has been given

to the man who has put forward this budget. This budget is historic in

that it is the first budget that has reduced the amount of government

expenditure and in that it is the first one in North America and

perhaps in the free democratic world that has faced that. It has not

been an easy task; it has been a very difficult task. It fell on the

shoulders of my colleague, who took abuse, questions and excuses from

his colleagues, stood firm and faced the reality.

This is a budget of realism; this is a budget of reality. It is not

a budget that has been a joy to bring down, but it had to be brought

down. It is a budget that recognizes the reality of resource revenue,

what it has done for this province in the past, what it can do in the

future, what false hope it can give us during those boom times and what

realistic hope it can give us during tough times. If we are to be blunt

and honest about it, our tax base that we have from standard taxation

should be used to pay for our regular services, and the resource

revenues which this province has should be used to smooth out the

curves in our very much open-ended economy.

I was pleased that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

spoke so eloquently yesterday about B.C. Place and Expo. I was tempted

to send him a copy of the telegram sent by the city of Vancouver to the

commissioner-general of Expo in Paris, encouraging him on behalf of the

city of Vancouver and the NDP not to bring Expo to Vancouver. We'll

table that a little later on. I'm delighted that they now actually see

the wisdom of Expo and what it's going to do. Not only will it be a

great celebration and a great world's fair but it will bring people to

British Columbia who have never thought or heard of us before. Some of

those people will decide that this place is not only attractive to

invest in and an attractive place to live in but an attractive place to

do business in, and that's what we need in British Columbia.

He took some umbrage yesterday with my remarks about the shipping of

coal, and wasn't that terrible? Are you going to get up and apologize?

No, I guess not. The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was

concerned and took umbrage with my remarks about coal from Cape Breton

Island being shipped into the traditional British Columbia markets of

the Pacific. One man working one shift in Cape Breton Island produces

four tonnes of coal. One man working one shift in British Columbia

produces between 30 and 35 tonnes of coal. How can Cape Breton coal

compete with British Columbia coal? It can with your tax dollars and

mine. I don't believe that the tax dollars of British Columbians should

be taken out of our pockets to put our own people out of work. That's

precisely what is happening.

There are several freedoms we enjoy in this country, among them

freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those two freedoms were

seriously challenged by the city of Vancouver and by officials of the

city of Vancouver in a very unwise, ill-timed, ill-tempered and very

poorly considered resolution that they considered at the city council.

I am appalled by this. I am outrageously appalled by it. I believe that

anybody at any time — a visitor to or a citizen of British Columbia —

can speak to anyone on whatever subject they like. I think that's one

of the of the basic tenets of our rights, and I'm appalled by it.

[ Page 3606 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This budget is a budget of reality. It is a budget that recognizes

reality. This budget is going to have proof for the members opposite —

who have left now for the ferry or for caucus or something — and the

proof will not be very long in coming. The proof will be in the rate of

plagiarism from other jurisdictions plagiarizing this budget, and it

will happen, my friends. It will happen most assuredly, and it will

happen much sooner than you think. It will happen across Canada and it

will happen throughout the United States. It won't happen because we're

the geniuses; it will happen because they have no choice. We are doing

it when we have a choice, and we are doing it wisely and with

compassion. Believe me, British Columbia will once again be the

standard-bearer, and we will once again catch the flak. But mark my

words and you watch this happen. Whoever wins the next federal election

has no choice: they either hire a printer or face reality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I really support this budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't hear the interjections. Perhaps one of my colleagues will

share them with me a little later, because they were probably good.

I don't intend to take very long in closing the debate on my budget

except to make a few observations to deal with a couple of specifics

which have been raised in the course of the discussion which has

continued since February 21.

It is clear, I suppose, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell), that there is a divergence of opinion about many of the initiatives

that were announced in the budget. This debate has made it possible for each

member who has wished to air his or her opinions to advance criticism, and that

is why we are here. On very careful reflection, having followed the debate,

I remain convinced that the course which I set out on budget day is the correct

course for the province of British Columbia not only for this year but for the

balance of the 1980s, at the very least. It is a path that we have chosen, as

my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) indicated, after considerable debate among the members of the government

benches. In this province, as elsewhere in the industrial world at least, we

say in British Columbia that government has grown far too complex, far too large

and it has become too costly. It's clear that public sector spending was

growing too rapidly and that government revenues, particularly during times

of economic weakness, could not keep pace with rapidly rising government expenditure.

I've said before in this chamber that when the money is coming in, when

the revenues are higher than expected and moving still higher, it is very easy

for a government to introduce new programs and undertake new initiatives and

a variety of activities. We came to the moment of truth, in the course of the

recession through which we have passed and from which we are now emerging, realizing

that we could not go on as we had been before. There was clearly a need to restrain

government expenditure. Mr. Speaker, it is worth repeating again in this chamber

today that this was the fundamental issue faced by the electorate of British

Columbia in May of last year, and the enlarged mandate given to us ten months

ago by the people of this province indicated then — and I suggest still indicates

— that the majority of British Columbians stand firmly behind the policies which

we have introduced and put in place.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The July 1983 budget went a considerable way to achieving the goal

of less government and less costly government for the taxpayer. This

budget for 1984-85 which we have been debating, by maintaining

restraint as its cornerstone, indicates our commitment to this policy

and our commitment to careful financial management within this

province. I think it is important to restate some of the reasons behind

the government's commitment to restraint in order that they be clearly

understood. There are those on the other side of the House who have

claimed that this government is pursuing a course of restraint at the

expense of those who are unemployed and who suggest that we are not

concerned with the well-being of all British Columbians. That is simply

not correct. This government recognizes and is concerned about the

level of unemployment, not only in British Columbia, but in the country

as a whole.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as members on both sides of the House

will, that during the most difficult part of the recent recession it

was this government which created a $415 million employment development

account to supplement the province's already numerous job-oriented

programs. Funds from the account have been allocated to

labour-intensive projects: highways construction, diking and

agricultural projects. These expenditures, as we debate today, are

currently providing between 15,000 and 20,000 worker-years of

employment in the province. People are working on ALRT, the rapid

transit program, today. They are working today on Expo 86, on B.C.

Place and on a variety of projects throughout the province; they are

constructing, repairing and maintaining highways, bridges and dikes in

all regions of British Columbia. In the months ahead more will be

working through the student employment program which was announced by

my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

[11:30]

Therefore may I simply say that the claim which was seized upon by

the opposition and by some who report what occurs in this House — that

the government has made no effort on job creation — is simply not

correct. The ability of the government to create jobs is severely

limited by external circumstances, and when we put the rhetoric in this

chamber to one side, I believe that regardless of our philosophical

differences there is a recognition of that fact. British Columbia is

and has been a small and open economy which is tremendously vulnerable

to fluctuations in world markets and world conditions. An abundance of

natural resources has enabled the province, if you will, to achieve a

high standard of living largely through the sale of our export

products, particularly during the time of commodity booms: the booms of

the fifties, sixties and seventies. In those times British Columbia has

been a very prosperous province. The price of this prosperity, however,

is that we are subject to the fluctuations and winds of change in the

world economy. Because of our interdependence we cannot — no government

in British Columbia can — completely insulate ourselves from the

effects of international recession. It is quite simply impossible for

the government of this province to spend enough on job creation to

counteract an externally generated recession. Further, an attempt to do

so, one which would fail, would

[ Page

3607 ]

cause the government to incur such a level of debt

that we indeed would threaten our very financial stability, to say

nothing of the future cost of the taxes required to repay the debt.

That would far outweigh any present or short-term benefits about which

we as a government could boast, only to regret later on.

The role of government, in the view of this government, is not to

directly create jobs, but rather to promote a sound and an expanding

economy within the province of British Columbia. I repeat: it is

essential, it's vital, that British Columbia remain cost-competitive,

that it recognize that there are tough competitors out there who don't

care one whit about British Columbia or British Columbians. It is

essential also that we have the ability to strengthen investor

confidence, and we as a government have taken a number of important

steps along this very important path.

By restraining government expenditure we shall be able to avoid an

escalating tax burden on British Columbia consumers, producers and

business. I refer again to the fact that in the middle of the summer of

1984 I shall start a series of intensive consultations with business

and industry with regard to the tax burden to see how we can further

improve it. That is not a commitment to suddenly take all the tax

burden off business and industry in the province — that's impossible —

but at least to examine those areas which are particularly tough on

those organizations, industries and firms which have to compete in

world markets.

Next, by restraining public sector compensation levels, we have been

able to control government spending. We've established a pattern of

wage settlements which has been followed in large measure by the

private sector. To illustrate, since the inception of the compensation

stabilization program in February 1982, public sector wage settlements

have fallen — and I think these numbers are worth repeating this

morning — from 13.5 percent to 3.1 percent. Private sector wage

settlements have shown a similar decline. By committing a large portion

of our resource revenue to debt repayment, we are again emphasizing a

commitment to responsible financial management. Also, by reducing

regulation by government and by continuing to encourage productivity

within government and within our Crown corporations, we are reducing,

and can continue to reduce, costs ultimately home by the taxpayers who

pay all of our bills.

So for these reasons I am frankly proud of the success we've had in

stemming the tide of rapid expenditure growth. We have done what many

considered nearly impossible, if not completely impossible. We've

reversed the increasing costs of government, and we are actually

reducing expenditure in 1984-85.

1 heard one interjection. Yes, I do express appreciation to my

colleagues in government, who often, with understanding and kindness…

HON. MR. GARDOM: What about compassion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: … and yes, compassion, but occasionally with

great reluctance, assisted me in producing a budget which shows a

reduction in expenditure. This, however, is a vital step. We're

determined to restore the government to a sound financial base. We're

determined to create a healthy economic environment in the province.

Now I want to touch on two or three points which have been recurring

themes in the course of the budget debate. It's been suggested that the

government spending estimates which are now before us, and which will

be dealt with in detail in the weeks to come, are.... I think the word

that has been used is "misleading."

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Rose) interjects: "deceptive." Well, I don't care for that word, Mr.

Speaker. I may, in fact, ask the member to consider withdrawing

"deceptive" with respect to the estimates which have been presented.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody has been asked to withdraw.

MR. ROSE: If I've offended the minister, I'd be delighted to

withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't accusing him, I was quoting that some

had said that the budget might have been deceptive.

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

We've also heard it described outside this chamber as "artful

reorganization" — changes in ministry expenditure levels causing some

confusion. Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that individuals within the

chamber, in part, but particularly those outside the chamber who report

on what we do and say here, have not really done their homework. They

haven't devoted the minimum time required to study the estimates. That

is disappointing, to say the least. If these critics had taken any care

at all, they would have noted the following standard statement which

appears on the lead sheet of each special office and ministry estimate

and which accompanies most tables: "For comparative purposes only,

figures shown for 1983-84 voted expenditure have been restated to be

consistent with the presentation of the 1984-85 estimates.

Schedule A

presents a detailed reconciliation." Since that statement is repeated

more than 30 times in the estimates now before this House, and on

rereading it two or three times

schedule A is both clear and concise,

it is incorrect to suggest that the Ministry of Finance or I as the

holder of that portfolio at the present time are attempting to

obfuscate spending estimates. It is quite the contrary: I want the most

complete, the most readily understood, the most straightforward

estimates reporting of any province in Canada. We're not there yet. We

have further work to do with regard to clear and concise estimate

statements, but we've made a heck of a lot of progress so far.

The restatement of estimates from one year to the next, to reflect

program and structural changes, Mr. Speaker, is, you would know,

standard procedure among all governments in Canada. It's been done for

many years in British Columbia. I invite those members who were

critical, and other members who may simply have questioned the change

of estimates accounting, to take time this weekend, if that is their

wish, to examine the main estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1975. I won't take a great deal of time this morning

to go through them. But if one examines, expenditure by expenditure,

the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1975, when the opposition

party was the government, it will be found that there are significant

changes throughout the estimates from the previous year, without the

kind of repeated explanatory note which I insisted appear in the

estimates for this year. I know there are some objective

[ Page 3608 ]

fair-minded members opposite. I want to send to any

of them, to help them, the estimates for the fiscal year ending 1975.

Then reflect on the kind of criticism which was tossed so easily across

the chamber by a couple of NDP members who are not in their seats at

the present time.

We have another question with respect to the scheduled payment to

the British Columbia Railway. The suggestion has been made that it is

not strictly for debt repayment but rather may be used by the company

to finance ongoing operations. Some have gone so far as to suggest that

the provision for debt repayment with respect to the BCR represents a

subsidy to Japanese coal purchasers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) interjects "nonsense,"

and he's absolutely right. He says it better than I can say it: it is

absolute nonsense. It is an attempt, perhaps unwitting, to confuse the

issue. The facts are that the $470 million payment, which has been

dealt with at length in the budget debate, cannot be used to meet

Tumbler Ridge branch line costs. The money will be paid into the BCR

sinking funds established exclusively for the B.C. Railway historic

debt. The financial structure of the railway has been the subject, as

we know, of three or four separate study entities in the past six

years: the McKenzie royal commission of 1977-78, the auditor-general's

annual report 1978-79, and our own standing committee on Crown

corporations. Each of them recommended that the province assume the

long-term debt of the BCR. To refresh some memories, the payment is

being made now in order to eliminate the burden of the company's

historic debt and to place the railway in a self-supporting position.

If there remains any doubt whatsoever about the use of the $470

million, may I also remind the members that the railway has external

auditors who must certify the railway's financial statements. Were the

railway to attempt to use the payment for purposes which are legal but

other than that which is the purpose stated in the budget and intended

by the government, then that fact would be reported, and it would be

obvious when the railway publishes its financial statements.

There's one final point I want to make in concluding this debate on

the budget. I think it's important to restate the facts about the level

of debt incurred in the name of the province of British Columbia. Some

members opposite have suggested that the provincial debt is a threat to

financial stability in the province and that this province's debt load

is no better than that of the federal government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why do they say that? Do they want to increase it?

[11:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs, some do and some don't, so the jury is still out in terms of

the majority opinion on the other side.

I agree, however, that the level of debt incurred by the public sector is an

important element in assessing the strength and viability of any given economy

It is clearly recognized that large deficits and a growing debt simply represent

deferred taxes — not taxes today or next month, but certainly taxes next year,

and three years from now, and five and ten and fifteen and twenty years from

now — taxes which could ultimately damage the competitive position of our industries,

bout which I spoke earlier, and lead to serious job loss in this province. It

is because we recognize this danger that the government has reaffirmed, and I

restate today, the policy direction upon which we have embarked. We're continuing

a program of expenditure control, debt repayment and careful financial management.

It was for this reason that we committed resource revenues in future years to

repay debt, to how that reducing and ultimately eliminating the provincial debt

is a goal this government considers to be absolutely essential.

With respect to the claim that the provincial debt load is comparable to that

of the federal government, you may rest assured that this is simply not correct.

The net public debt of the federal government was $115.2 billion at the end

of the 1982-83 fiscal year, and obviously it's going to rise much further

by the end of 1984-85. As a Canadian, that's pretty frightening. That represents

a debt of $4,675 for every man, woman and child in this country. That's

the federal debt. The provincial direct debt is estimated to be $2.6 billion

at the end of the 1984-85 fiscal year on March 31, 1985, and I spoke of that

number on budget day. That's a debt of $922 per capita. It's clear from

these figures that to suggest that the federal and he provincial governments

are in similar financial straits is absolutely ludicrous. Rather, if the federal

government were to follow the lead taken by this province and work to reduce

its debt load, the financial stability of the Canadian government and the Canadian

economy would be significantly improved.

Going through some material, Mr. Speaker, I found someone else speaking about

deficits. I don't recall that this as been referred to the House, although

it may have been raised previously. I won't quote the entire report. It's

from the Vancouver Sun , Thursday, September 18, 1975 — if it is not the 18th

it's the 10th; I haven't had a chance to check what ay of the week the

18th and the 10th were. We have an NDP government and we have the soon-to-retire

Leader of the Opposition travelling the province of British Columbia. He as not

yet called an election. The headline: "Barrett Vows Cutbacks to Balance

the Budget." The dateline is Trail. The first paragraph: "The provincial government will cut back on services if

necessary in order to balance its budget, Premier Dave Barrett said here Wednesday." It goes on to point out that the then Premier:

"…pledged in recent weeks that the government will

hold the line on services but has not yet suggested that cutbacks might be necessary.

"He said he believed the budget will balance without

the necessity for cuts, but said services will be chopped if the need

arises.

"'We've been spoiled in this country,' he said. 'We've had it too easy and we've been led to believe that things come too easy.'

"He suggested that governments have to take the lead and say there will be no deficit spending.

"'If governments don't, who will?' he asked.

"Barrett, citing a $1.6 billion deficit in Ontario's

budget, and a four-month $1 billion federal deficit, said the theory

that deficits can be made up at a later date somehow never works out."

We're going to make it work out, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're here.

That's why we've been doing what we've been going since February 1982 —

earlier, in fact. We had the

[ Page 3609 ]

courage to do it. Someone else, a former Premier of this province, talked about it.

Mr. Speaker, the course that we have set has some difficulties. It

is the correct course. As I said at the start of these remarks, on

reflection of all the comments that have been made within this chamber

and outside, if I were to present the budget for 1984-85 again, I would

not change one word.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Ritchie

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Ree

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Gabelmann

Sanford

Lauk

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Barrett

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LAUK: A point of order. I seem to have heard my name

pronounced differently than it's been pronounced for some generations.

It is LAUK — au as in "augment." Thank you.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure that before all the members go home

this weekend they would like to welcome to Victoria all those attending

the Labatt Brier, one of Canada's premier sports events. They'll be

arriving on Sunday. It's a great event. I know the people of Victoria

will appreciate the approximately $8 million those people will leave

here in the next few weeks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just before calling Committee of Supply, Mr.

Speaker, I understand that this is the natal day of the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks).

I'm sure everybody would like to wish him a very, very happy birthday.

For all of those who have applauded, Mr. Speaker, he promises to buy the wine.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[12:00]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 27: minister's office, $185,567.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Having called the vote, Mr. Chairman, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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 © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada