1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th 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, MARCH 22, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3555

Mr. Miller –– 3558

Mr. Peterson –– 3562

Mr. Skelly –– 3564

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my

colleagues from time to time introduce students from their riding, with

some pride, and today is my day.

I am very pleased to inform the House that we have with us in the

gallery a number of students from North Saanich Middle School,

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Johnson. As one of their two MLAs, I

would like to welcome them to our deliberations and challenge you, my

colleagues, to present the proper image of decorum and propriety and

courtesies that we normally exhibit in this House, so that the

politicians of the future might properly appreciate the important role

we play in the development of our province. Would the House please join

me in welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, Address in Reply. I adjourned on behalf of the Minister of Education.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly welcome the opportunity to

stand in my place and support the throne speech, which outlines the

plan of this government, which outlines many specific programs, which

outlines many indicators of what the government expects to do and plans

to do in the interests of the people of this great province of British

Columbia.

I intend to make several references in my speech to the throne

speech itself — and I hope I don't get ruled out of order, judging from

some of the debate. I'd like to build some of my comments around some

of the statements in the throne speech, which has been criticized as

empty of any specific plans, of not outlining the government's program,

of not being specific. Yet if one reads the throne speech, there are

certainly many references to what the government has done and what the

government plans to do.

There was a statement early in the throne speech: "The achievements

of the past year and the initiatives outlined in this throne speech

must be viewed in the context of my government's goals. Those goals are

to eliminate the deficit and build a stable province that provides

social and economic security for all British Columbians." Now that, it

would seem to me, in broad, general terms is a very important and

significant statement: to provide social and economic security for all

British Columbians. Yet many people on the opposite side seem to have

found fault with that objective.

The throne speech says: "We will continue to deliver programs and

services to people within a fiscal framework that is fair and

affordable." Again, we've had so much criticism that it would seem that

a government should not consider what is affordable but just provide

everything that society and particularly the opposition says it should

provide. If we're going to deliver those services to people, we have to

look at the broader picture.

The throne speech says: "Our economy is strong and growing stronger."

I've heard comments that there has been no significant decrease in the unemployment

rate in this province, yet in the last year and a half it has gone done from

around 15.3 percent to around 10 percent, and it is improving. I guess when

one is dedicated to criticism, that seems insignificant.

Everyone will agree that it is still a high rate, but the rest of

the government's efforts are dedicated to improving that situation.

There is much evidence of it. In the last year this province has

attracted something over $11 billion in investment. You read in the

papers that the housing starts are up and that sales of houses are up

dramatically. Are those not indicators of the confidence that people

are expressing — taking on a mortgage for a home, building new homes?

To me it seems very strong evidence that our economy is strong and

improving. When they take on a house, people are looking ahead for

several years. They do not buy or build houses if they think it is a

very temporary measure.

We have, in the nature of investment.... To get more specific, just

in the recent few months, there has been a proposal in my own area, in

the South Peace-North Peace region, for two more waferboard plants and

another pulp mill. A pulp mill is now being built, and the proposal was

for a second pulp mill in the North Peace, two more waferboard plants

plus a pulp mill in the South Peace, another pulp mill, looking ahead

to moving into a paper mill, trying to secure the timber to do that and

saying at the public hearings that if we get the timber, we will do

this in the next year or the next two years. Now in the northern part

of the northeast part, in the Fort Nelson area, under what they call

pulp agreement No. 14, they are now taking proposals for expansion

there, to build a pulp mill and provide the timber for that.

These people are not applying for this timber and committing to

building if they get it if they do not have faith in the economy of

this province. In my area — it may not be so significant in Victoria or

Vancouver, although I can't see it being insignificant anywhere — these

proposals where the timber has been allotted will create something like

1,350 direct jobs in the region, and if you take the two-to-one or

three-to-one multiplier, that is a very significant investment and

opportunity for our region, not to mention its importance to British

Columbia, as part of that agreement was also for another 370 jobs in

the rest of the province, at Britannia Beach, based on the aspen, which

was a weed some time ago.

How members of the opposition can stand up in this House and say

that this government has done nothing to encourage investment or

employment in the province, when in the last year those people employed

in British Columbia have increased by over 90,000 people in one year, a

7.3 percent rate of increase in employment.... But I suppose it is

typical of the critics that they focus just on the unemployment rather

than on the jobs created. I like to think in terms of 1,600 jobs

created in this province.

[10:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I guess your whole philosophy is to

say what is wrong, and my whole philosophy is positive reinforcement:

to see what is right, what can be done and what's happening.

Besides the pulp mills, the oil and gas industry is growing. The

lease sales have been going up. Lease sales, for those that know, are

an indicator of interest by the petroleum industry in order to do

seismic work, followed by drilling activity and production. It all

starts with the amount of sales

[ Page 3556 ]

as an indicator, and that has been going up

dramatically. These people are not putting up $15 million or $17

million at one sale because they don't believe they are going to have a

good investment.

Again we have that, and again we look at things like the Vancouver

Island pipeline. It would be nice if the opposition would join us in

trying to get our share from Ottawa to build the Vancouver Island

pipeline. You can always find a flaw or some negative aspect of it, but

throughout this province, development has resulted and followed as

natural gas came through the province. Why would Vancouver Island be

any different? Not only that, it would create an in-house sale, if you

like, or an in-province sale for more of the gas in that region. You've

got to look at the broader picture.

Why do we expect money from Ottawa? Because Ottawa also takes a lot

of the gas revenue. For instance, in the past they have funded some

$800 million to extend the natural gas pipeline to Quebec. They've

extended another $400 million for something else, using the money from

our oil and gas revenues. So why can't we get some of it back? Is it

wrong to say, since you're taking money from this industry, also help

us to develop it? Surely we have to look at the total context. They use

the market as well, which leads to production, which leads to jobs,

which leads to infrastructure, which leads to housing; and all of that

leads to increased support in the social services.

It is so easy for people to say: let's put all the money into

education; let's put more money into health; let's put more money into

this. I guess you could do it this year. But how do you continue those

programs? The only way you can continue them is if you keep building

the economic base.

Just to touch on a few more, the high tech industry is up in British

Columbia; tourism is up; retail sales are up. All these economic

indicators in the last year or so have said that the economy is strong,

the optimism is out there among the people. I don't think the critics,

with their picking at flaws in picayune items, can discourage the

people from going on with their optimistic attitude. And that in its

turn leads to further development.

The throne speech says: "We will be fair but firm, serving the

interests of all British Columbians rather than special interests."

That has been up for a great deal of attack by people on the other

side, who say: "We represent the people." If you represent the people

of this province, then surely the interests of all the people should be

considered.

I'm faced with this in education all the time. What is the main

objective of the education program? The focus must be on the children.

That's why we're all here: to give them the best possible education we

can afford. The objective for all of us is to serve society, to serve

it well and to serve it better. I can't zero in on the special

interests of the teachers or the principals or the trustees. Those are

all parts in the total picture. But the total emphasis has to be on

what education is all about, and it's primarily designed for the

480,000 students in this province. All of us, including me, are there

for the purpose of serving them to the best of our ability, under the

best possible conditions — all of that. I can't keep focusing on one

particular interest group.

The objective stated in the throne speech is to "lead the way with

continued sound management and solid leadership in the coming year."

Financially, that has been expressed as that we are going to try

responsible fiscal management. We're going to work at it. We're not

perfect; there will be flaws. Anybody can pick a flaw in any budget, in

any item. I think the objective of this government, contrary to some of

the criticisms, is not to cut spending in these areas. It is to cut

increased spending and to make it as responsible as possible. So it's

to hold the line, if you like, on growing expenditures, to reduce the

deficit and to stimulate the economy so that it will be able to afford

what we're spending as well as what we hope to do in the future.

There is no point — and I think I said this under the Pacific Rim

initiatives program — in getting into that program on a one-year ad hoc

basis, if we were going to do that. So we've got a three-year

commitment — plus a firm commitment that we've got the funding

allotment for three years — that this is going to be an ongoing

program. That makes sense, and the government has committed to that.

The throne speech says: "My government will complete and put in

place by year-end a long-term strategic plan for our province." Then it

goes into details. "A draft White Paper outlining strategy in a broad

range of areas, ranging from fiscal policy and economic development to

social issues, will be completed by August of this year." It's very

specific. It says: "...the White Paper will be given wide circulation

throughout the province so business, labour and other affected groups

can provide input and advice."

Can we hope for anything positive from the opposition — any positive

input? In the regional committees — I happen to be involved in that —

we have representatives from all sectors of the communities in our

area. We don't have any NDP MLAs up there. They haven't made that

mistake, so we can't invite them in our region. But we have invited

labour, the teachers' organizations and others. We have yet to have the

teachers and the labour people show up at these meetings, which to me

is an indication that their political position is much more important

to them than the opportunity for input into what all of the rest of the

people and the representatives in the area believe can and should be

done in that region to help economic development. Why are these people

not showing up?

MR. SKELLY: They don't trust you, from experience.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, the point is that they could even

come to the meeting and criticize, which is their bent. That's even

open to them. Maybe their criticism would be of some value, but heaven

knows there just may be a tiny opportunity for them to make a

suggestion along a positive line that this region and all of us would

be better off if we did this. All of the committee people working on it

— the municipal councils, chambers, all the representatives from every

organization you could possibly invite — have come out and said: "We

want better heath services; we want better education services." They're

pointing out the shortages. They can put all this together and they can

have their input, but the people who you would think would say, "Hey,

if we have more employment, if we have better services in the area,

then we will all benefit, " say: "Oh no, this is political and we can't

participate."

There are a number of people there who are not Social Crediters and

are coming to these meetings because they believe first in the region

and second in politics. But I'm still hopeful. The invitation is going

out to these people, saying: "You too can have input into this, and if

you think it's too political, say so; but get on one of the committees

with these people and participate." So hopefully they will come out and

[ Page

3557 ]

recognize that it would make sense for them to come and have their opportunity

for input.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's so much in the throne speech debate that one could talk

about. I know there's been a lot of criticism about the attack on the

federal government, because it's construed strictly as an attack.

However, look at the one statement: "British Columbia still awaits a

federal contribution toward the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, despite

having paid hundreds of millions of dollars in energy taxes." As I

indicated earlier, wouldn't it be nice if all of the representatives of

the people in this province would see the integrated benefit in an

extended market of the use of natural gas on Vancouver Island and its

benefits to the producing areas in this province? Wouldn't it be nice

if we could get some positive support for that when, as I said,

hundreds of millions of dollars from our revenue went to extend

pipelines in eastern Canada? So all we're saying is: "How about some of

it back?"

I gather from the criticism I've heard that the opposition does not

support the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, but I guess that falls in

naturally with the negative reaction that there's got to be something

wrong if the Socreds are doing it; it can't be right.

There's a statement here: "We will pursue the development of trading

zones in British Columbia to encourage export-oriented industrial

development." Certainly we have examples. For instance, in my region

many people see these trading zones strictly as limited to the coast or

to that sort of thing. We can show many ways in which a trading zone

could be beneficial in other parts of the province, and I hope that

that will be considered as this idea develops.

"We will act through the budget process to help our small business

sector": a pretty clear indication that there's going to be something

in the budget to help the small business sector. People are saying, why

don't we support small business? I think that is being done here.

"Social programs...remain an area of commitment and concern

for my government." Certainly we're concerned, and certainly it remains a commitment. In the

social services field, there's been more money put into the health budget,

more put into my education budget, more put into social services. But that money

has to come from somewhere. You can't just feed more and more into these

programs and completely ignore the economic development side of it. You can't

just ignore the source of the funds when you are talking about spending. It's

so easy to just anyone that requests, and all of us get on.... Ask the Finance

minister. All of us ask him for more money for our ministries, for our constituencies.

We all do that.

MR. JONES: Poor Mel.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, sometimes I do feel sorry for the Finance minister.

But I'll tell you that I'm also very pleased and proud with the reaction

that you get from him in saying: "I'll do the best that I can, and

if we can just get this deficit down so we're not paying so much money in

interest, then we can put more of that money into programs." That sounds

reasonable. It would sound reasonable if an individual or a company were doing

that, so surely to goodness it would be reasonable for a government to do that.

Let's not spend a whole bunch of money on dead interest; let's put it

into the programs.

I mentioned earlier that it seems to be difficult for the

opposition, who focus on these little flaws and the faults, and stuff

like that. And I don't try to minimize them; there are flaws in any

program. But sometime those members might take a look at the broader

picture. In the education system, if you like, there are many good,

innovative programs going on. Most of the students are being successful

and are better educated today than they ever were. It is done by

teachers out in the field and by all aspects of the program: the

funding, if you like, the dedicated work that the school trustees and

administrators put in, that sort of thing. But so often, all that I

hear from that other side is about the one kid that fails.

I spent a lot of time when I was a principal fighting this very

thing, that there were.... I had a school of say 600 pupils. Maybe 25

of them got sent to my office in a week for discipline. People would

say: "My gosh, isn't it awful how many kids are being sent to your

office." I used to say to them: "There are 575 kids not getting sent to

the office, and isn't it wonderful that that high a proportion of them

get along fine and don't have any conflicts with the teachers."

[10:30]

1 spent a lot of time fighting that battle, and it seems like I did

it there and now I'm fighting it again. There are flaws in the

education system, and the critics put their whole focus on those flaws,

rather than saying that the vast majority of students in our school

system are benefiting. Most of the teachers in the school system are

doing a great job.

We can focus on the weak links at any time. It must be terrible for

you to have to get up in the morning and say: "What can I find fault

with today?" Because that's all that ever comes across here. Thank

goodness I don't live like that. I look at what else can be

accomplished.

MR. SKELLY: That's what you're doing right now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I am not going to praise you for your negative, carping criticism, I'll tell you that.

When we talk about economic development, what about Site C in my

region? It emphasizes some of the things I've been saying for a while.

It's been emphasized recently with the reports in the paper that there

could possibly be a water shortage, and that means we have to concern

ourselves with how much power is available for industrial development

or for the industries, because the first priority is the residential

and commercial. So what about industry?

We have an established reservoir in that area, and the electricity

is generated through the Bennett Dam and through the site 1 dam, if you

like. or Peace Canyon Dam, using that same water. The Site C dam a few

miles down the river would again utilize that water, so you could get

900 megawatts of power from reusing that water. For those who take any

interest in how the system works, they always get the maximum

utilization from the bottom dam and then they feed back. They are

designed so that for instance the Bennett Dam has up to ten generators

that can be kicked in, and the site 1 dam has four generators that

create up to 700 megawatts. So first of all they will run enough water

through, say, three or four of the Bennett Dam generators in order to

get full utilization out of the next dam down the stream, rather than

run eight through here and run a bunch past. These people do

intelligent things, and the Site C would simply be there. We

[ Page 3558 ]

wouldn't have the same concern about draining down the reservoirs in order to keep the province going.

One of the key determinants of industrial development in this

province is the availability of electricity on an assured basis. Again,

I hate to be critical, but the opposition has made it clear that if

they were in charge, Site C would never be built. They even came up to

my constituency — I see some nodding of heads — saying that we would

never utilize that water or get another use out of the same water with

another four generators. The reservoir is established. I am glad that I

see you nodding your head, Mr. Member, because you're from Vancouver,

and you don't understand that Vancouver depends on these dams out

there, that without them, you wouldn't have nearly the development that

you have in your area. You seem to think that electricity comes by

magic from the air, that it doesn't take dams and something of that

nature out there.

Come up to my constituency, as some of the members did in the 1983

election campaign. They came out there and said: "If you elect us,

we'll stop this." A survey indicated that about 70 percent of the

people in my area said: "We understand it, and we believe in it, so you

guys go back to Vancouver. Don't tell us what we want in our area."

In other words, you would stop Site C, and the same mentality I

guess goes on when you say to the mining companies: "You should not

mine where the ore is; you should go somewhere else." Translated to the

logging companies, I guess it is: "You should not log where the trees

are; you should log somewhere else." How do you expect to fund all the

social programs that you talk about if you say: "Don't log; don't

mine." There is no sense in mining, incidentally, where the socialists

say: "Go and mine where there is no ore, because it's a better site."

The mining companies seem to want to mine for ore where the ore exists.

MR. MILLER: It's like the Quintette Coal mine; it's a hole in the wrong place.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, and as a matter of fact, I'm glad you

raised that. Again, you see, you're finding that one flaw, but in the

process, in the meantime.... If you'd had your way, Mr. Member, you

would have stopped northeast coal because some engineer made a mistake.

MR. MILLER: They put the hole in the wrong place.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, you would have stopped it. Well, I'm

glad. Let's go on the record. You're saying that you would have stopped

it because of that. In the meantime, during construction, there were

thousands of jobs provided to the people in this province, and there

are still thousands of jobs going on at Tumbler Ridge. They're still

going on, and they have put another hole there. They have corrected

that error because they did not accept: "Uh oh, we've put the hole in

the wrong place, so we've got to shut everything down." No, what they

said was: "There was an error...."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying

that the philosophic difference between you and me, Mr. Member, and these people

is that they said, "So, we erred; we made a mistake, " but they did

not say: "Therefore shut down the place." They said: "We will

go and find another place and put another hole there to keep the people working

in this province." That is the difference. That's a graphic illustration

of how you people over there think.

There was a mistake made, and so you say: "Everything was no good."

It goes back to the very analogy I was using, that if 25 kids in a

school misbehave, and you take that same attitude, then we should shut

the whole school down rather than concentrate on the others. I'm

concentrating on the thousands of jobs that exist at Tumbler Ridge, the

thousands of jobs created because of the upgrading of the CNR line and

the B.C. Rail line and all those things, and the thousands of people

still working because somebody took a risk — even if they took a chance

on putting one hole in the wrong place. That's the difference.

I'll tell you something: I would rather try to build something at

the risk of making a mistake than spend my life trying to stop

everything from happening because I might make a mistake. You would

even have stopped Expo, wouldn't you, if you could have? That's on

record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, minister. Your time has expired.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, I'm sorry. I had so many exciting

things to get into. I was just building my base, Mr. Speaker, but thank

you very much for the opportunity.

MR. MILLER: I'm reminded of a couple of sayings, having

listened to the speech by the Minister of Education. One is that phrase

which they used to give us in school. I do remember some things from

school that they used to give us in terms of practising punctuation. As

1 recall the phrase, it was: "To err is human; to forgive, divine." I

guess if they put the hole in the wrong place, somebody will forgive

them.

The minister talked about electricity being generated out of the

air. Well, there was certainly no electricity being generated by that

speech. Some hot air, yes, but certainly no electricity.

I want to deal later on with the federal aspect of this throne

speech. The minister referred to it. He referred specifically to the

Vancouver Island pipeline. Let's examine that Vancouver Island pipeline

in the context, as the throne speech likes to refer to it, "of my

government's goal." As I recall, it wasn't that long ago that the new

cabinet was sworn in in this province. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

Davis) said he didn't think that the pipeline made any sense. It wasn't

that long ago; perhaps the Minister of Education recalls that. I remind

him of that. He recalls the Minister of Energy saying in late 1986 that

we don't need the pipeline.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He had sense enough to change his mind.

MR. MILLER: So we find a government.... I want to be positive

here when I talk; I don't want to be negative all the time. But here we

have a government that in the course of a year may have developed two,

three — how many positions, four positions? — on the pipeline, and then

takes this incredible diatribe against the federal government because

they haven't laid the money on the table. You guys haven't even made up

your mind where you want it. It was only last week, or two or three

weeks ago, and you're taking this incredible, whining diatribe against

the federal government because they haven't given you money.

[ Page 3559 ]

Mr. Member, if you want to talk about negativism

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you against the pipeline?

MR. MILLER: If you want to talk about consistency.... I

assume that as Minister of Education you understand the importance of

stability, of consistency. I assume you understand that.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Think about what you've said in relation to this

gas pipeline and what your government is saying about the federal

government before you stand up there and accuse us of being negative

all the time. We're not negative all the time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What's the objective?

MR. MILLER: We try to be positive. We try to offer positive

comments to help you. I'm always trying to offer advice to this

government. One thing becomes startlingly clear in this province,

despite the advice that I offer you and my colleagues on this side

offer you, and people out in this province offer you — you don't take

it. But anyway, I stray from my prepared remarks.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sorry, I've got a meeting with one of your colleagues. I'd love to hear you.

MR. MILLER: I'm disappointed that the Minister of Education

is leaving the chamber, because he would have been educated, I hope, by

my remarks. And I think he's being negative.

Nonetheless, I don't want to be completely negative, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the government on a major change.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hear a small voice down in the comer, Mr.

Speaker — a small voice from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). Maybe

if he said something interesting I might respond to it; but at this

point I don't want to stray from my remarks. I want to continue on.

The throne speech was unique in one instance — quite unique. I did

some research last year and I want to refer later on in my talk to some

of the speeches that were made last year. I think I went back for 12

throne speeches, and what I discovered was an abundance of rhetoric in

those speeches. Every one of them used the words "free enterprise" in

some form on average about 23 times — the "rekindling of the free

enterprise spirit, " etc. It was just basically rhetoric.

I congratulate the government because nowhere in the throne speech

do I find those two words "free" and "enterprise" linked together. I

think that's a remarkable departure. But — and here I'm forced to be

somewhat critical; I hope it's not misinterpreted as being absolutely

negative; it is positive criticism — that has been replaced by a rather

florid prose. I don't want to be hypercritical of hyperbole, but there

certainly is some rather florid prose in this throne speech. I suppose

that in the absence of someone else congratulating the government, they

are left with the difficult task of congratulating themselves, and I

think that's exactly what they've done in this throne speech. They've

patted themselves on the back rather nicely. They say they are doing a

great job, but perhaps I'll give a cautionary note in reminding the

members that there is a fine line between self-congratulation and

self-delusion. I would hope that the members on the other side

recognize that.

When I read the statements contained in the throne speech.... Here's

a modest, humble little statement, Mr. Speaker — taking credit where

credit is due, I suppose the government is saying: "Our gains, our

accomplishments since taking office, are many and substantial." Bravo!

I want to examine, in dealing with the throne speech document, some of

the rhetoric, and balance that against some of the reality, because I

think the rhetoric is indicative of the tone, the style and the lack of

substance of this government.

[10:45]

We'll start with privatization, the keystone of the government's

program — a cornerstone. The throne speech describes it as — get this;

this is good; the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) should be

here — "a careful but bold program." Then it goes on to say that this

change has been both profound and positive. I consulted my colleague,

the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who is an expert in the use

of words, and profound means "having or showing great knowledge or

insight, demanding deep study or thought." If there's one feature that

has characterized this administration, it is that they have not

exercised that kind of deep study; they have not done the kind of

analysis required in modern administration, in putting forward

programs. It's clear time after time after time that the utterances of

the Premier and the cabinet ministers, upon examination, are reduced to

being without substance.

We had an example the other day, when the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck) was congratulating people for participating in this great

program announced in the throne speech. On questioning by my colleague

from Prince George North, he said: "Well, really, it's more of a

vision." The people he referred to said that they really had not been

consulted.

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh, come on!

MR. MILLER: Read Hansard ,

Mr. Minister of Health. The rhetoric says one thing. It's

self-congratulatory in tone. It says: "We're doing a great job. Our

programs are profound, positive, careful and bold." But the reality is

— and it's a growing reality out in the province — that the government

is anything but. I don't think the Premier has been accused by anybody

of being profound or deep.

If anything, the rush to privatize has been characterized in a

completely opposite way: lacking in detail — yes; ideology before

common sense — yes; costly, in view of the Verrin decision and other

studies: in the opinion of former senior officials of the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, foolish. People who spent years serving

this province, who know how government programs are run, describe it as

foolish. In the opinion of the first member for Cariboo (Hon. A.

Fraser) — a long-serving member of this House and of the Social Credit

Party — it's unworkable and likely to cost the government 15 seats.

It's been described as all of that, but nowhere have I seen independent

commentators or observers describe it as profound.

Is it positive? The government thinks it's positive. The Premier and Mr. Poole obviously believe it's positive, but

[ Page 3560 ]

other people in the province are not so sure. How

about the government employees who are now faced with this uncertainty

in terms of continued employment? Their morale is low. I've talked to

public servants in this province, as every member in this House must

have done, and morale is a really serious question right now. People

don't know what's happening.

I phoned a civil servant on a matter — I won't say who it was, but

it was an important matter for my constituency — and I got a person on

the other end who knew far more than I did about the subject matter I

was pursuing. I said: "That's good. I'm glad you've given me this

information. I think it's something that needs to be followed up." I

tried to make arrangements for that follow-up, and he said: "Really.

I'm not sure I'm going to be here next week." Here's a

section of a

government ministry where somebody obviously had a lot of knowledge

about a particular issue that's important for British Columbia — I

thought it was important — and the guy tells me: "I don't know if I'll

be here next week." Is that any way to run a government? Is that

positive? I suggest not.

My colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) on a

couple of occasions has talked about the value of human capital, and I

don't think it can be overemphasized. 1 think the workings of a modem

state require a civil service that is dedicated to the pursuit of

excellence. If the government takes the attitude that we can privatize,

that we can make a business out of this state apparatus.... Because

after all, that's really the only criterion: if you can make money at

something, then it's bound to be better. If we can privatize these

people, who after all simply go with the department — they're like a

piece of machinery that goes with the department — everything will be

much better. They completely cast aside this fundamental tenet in terms

of developing and building and having this continuity of a civil

service that's dedicated to excellence; that understands the nature of

running a government; that in fact can save the government from making

mistakes. They want to cast all this aside. They want to put some

ideological commitment ahead of common sense, and I'm very dismayed —

as are many people in British Columbia — about that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I haven't even got off page 1 yet, and I come to

another piece of purple prose in the throne speech: "My government will

not stand still for standing still." Now there's a choice gem. I wonder

if anybody wants to claim authorship. Author, author! Mr. Speaker, the

truth is that this government won't sit still long enough to listen to

the people of this province.

I think there are a lot of people on the other side who are truly

disappointed. When I came into this chamber last March, along with all

of the other new MLAs, there was a real sense of optimism: optimistic

speeches about why people were here and what they wanted to achieve.

They were particularly proud of one thing, and it came up over and over

again: the fresh start. They were ecstatic about this Premier who was

offering this new, fresh approach, this fresh start.

What's happened one short year later? In one short year the Premier

has established an autocratic style of leadership. He has centralized

decision-making in his office. The caucus is not consulted in decisions

the government arrives at. There's confusion and disarray in terms of

policy issues. In fact, there are open splits between some members of

caucus and the Premier. One short year, and we've descended; we've gone

away from that fresh start, and we've descended into the normal routine.

Last week I sat in this House and listened to speeches from the

government back bench by two people who have both broken with the

Premier publicly. They are disappointed in the Premier. He has let them

down; there is no fresh start. What did they say in their speeches? Did

they deal with the throne speech? No. All they did was descend into a

carping, negative attack on the Leader of the Opposition. They didn't

want to talk about their leader. All they could think of doing was

attacking the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand them. They're

extremely disappointed.

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) had to stand up

and ask the Premier to obey the law. Sitting just a few seats down from

the Premier, he had to stand up and ask his Premier: "When are you

going to obey the law?" Talk about disappointment!

How about the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) ?

She's disappointed. She's thinking of diving into the federal arena,

she's so disappointed.

MR. REE: What are the members for Nanaimo and Alberni going to do?

MR. MILLER: They're going into the federal arena too, to help

build that strong team of New Democrats who are going to represent

British Columbia in the next Parliament. They didn't make it to the

cabinet. They're disappointed, and they're bailing out. Now they're

going to have to face this savage attack on the federal government by

the Premier.

I want to quote one speech particularly, because it touches on an

issue which has become quite controversial in British Columbia and, I

think, has led a lot of people to be extremely disappointed in the

Premier in terms of his ability to listen and respond to the people. I

want to quote Hansard of

March 17, 1987, and the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Huberts). He dealt with a topic that has become an issue in this

province in recent months concerning the abortion question. I want to

quote what that member said, because last March 17 he outlined his view

of how issues should be dealt with, and I'm sure he must be

disappointed, in terms of the position he had outlined and what

actually happened. He had talked previously about his religious

commitment. He says:

"Yet too often people fear a man or a woman in

politics who is committed to God. Why? Because they are afraid that the

politician will impose his religious beliefs on everyone else. I

understand those fears, and I wish to put some of them to rest. I do

not wish to use politics as a platform for my religion. As noted author

and former politician, Charles Colson" — he could quote a better source

— "stated:

"'It is important to make clear the distinction between the

responsibilities of a Christian as private citizen and a Christian as office-holder.

The private citizen is obliged to evangelize and Christianize his society, but

the Christian serving in government while maintaining his first allegiance to

God has a different public responsibility. It is not to take dominion; it is

to preserve even-handed justice, to protect religious liberty and responsible

freedom of all citizens.'"'

That member must be disappointed, given the events that transpired in this province in recent months.

[ Page 3561 ]

1 wanted to touch on a bit of a paradox in terms of what was said in

the throne speech with regard to the economic performance of this

province. It's clear that there has been an improvement in the economy

in British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you.

MR. MILLER: But I think the Finance minister will understand

what I'm saying, in terms of.... If the comments across the way are

meant to indicate that the change is a direct result of what has been

done by those people, I think they should think about the nature of the

economy of British Columbia.

We had in the throne speech — on page 2 of the copy I've got — a

glowing list of accomplishments prefaced by remarks indicating that all

of these positive accomplishments were as a result of measures

introduced by the government. The economy is strong and growing

stronger, etc., etc. I won't bother to repeat all of the things that

are listed here.

The reality is that there has been an improvement in terms of prices

in the resource sector. The one I'm most familiar with is pulp and

paper. The price increases on the pulp side have been nothing short of

phenomenal, and they've led to a large increase in terms of capital

expenditures in the pulp sector. Quite frankly, I think those increases

have been overdue. I think, particularly on the coast, that capital

investment in that sector was slow. Given the fact that the access has

been given to our natural resources in this province, I was

disappointed in the kind of capital investment that has been made in

that sector. Nonetheless, we're starting to now see those investments

being made.

If you take the words of the throne speech, things are just

wonderful here in Lotus land. They're just great. Everything is coming

up roses. But I wonder, given that, why the government had to descend

into the whining diatribe against the federal government. I wonder what

caused the Premier to descend to this level. All British Columbians

agree, I think, that we could get more from the federal government, but

there are ways of pursuing things.

[11:00]

Just as an aside, I would point out that the throne speech, dealing

with the labour relations climate in this province, talks about the

need for maturity. The sentence says: "In the coming year, our maturity

and our will to do what's best...." If the government wants maturity

out of the citizens of this province, why hasn't it displayed some

maturity in the throne speech document, in terms of trying to establish

a relationship with the federal government? Talk about immaturity! I

know that members of the Tory caucus, who generally are supportive of

you people over there, didn't think it was maturity.

There's a difference, Mr. Member, between pursuing objectives in a

strong, forceful, mature way, or like the Premier has done.... Was it

only three months ago that he congratulated Ottawa — maybe it was four

months ago — on how great things were, how the Premiers' council was

working, how he was so happy with Mr. Mulroney? He went back to

Ottawa.... Does he say one thing in Ottawa and another in B.C.? He

does. Now all of a sudden that's gone sour. Quite frankly, I think it

displays a lack of maturity on the part of the Premier. If he's going

to go to the citizens of this province asking for maturity, he might be

better advised to display some himself. There's certainly been a lack

of that in his response to many issues in this province.

Last March 18 the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) talked about

negativism. It's amazing how we always end up with you people over

there reducing everything we say to being carping criticism or

negativism; yet you indulge in it so much yourself. You really are

quite negative. I think you need to have more faith in the people of

this province. The Attorney-General called members on our side "whine

merchants." What does he think of the Premier's diatribe, the Premier's

whine? There's another member who's considering.... He has strong ties

to the federal Tories. He's not happy about the Premier's whining about

the federal government. The B.C. members of the Tory caucus aren't

happy. One of them even described it in very strong language, which I

won't repeat in this House, Mr. Speaker — it had to do with an animal.

He was very disappointed.

There are a number of inconsistencies in specific items in the

throne speech which, I think, people are disappointed in. I want to

talk about a couple of them. First of all, in terms of the free trade

agreement, the Mulroney trade deal, the Premier again complains

bitterly. He says: "Oh, we supported Mr. Mulroney, and we're not

getting anything."

In another incredible document called the closing speech — another

back-patting exercise by the government that, quite frankly, at least

in one area, showed a.... It must have been written by a magician,

somebody who's good at sleight of hand. It says: "This new policy" —

talking about the forest policy — "was directly responsible for ending

the 15 percent countervailing duty imposed by the United States on

British Columbia's softwood exports." What a sleight of hand that was!

The fact is that the free trade agreement enshrined the 15 percent

export tax, made it part of the policy. It has not been done away with

at all.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that in the years to come, there will be a

continuing source of conflict in British Columbia allowing the United

States to draft our forest policy. There clearly was a need to increase

revenues — everybody admits that; even people in the industry admit

that. But by allowing the U.S. lumber lobby to draft our forest policy,

we've put ourselves in a bind. and let's not kid ourselves.

To the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who.... Anybody

who's been around this province long enough is aware of the cyclical

nature of the forest products industry. It will come again, and none of

us like to see that. Incredible suffering took place in this province

as a result of the downturn in the economy, particularly the impact on

the forest industry. Of course. that was compounded by a government

which in 1983 shovelled money off the back of a truck for a highway,

while at the same time cutting services to people. But the cyclical

nature of the forest industry is a fact of life. When that downturn

comes, we'll see how that policy can be applied. or not be applied, in

terms of the control that the United States now has on that forest

policy.

Again dealing with free trade, we have this sort of paradoxical

position of the Premier embracing free trade wholeheartedly.... Well, I

don't know whether he embraced Mulroney or not. but he certainly

embraced Mulroney's trade deal — he squeezed it. Now he spends all his

time complaining about it. What happened on the GATT ruling whereby

Canadian fish, caught by Canadian fishermen...?

The Premier talks about ceding sovereignty on the South Moresby deal. "We've given away sovereignty, " he says. He

[ Page

3562 ]

gave away sovereignty in terms of our right to

process a resource that is ours. If that's not giving away sovereignty

— agreeing that we have to export unprocessed fish from Canadian

waters.... That's a major giving away of sovereignty, so the Premier

seems to have his wires crossed.

There are a number of other features of the throne speech that bear

criticism, but hopefully my colleagues will cover some of the areas

that I have missed today.

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

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House.

Today in your gallery are 45 young people from Hastings Junior

Secondary School in my riding. They are here to learn all about

government, and they've had a tour of the Legislature. They're with Mr.

Wright, Mr. French and Miss Lustig. They are here for the day; I hope

they enjoy it. This is a beautiful building, and they have had their

tour, and now they're going to be, I am sure, dazzled by the next

speaker. So we're all looking forward to that. Will you welcome them

please.

MR. PETERSON: I must thank the opposition House Leader for that great introduction. Thank you. I will do my best to meet your expectations.

Let me begin by congratulating the Speaker of our House, the member

for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), yourself as our

Deputy Speaker (Mr. Pelton) and our former Deputy Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole, my colleague, the first member for Langley

(Mrs. Gran). I think the three of you did a commendable job. Coming

into this House as a rookie, I probably had some concerns. The decorum

in this House under the leadership of you and your colleagues I think

is very much appreciated.

While speaking of the first member for Langley, I'd like this

opportunity to say that it has been a honour and a privilege working

with her representing our constituency. She's a great lady, and I

certainly appreciate the opportunity to work with her. I also would

like to congratulate the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) in

assuming the duties of the Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole. I think he will do a great job, and 1 am looking forward to that.

Some of the opening comments on the throne speech.... The goals of

the Social Credit government are to eliminate the deficit and build a

stable province that provides social and economic security for all

British Columbians. In all sincerity, I totally endorse this objective,

and we as a government must muster all the resources and talent

available to make it a reality. Leadership and courage will be the key

ingredients, and I believe this government has a surplus of those

elements.

I notice with some interest the comments of our last speaker, the

member for Prince Rupert. All he seemed to be doing was attempting to

attack our leader, the Premier. When you have not much to say to a very

positive throne speech, what else can you do? That doesn't bother our

Premier at all, because he will carry on in his positive, courageous

manner and provide us with the leadership this province needs.

Let me go to an outside authority, and let's see where that leadership

and that courage has taken us. Let's look at the news from the economic

front in British Columbia. I'd like to quote from a highly reputable source

— Pemberton Houston Willoughby's "Western Commentary, " a column

entitled, "The News From B.C. Keeps Getting Better." Here are some

forecast highlights:

"Real GDP may rise by 4 to 5 percent in 1988, the strongest

gain since 1981, and 3.5 to 4 percent in 1989. Retail sales in 1988 could be

up 10 percent in nominal terms and about 5 percent in real terms. Employment

growth, after a 2.5 percent increase in 1987, could be 4 to 4.5 percent in 1988.

Economic growth is broadening out from the forest products industry to encompass

business investment, manufacturing and other resource sectors. B.C.'s economic

base is strong. Our economy will out perform the national average."

That doesn't just happen; that comes from leadership and good government,

and I'm proud to be a member of this government.

Further on in the throne speech, there was a commitment made that a

long-term strategy will be developed for British Columbia. In fact, a

White Paper is due out sometime in August, which will lay out this

strategy for the next ten years. I think that that is innovative and a

necessary ingredient for a responsive government. I'm proud to be a

member of our Premier's committee charged with the responsibility of

drafting this White Paper. After the White Paper is drafted and

produced, it will be circulated among business, labour and all other

affected groups so that they can provide input and advice. That is an

open and responsive government, and I applaud it.

Furthermore, the Social Credit government will pursue the

development of trading zones in British Columbia to encourage

export-oriented industrial development. Programs such as these are

absolutely mandatory if we are to compete in the international

marketplace. Our economic well-being is dependent on our ability to

compete.

Further on in the throne speech, it was announced that our

government will enhance and strengthen programs to deal with substance

abuse, including alcohol and drugs. This problem affects individuals

from all walks of life and knows no geographic limits. We must, as a

society, deal with the devastation that substance abuse generates. I

further applaud this move.

The Social Credit government will soon make available to all British

Columbians a new family support initiative. I'd like to touch on an

issue that has been very much on the minds of, and talked about by, all

segments of our population; that is, of course, the abortion issue. No

matter where an individual sits on this issue, I have not yet heard one

person indicate that the abortion rate in this province is acceptable.

With an average of 26.2 abortions per 100 live births, something is

wrong. We, as a society, must be prepared to provide educational

resources which should include birth control programs and more

understanding, compassion and assistance to the women of this province

who are facing unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Speaker, in the area of education — I'm glad to see the students

up in your gallery — the education of our youth is the key to the

future well-being of our great province, both economically and

socially. We, as a government, must never neglect this responsibility.

The Waste Management Act and other measures will be amended to encourage the reuse and recycling of municipal

[ Page 3563 ]

wastes. This is important to my constituency,

Langley. Individuals have come to me and made representation on this

issue. We have, unfortunately, become a society of throw away-ers. The

effect that that has on our environment is simply not acceptable.

Again, I commend and applaud our government for coming forth with this

program, and I look forward to it.

Legislation will also be introduced to encourage all British

Columbians to preserve and enhance historic and heritage sites in the

province. In my constituency, for Fort Langley, well-known as the

birthplace of British Columbia, this is indeed good news. Besides that

restoration and the enhancement of that historic site, it will provide

us with a great tourism advantage, and Fort Langley should be and is,

and will even become, a greater tourist destination in British Columbia.

"Our agriculture sector's economic viability will be

enhanced by a long-term strategy to develop new markets and products."

I'd like to just use an example of the kiwi fruit. Experiments with the

kiwi fruit over the past ten years are now coming to fruition, and this winter,

for the first time in British Columbia, kiwi fruit is available in a few local

stores. In 1987 some 50,000 pounds of the fruit was produced from 51 acres

planted on the Saanich Peninsula and in the lower mainland; a great part of

it is in the Langley area. It is projected that the 1988 crop will be 200,000

pounds and that by 1990 it will reach one million pounds.

The farmers who invested their time, energy and resources into these

types of innovative experiments, in order to diversify the range of

products they offer us, deserve our wholehearted support. Consumers in

B.C. have never had such a wide range of top-quality home products to

choose from at their local markets. Support our B.C. farmers by asking

for and buying B.C.-grown products.

I'd just like to talk about some other things. These developments

are from small, five-acre farms. There is a farm I know of in the

Langley area that was producing herbs. From the production of those

herbs they came up with an innovative method of dehydrating their

products, thereby being able to ship them to international markets.

They are now in the process of constructing a plant which, at peak

capacity, will provide us with 100 jobs. Mr. Speaker, that all started

from one small five-acre farm. That's the innovativeness of British

Columbia's agricultural industry. I commend them; I congratulate them.

In the future I'll have much more to say about the value of small farms

in the agricultural industry in British Columbia.

I would like to take a few minutes to put on the record some of the

great things I believe our government has done for my own constituency,

Langley. I'm not saying that they've done it all or that there's not

future work to be done and future needs to be filled, but they are

doing a great job. I'd like to highlight some of them.

Through the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training's

employment training program, JobTrac, in the Langley electoral district

$405,000 was spent. I'd like that on the record. Through Kwantlen

College — the main site is in Surrey and another site is coming on line

in Langley — $17,332,000 was spent on advanced education. That's our

commitment to our youth, to job training and to the future of this

province.

Through Agriculture and Fisheries, in our constituency, $441,000 was

spent by way of the agrifood regional development subagreement, the

co-op insurance program and the farm income insurance program.

I'd like to carry on just a little further. Through Economic Development, in

1987, the business development loans in my constituency totalled $613,000.

From July 1, 1986, to June 30, 1987, a total amount of $49,595,000 was expended

by our provincial government to train and educate our youth. I would like to

congratulate our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — I think you're

doing a superb job — and I would like to also take this opportunity to congratulate

our teachers in Langley, our administrative staff and our school board, who

I think do a superb job also.

In the Ministry of Environment and Parks: in 1986-87, through the habitat conservation

fund and environment management, a total of $1,058,000 was spent in the Langley

area. In health, a total amount, between the alcohol and drug programs....

MR. CLARK: Who wrote this speech?

MR. PETERSON: I did. Do you like it?

MR. LONG: All good, positive stuff.

MR. PETERSON: You bet!

I'd like to say that through all those Health programs, a total of

$26,373,000 was spent in the Langley area. I said earlier that there

are still other problems there that need addressing. The growth in

Langley is phenomenal. We are in dire need of a psychiatric care unit

at Langley Memorial Hospital, and I will continue pounding on the door

of the Minister of Health until we get that unit. Sometimes the first

member for Langley and I have been called pit bulls as far as some of

the cabinet ministers are concerned, but we will continue keeping after

them. Because of the growth in our area we need that attention. I'm

glad to say that our government most often listens to us and to our

needs.

I'm glad our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is

in the House today. Between the provincial homeowner grants,

revenue-sharing grants, and the facade improvement grants, there was a

total commitment and expenditure from November 1, 1986, to December 31,

1987, of $13,532,000. Madam Minister, I thank you for that.

Social Services and Housing. In seniors' housing, a total commitment

of $4,900,000 for Langley. Again, that's good government, and we

appreciate that.

I could go on and on, but just the few items I've mentioned come to

a grand total of over $115,500,000 for the Langley area. I said that

that doesn't include everything, and there are other needs that need to

be fulfilled. I'd like to take this opportunity.... Unfortunately, the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) isn't here.

But we do need the upgrading of 200th Street to be completed as soon as

possible, and I urge him to give immediate consideration to that

requirement, as I have been doing every day and will continue to do

every day until we get what we require out there.

[ Page 3564 ]

I'd like to take this opportunity to commend our chambers of

commerce. We have three of them in our constituency: Langley, Fort

Langley and Aldergrove. They contribute significantly to our good and

economic well-being in that area. And I commend our service clubs and

private citizens who commit their time and energy to enhancing the

value of life in the Langley area, and all the other community

organizations, who quite often are forgotten but contribute so much to

Langley's being the great place it is to live and to raise families and

to enjoy all the amenities of the area.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of our government and its

accomplishments. I'd be the last to admit that we've reached the Utopia

of government. We've got a long way to go, but we try, and we try to do

it in a positive manner, not a negative manner. We've got a leader who

I said is courageous. He is bold. He provides good, strong leadership.

You never have to worry about where he's coming from. He'll be glad to

tell you any time you ask him. I would like to say....

Would you like to do a few comparisons? How much time do I have, Mr.

Speaker? I've got about five or ten minutes. Let's do a few

comparisons. Let's see where your leader comes from. Let's talk about a

few things, How about SkyTrain? What was your leader's position on

SkyTrain? He called it a pig in a poke. Do you know what the facts are?

SkyTrain, a state-of-the-art system, created 7,500 direct jobs and

7,500 indirect jobs, including 250 permanent jobs. Is that a pig in a

poke?

How about Expo 86 and the hotel and office tower for Pier B.C.?

Let's get this on the record. What did the Leader of the Opposition

say? He said, and this is December 13, 1981: "Expo is an unwanted

frivolity." He voted with the city council majority to eliminate a

hotel and office tower from the site. Let me tell you that the fact is

that the trade and convention centre and Expo 86 projects together

created 53,400 person-years of work.

[11:30]

How about the Annacis Island bridge? Your leader stated: "It's a

disaster for the city of Vancouver and the people are going to fight

it." Again, the Alex Fraser Annacis Island bridge created 1,800 direct

jobs and 2,700 spin-off jobs. We hear members opposite being worried

about the blue collar people not having enough jobs. What have I

totalled in jobs there? Probably something in the order of 20,000 jobs

which your leader shrugged off as nothing.

So I would just like to say that if you really want to start playing

that game, we can do it, but I would suggest you look in your own

backyard before you make mention of things like that.

MR. SKELLY: You're too tough for us.

MR. PETERSON: I know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to stand up

and speak. I totally support the throne speech and will in fact be

voting for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Alberni.

MR. LONG: The new wave.

MR. SKELLY: The "nouveau vague, " as they say. I don't think that would be permitted in Alberta, but....

Mr. Speaker, I've got a bit of pneumonia today so I may not be able

to carry on as long as you would like me to. But I understand that the

member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is willing to give

unanimous consent.

Although I was in bed yesterday and probably accomplishing more than

this government has for the past 18 months, I unfortunately didn't have

an opportunity to read the throne speech then. But I'd like to thank

some of the government members for their help today in trying to

clarify the material in the throne speech.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor read the speech in the Legislature, even though he

left out some of the good parts, I found astounding some of the parts

that he left in. I found it hard to believe that the government of

British Columbia would engage in such a strident, almost separatist

kind of attack on the national government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SKELLY: I thought it was shameful.

It's well known, and the columnists have pointed out a number of

times during the discussion of the throne speech in their editorial

columns and in the reportage that appears in the papers and in the

media that this is a British Columbia tradition. When the government is

in difficult times, it turns around and attacks the federal government.

But it came as a bit of a surprise, and it must come as a bit of a

double sting to the members of the federal government who went out

during the last provincial election campaign and campaigned so

supportively on behalf of the Premier of this province, remembering how

well they were stroked by the previous Premier, Bill Bennett, who would

say in his speeches in the Legislature: "Aren't we happy to have all

these federal Conservative Members of Parliament working for us here in

British Columbia?" He used to go back and hold special meetings with

them, to the exclusion of Liberal and New Democratic members of the

federal House of Commons, who were working as hard or harder on behalf

of their constituents, yet did not have the ear and the support of the

former Premier of this province.

It came as a bit of a shock to us, Mr. Speaker, when we heard the

throne speech so virulently attack the national government, when the

Premier himself has had an opportunity to go back during first

ministers' conferences and during conferences between provincial

ministers and their federal counterparts, in every one of those venues,

in every one of those sessions, and demand the goods for British

Columbia from the national government. Instead of just going face-down

on the Meech Lake accord, why didn't our Premier demand some

concessions for British Columbia in exchange for his face-down

acquiescence on the Meech Lake accord? Why didn't he make those kinds

of tough bargaining statements to the national government in exchange

for the Meech Lake accord?

Is Brian Peckford not a good Canadian? Mr. Peckford, even though he

is a Tory and shares the same political bed with the Prime Minister of

Canada, did make tough demands on the part of his province, and did say

that support of the Meech Lake accord was conditional upon recognizing

some of the needs and some of the problems that are being faced to this

day in Newfoundland. Peckford was a tough bargainer on behalf of his

province and on behalf of Newfoundlanders.

[ Page 3565 ]

Why was not the Premier of the province of British Columbia? Why was

he not a tough bargainer, a tough negotiator on behalf of the people of

British Columbia? Why didn't he tell Prime Minister Mulroney that

instead of going face-down on the Meech Lake accord, he expected

certain things to be done here in British Columbia before British

Columbia was going to give its acceptance to that accord?

The same thing on the free trade arrangement. Who was the most

unconditional supporter of free trade in that little cabal of first

ministers? Blind trust, blind faith — it's ideology, Mr. Speaker. These

people are driven by ideologies about free trade rather than the real

concerns we should have in this province as to what free trade is going

to do to those who work in the textile industry, the agricultural

industry, the brewing industry, the wine and grape-growing industries

in the Okanagan Valley. Those are the things that should guide us and

should guide our first ministers when they are back there negotiating

on our behalf in Ottawa as to whether we should accept or otherwise any

kind of a free trade agreement with the United States. Yet this Premier

and the Premier before him made a face-down acquiescence —

unconditional support for the free trade agreement, even before he knew

what was written in it.

Do you want to know why the federal government doesn't pay any

attention to British Columbia? It's because our Premiers have not been

tough negotiators. They've always gone face-down to the federal

government; they've always gone face-down to the Prime Minister of the

country, regardless of whether he was Liberal or Tory. If you go face

down you get nothing, and that's why we see the kind of complaint that

we have in the throne speech today.

What we need in this country, not that it will drive the country

apart, but it will make the country stronger.... If there's a fair

distribution of the benefits of this country, if a fair amount of

dollars flows from central Canada into western Canada, it's going to

make the country stronger. But in order to get that fair amount of

dollars, Mr. Speaker, we must have tough negotiations on the part of

our first minister. That is what has been missing.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is that why Barrett was going to give them the provincial resources?

MR. SKELLY: Barrett got more from the federal government in

the space of 39 months than this group has got from the federal

government since 1976, over that whole period. That's the fact.

I can tell you an example from my experience. The member talks about

resources. Where are resources written into the national constitution,

and who stood up during the debate on the national constitution and

demanded that the provinces' control over resources be untouched by any

change in the constitution that resulted from the patriation of that

document from Britain to Canada? The person who stood up and insisted

on that as a condition for his support was Ed Broadbent, the next Prime

Minister of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I'm willing to stand up at any time and recognize those

who have done far more for British Columbia on the national scene,

whether they've been NDP Members of Parliament, New Democratic Party

leaders in Ottawa, or New Democratic Party Premiers in the province of

British Columbia. Any one of them can be proud of the negotiations that

we've had with the national government, and the fact that our

negotiations were based on getting our share of Confederation delivered

here in British Columbia.

The reason you don't get the kind of procurements on federal

programs that you need in this province is that you've always gone

face-down. You've been terrible negotiators, that's a fact, and now

you're trying to blame the national government, which, believe me, has

problems of its own. Now you're trying to kick them when they're down

and kick them when they're weak, and you're trying to squeeze a little

bit more out of them before the next election, because we all know

what's going to happen to them after the next election.

I recall, back at a first ministers' conference in Halifax in 1985, that

one of the points of discussion was the EPF funding, in which the federal government

shares in health care programs. post-secondary education programs, and a number

of other programs that it financially cost-shares with the provincial governments.

At that first ministers' conference the Prime Minister of the day was suggesting

that there had to be a capping on the funding that was going to the provinces

because the federal government wanted to control the deficit.

Our Premier of the day — and it was Bill Bennett at that time — went

back there and actually asked for more cutbacks than even the national

government was willing to give. And these people ask why we're not

getting the kind of money we deserve from the national government!

Because when it's offered they refuse it. It's almost a historical

tradition in British Columbia that whenever a program is developed

nationally that requires 50 percent cost-sharing with the provinces,

virtually every other province in Canada buys into the program by

putting up their 50 percent of the money. This province has always been

the odd man out — the province that is too cheap to put up its funding

in order to get that additional federal cash flow. That's been our

problem for years and years.

So I can't understand this strident attack by the Social Credit

Party on the Conservative government, and the Conservative Members of

Parliament who supposedly represent the province of B.C. When you look

at the record of those same Conservative MPs....

HON. MR. ROGERS: Is this your campaign speech?

MR. SKELLY: I'll make sure it gets out to my riding. But, Mr.

Speaker, I can understand that those federal Members of Parliament have

reacted with some concern and embarrassment, because I can recall our

Member of Parliament, Ted Schellenberg — am I allowed to mention his

name?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure.

MR. SKELLY: Do I have to call him honourable?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. SKELLY: Good. Because Ted Schellenberg promised that he

was going to deliver $250 million for a natural gas pipeline to

Vancouver Island in 1984. He also promised — and I want to talk about

this later during my throne speech presentation — that he would have

the federal government, through their health research people, do a

health study in Port Alberni. I want to get to that later because I

think it's important. He hasn't delivered the goods. Not only that, he

shut down his office in Port Alberni; not only that, he shut down

[ Page

3566 ]

his office in Parksville. After the next election

he's going to have to shut down his office in Nanaimo too and go back

into radio. It's a great loss for radio.

There is a problem in the relations that this province has with the

national government. I think the problem should be looked at in

historical perspective. The best times that the west has enjoyed are

times when we have had a minority government in the House of Commons,

and that minority has had a strong representation from the west through

the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons. I think there are

good times ahead, because if you look at the way the polls are looking

nationally, the west is going to be represented in the House of Commons

by the New Democratic Party, and we are the only political organization

that speaks for the west.

[11:45]

1 can guarantee that after the next election is called, the member

for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the member for Vancouver

South and the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) are

not going to see any of this fed-bashing in the throne speech, because

they're going to have at least 19 New Democratic Party Members of

Parliament in Ottawa fighting on their behalf and delivering the goods

to the people of this province.

I would like to talk a little bit about my constituency of Alberni.

When I first moved to Port Alberni about 22 years ago, it was a

thriving community. A quarter of MacMillan Bloedel's total investment

was located in Port Alberni, in terms of pulp and paper, logging,

plywood manufacture, secondary forest products, logging and

transportation and all of that complex that MacMillan Bloedel, the

forest company, was involved in.

Subsequently, MacMillan Bloedel became much more of a multinational

organization spreading its tentacles around the world. But essentially,

a quarter of the investment of that company remained in Port Alberni,

and it was good for Port Alberni. At the time, the forest industry was

growing and markets were growing, and we relied on a fairly limited

range of products basically being sold to the United States market to

serve the U.S. housing and construction needs, to serve the United

States newsprint industry and also to sell pulp into the United State

to be turned into fine papers and other finished products that in some

cases were later sold back into Canada.

Kids growing up in Port Alberni at that time had a reasonable

opportunity of becoming employed at relatively high wages in the forest

industry. In fact, it sometimes created a problem, because many of them

dropped out of school. The wages they received on weekends in the

forest industry were almost as much as their teachers received for

teaching them for a full week, and that kind of tension often resulted

in kids dropping out of school. It created problems, but it was good

times for Port Alberni.

I think if you check the taxation statistics showing which

communities in Canada had the highest taxable income levels, nine times

out of ten Port Alberni was in the top ten. It was a good, thriving,

wealthy community, a community that had excellent services, because our

people spent generously to make sure that those services were invested

in schools.... For example, we had programs for the hearing-impaired,

excellent music programs and an excellent athletic program. Our

recreation facilities in Port Alberni were second to none in the

province. It was a good community, providing good services.

Going back to Port Alberni now,22 years later, there are some pretty sad changes

that have taken place, many of them over the years since 1981. You've probably

been there, Mr. Speaker, and you've seen that the difference between the

community then and now is virtually night and day. Thousands were laid off in

the forest industry in Port Alberni in 1981-82 — thousands who are still without

work.

Contrary to what the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

might think or what the forest industry or the registered professional

foresters in this province might say, those thousands of people lost

their jobs without a single square centimetre of forest land being

removed from the forest land base. So the connection is not with the

forest land base. All those jobs were lost through changes in the

production process: speed-ups in the production process; changes in

mechanization that required more machinery, more capital and less

labour; changes in market that produced goods with less labour input in

them and sold them offshore, or sold them to be finished offshore by

workers in Asia, for example, or elsewhere on this continent or in

Europe. So all of those thousands of jobs lost in Port Alberni over the

last few years have been lost for reasons other than limitations on the

forest land base. This is not an environment-versus-jobs issue.

One of the things identified as a result of this vast group of

unemployed workers being created is that in British Columbia there is

no real social or health safety net designed to accommodate those kinds

of changes in industry. If those workers were in Europe today and

massive layoffs were about to take place, mechanisms at the government

level, within industry and within social services agencies would

immediately be called into operation to make sure the workers didn't

suffer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We don't want to turn away mechanization and modernization and those

kind of changes allowing us to respond more adequately to markets, but

we do not want the workers to suffer when these changes take place. We

don't want to treat workers like a bunch of spare parts which can be

tossed on the garbage pile. We want to make sure those workers and

their talents and their abilities and their families can be redirected

into other work of more productive benefit to the people of this

country. We simply do not have that kind of social safety net in this

country, and it became clear and evident to everybody in my community

when the changes I was talking about took place in MacMillan Bloedel.

One of the good things that has happened recently in my community,

after a long and an elongated strike that took place in 1986 and ended

in early 1987, was that the IWA was able to achieve in its contract a

provision for early retirement without penalty for some of its members

who were 50 years of age and older. As a result of that contract, many

of the senior workers in our system have stepped out and are living

comfortably on decent pensions, and many of our younger workers who

have been unemployed for years and years, as a result of the recession

and the changes that have taken place, have now gone back into the

workforce. I'd like to credit the IWA and its pension demands from the

last strike for creating more employment in Port Alberni than any

federal, provincial or municipal government plan in the last ten years.

It was that IWA pension provision, which allowed older workers to get

out with dignity and new workers to be recruited into the forest

industry, that was the best job creation plan ever brought to Port

Alberni.

[ Page

3567 ]

But there are serious problems facing us today. Even though MacMillan Bloedel,

the company that operates in Port Alberni, has had the highest profit year in

its history this year — and I congratulate them for that — it doesn't seem

that high profits go along with a concerned conscience. That's what bothers

me. A study was done back in the 1960s in Alberni which found that children

in Port Alberni had a higher incidence of respiratory disease and spent more

time missing school and in hospital as a result of respiratory disease than

children in a comparable community. In fact, the comparison was made with Chilliwack.

It was also found that children in Port Alberni had decreased lung function,

according to a lung function test.

My kids were brought up in Port Alberni. I'm sure they face the same

problems, and my experience of their medical history suggests that they

suffer from respiratory problems as a result of the city in which they

were brought up. Many people who work in Port Alberni as teachers, or

in the mills or in business, have to move away, either into the

outlying area of the Alberni Valley or over to Parksville and Qualicum

Beach, because of allergic reactions to the atmosphere in Alberni and

the health problems it causes.

I've just received word from the RCMP on Vancouver Island that Port

Alberni is being downgraded as a detachment, as a more dangerous area

to serve. It's not more dangerous because we have a higher violent

crime rate, something the RCMP would be concerned about. We're being

downgraded as a posting because RCMP members are suffering from

respiratory and other health problems as a result of air pollution in

the Alberni Valley that decreases their effectiveness and their ability

to work there as police. That's a serious problem. A town that was once

proud of its services and police force, proud of Port Alberni as a

place to live and work and earn a living and raise kids, is now

experiencing serious difficulties even in attracting people to work in

services such as the police and health care.

We're getting close to time here, Mr. Speaker, so I just want to

wind up. I may have appeared to look a little negatively at some of the

things that are happening in my community, but I'm going to ask the

government to make things a little more positive for Port Alberni.

I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Environment is in here. It's

my understanding that MacMillan Bloedel, in this their highest profit year,

have asked to carry on variance orders that have been given to them under

section

13 of the Waste Management Act. The orders allow them not to comply fully with

the emission parameters under their pollution control permit. I want to ask

the Minister of Environment specifically to make sure that MacMillan Bloedel

complies with the full parameters of their permit, and not only that, but that

as a condition of granting the permit MacMillan Bloedel should come up with

part of the cost of a health study to update a health study done several years

ago on the respiratory problems and the lung function of children in Port Alberni.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: This is a public hearing, and I'm sure that the member will send this around to anyone who did attend.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck).... I've discussed this with him on a number of occasions,

and with the former Minister of Health, who actually rejected funding

for that health study. I want the Minister of Environment to refuse to

grant an extension waiving M&B's obligation to fulfil the terms of

its permit. I'm asking that of the Minister of Environment, and I'll

guarantee that I'm supported by the people of Alberni in that.

Furthermore, I'm asking that any permit issued by MacMillan Bloedel be

issued with the condition that M&B has to come up with part of the

funds to pay for the study of the health implications of pollution in

the Alberni Valley; and furthermore, that the Minister of Health pay

his share to make sure that the health of people in Port Alberni is

protected, in terms of both the environmental emissions and the

analysis of the problems in that valley.

Hon Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the debate on behalf of Hon. Mr. Richmond.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988,2001,2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada