British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 19, 1986 — Afternoon Sitting (33rd Parliament, 4th Session)

33p 04s 860319p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

1986 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7411 ]

Forest Renewal Act (Bill M202). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 7411

Oral Questions

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7411

Purchase of seedlings. Mr. Howard –– 7412

Price of gasoline. Mr. Lauk –– 7412

Home-heating oil costs. Ms. Sanford –– 7413

Voters' list. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 7413

Ministerial Statement

Social housing. Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7413

Mr. Blencoe

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7415

Mr. Nicolson –– 7418

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7422

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7425

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 7429

Mr. Cocke –– 7431

Division –– 7435

Tabling Documents –– 7435

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, we have visitors today from the mining capital of Canada.

Would the House please join me in welcoming the mayor of Logan Lake,

Betty Hinton, and the administrator of the village of Logan Lake, Ben

de Kleine.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I know all

members will want to join me in congratulating Premier Howard Pawley

and the NDP government on their re-election in Manitoba.

HON. MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are three people whom I

would like the House to make very welcome. Mr. Maxwell Tracy is a

member of the Canadian Legion and of the "800" wing here in Victoria.

Accompanying Mr. Tracy are two lovely young ladies: Mrs. Helen Brown,

wife of the late Archie Brown, who way back when was president of the

B.C. Social Credit League. Mrs. Brown has been a member of Social

Credit in this province since the party's inception and since the

League's inception. She is 89 years young and a lifetime resident of

this our beautiful capital city. Accompanying Mrs. Brown is Mrs. Marion

Engelbrecht, also a longtime resident of Victoria. Again, I ask the

House to make them very welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr.

Speaker, I have a number of guests to introduce today. First, it is my

pleasure to introduce Mr. Walter Thomson, whom you have allowed to sit

on the floor today. Mr. Thomson is retiring from the government of the

province of British Columbia after 35 years of service. He's retiring

as director of special programs in the Ministry of Health. Walter has

been very active in the rehabilitation aspects of our community, and

has been a very fine example of the disabled working within government.

We had a luncheon for him today. I would be pleased to introduce the

other guests, but I'd ask the House to join me in honouring Mr. Walter

Thomson on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today are members of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. First, I'd

introduce Ms. Samantha Coe, who is a regional consultant for Vancouver

Island South, Mr. Norman Haw, who is the director of rehab services for

the Canadian Paraplegic Association, and Mr. Vince Miele, who is the

chief counsellor. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Finally,

I would note that this is a special day for one of the members of our

House, the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton). It's his

birthday.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST RENEWAL ACT

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Forest Renewal Act.

MR. HOWARD: In explanation, very briefly, the current government broke

faith with the people of B.C. In 1980 when it cancelled the five-year range

and resource fund, and one of the purposes of this bill is to re-establish that

long-term commitment to silviculture. The bill contains, among other things,

a definition of silviculture which does not now exist in any statutory form.

It is anticipated that the Forest Renewal Act will lay the foundation to provide

thousands of jobs now, as well as in the future, and ensure that reforestation,

silviculture, is an ongoing matter.

Bill

M202, Forest Renewal Act, introduced, read a first time, and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Premier regarding northeast

coal and the Tumbler Ridge BCR line which cost the province $503

million. The payback was predicated on getting four times the income

that we've already got in the past year, and now the Japanese are

bargaining in terms of cutbacks in terms of volume on that line, which

will mean even greater hemorrhaging in terms of that project. The

Premier said it was a secure take or pay contract; it clearly is not.

Is the Premier prepared to step in to prevent even further losses in

this failing major project in his decade?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the

member for Vancouver East, but that's not unusual. Very few people

agree with him in his assumption that the northeast coal project is

failing. There are negotiations in the private sector, but negotiations

are just that, and they may or may not end up with the assumed

concessions he talks about.

The government of British

Columbia is still committed to the people of the north, the people of

Tumbler Ridge. We know there will continue to be employment up there,

and the mines will continue to operate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You want to be a night watchman? Come around for a recommendation after question period. I'll be pleased to give you one.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't agree with the member for Vancouver East. I think the

northeast coal project can and will survive international market

conditions, and there will continue to be employment for the people up

there. There may be those who hope they don't have jobs and that it

shuts down, but it's sure not me.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the TEX report out of a corporate reporting agency in

Tokyo has indicated that what they're looking for in Japan in terms of

changes is a $21 cutback on the price of coal in the northeast, and a

20 percent reduction in volume. Is the Premier saying that he will

continue to sit idly by, just as he did on the southeast, where half

the jobs and half the volumes were lost already during his tenure?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the Teck mining people to be able to

negotiate with the steel companies in Japan. They negotiated very well

in securing the first contract. I have confidence in them, and that

member is wrong again — the most poorly researched member in the

history of this House. He doesn't recognize the increased

[ Page 7412 ]

coal

tonnages that have been added to the southeast of British Columbia over

the last number of years. The southeast has not paid a penalty.

That member continues to misinform the public, and because of that the public does not trust anything that member says.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. We're not getting any of the payback the

Premier promised. A $500 million line. We're not getting the payback

for our treasury. Is he prepared to reconsider his statement of May

1981 to the chamber of commerce, wherein he said: "As for the deal with

the Japanese, it's the best deal we've ever had."

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the best deal. I want to tell you that in the

world coal market we have both growth in the southeast and the

northeast, production that grew over the last three years by 85 percent

in tonnages shipped. Thank goodness those contracts in both the

southeast and northeast were signed. Today we have people working. Yes,

we may face pressure, the companies may face pressure for negotiation

and concessions from the Japanese. Who were the first to capitulate?

Why the Leader of the Opposition idolizes the companies in Australia,

who renegotiated their contracts first. Clearly the Leader of the

Opposition holds out Australia as the model. Twenty percent interest

rates, and he holds it out as a model for us to follow.

Well,

I'll tell you that the companies in B.C. will fight hard to maintain

their viability, their contracts and the employment of their people. I

trust them to do that, because they got good contracts in the first

place. They'll do this in spite of you trying to give comfort by being

negative to the Japanese steel makers, who are looking for all the

negative support they can get in British Columbia; and it's a shame it

comes from a politician.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's obviously why the Premier fired Don Phillips.

PURCHASE OF SEEDLINGS

I'd

like to ask a question of the Minister of Forests. Further to his

statement on February 19 that an estimated 20 million seedlings had

been lost due to a cold snap, can the minister confirm that his

estimate was low, and that the loss of seedlings is closer to 40

million?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am

advised by the people in the ministry that the estimate of seedlings

lost was something in the order of 17 million to 18 million. I would be

pleased to receive any information the member has. I will take the

question on notice and make further inquiry.

MR. HOWARD:

Given that the statement to which the minister referred was February

19, and it is now nearly the end of March, can the minister confirm

that a great many of the seedlings were bought from private nurseries

and paid for out of the public purse, without checking first to

determine if the seedlings were dead or alive?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have no way of answering that particular question, but

I'd be quite prepared to inquire. I'll take that on notice.

would like to respond to the extent that there ought to be great

encouragement for the people in the private sector for the purposes of

growing seedlings. My understanding right now is that the public sector

is responsible for producing something in the order of 100 million, and

the private sector is responsible for producing an equal number. I

wanted that verified. As a matter of fact, I secured the information of

the location of the nurseries and the actual production for each of the

nurseries, all of the nurseries, both private and public.

MR. HOWARD: The question related to buying dead seedlings without checking first as to what you were getting.

Did

the minister issue any instructions that seedlings would only be

acceptable to the ministry and paid for if a test for their viability

and quality was conducted before they were paid for?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Again, Mr. Speaker, you know I am relying upon the expertise and the

professionalism of the people in the Ministry of Forests, all of whom

are members of the government, employed by the government. I have every

reason to believe that they are competent, and I have confidence in

them. But with respect to your original point, I will take that as

notice.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the minister can't slough off ministerial responsibilities on a committed public service.

Can

the minister confirm that the total cost to the taxpayer of having

bought worthless dead seedlings in the first place — contrary to the

most elementary and prudent business practice — and now having to

replace those, as he contemplates doing, will be somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million— all because of mismanagement on the part of this government?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

That goes back to the original question, which I'll take on notice. But

I would be quite prepared, if the member for Skeena would send to my

office the evidence upon which he is basing his questions....

MR. HOWARD: Check in your own ministry.

PRICE OF GASOLINE

MR. LAUK: To the hon....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: If you go, I'll stay. Is that a deal? I'm always interested in improving the quality of the House — that's why I'm going.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if

he can hear me through this din and chatter. The price of crude oil has

fallen to a level in British Columbia which should, according to your

own government's figures, translate into an overall reduction of 12

cents per litre at the pumps. Is it government policy to pass this

saving on to consumers of gas at the pumps?

[ Page

7413 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe that, again, this particular member has the

wrong minister. If he's dealing with petroleum or with the Minister of Highways,

I think he should direct the question to those ministers.

MR. LAUK: I ask a substantial question and I get a slim answer. [Laughter.]

The major oil companies, five of them foreign-owned, are

profiteering quite obviously on the difference, and the price has only

dropped about an average of two cents per litre. What action has the

minister taken as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to protect

the consumers in this province? What steps has he taken to ensure that

the retail price reflects this saving?

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Well, inasmuch as the question may possibly relate to my ministry, I

would be pleased to take it as notice and get back to you.

MR. LAUK:

When the hon. minister has found the telephone in his office, could he

call Seattle and find out why there they're selling a litre of gas at

36 cents Canadian per litre and here it's an average of 53 cents to 54

cents per litre? Why is there the difference?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Hon. member — through you, Mr. Speaker —

I believe that there are several tax impositions upon a gallon of

gasoline or a litre of gasoline in British Columbia. But if the member

has information that will help me in my research, I would be pleased if

he would forward it to me.

HOME-HEATING OIL COSTS

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question too relates to consumers. I would like to

point out to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that many

British Columbians, especially those on Vancouver Island, have to pay

very high prices for their home-heating oil. I am wondering what action

the minister has taken to protect those consumers against these high

costs?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would be pleased to research that, take it as notice and get it back to you.

VOTERS' LIST

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer a question that was given to me earlier this week.

The

question was asked by the hon. member for Victoria, and it was to do

with voters' lists. The question was: would the minister undertake to

allow voter registration cards to be made available to organizations

and groups and then to be passed on to the returning officers and chief

electoral officers so that the voting process could take place?

I am told by the chief electoral officer of the province, Mr. Harry

Goldberg, that the Election Act states that the applicant must

"personally"...or a person must apply for registration. In that vein,

he will make available — this has been well-circulated to the political parties in the province.... In

mid-April requests for voter registration cards will be made available to political

parties and organizations for distribution to individuals. Those cards are in

the form of a business reply card — a postcard — addressed to the registrar-general

of voters. I believe that all political parties, according to Mr. Goldberg,

were notified of the plans for this new card late last year. So the question

raised by the hon. member was answered last year prior to the letter which I

received recently and prior to the question in the House.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are you moving out?

HON. MR. KEMPF: In the fullness of time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOCIAL HOUSING

HON. MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make an important announcement concerning

social housing in British Columbia. Members will be aware of the

contentious issues surrounding social housing projects that have

surfaced in light of the eviction notices issued recently in Vancouver.

I am sure members are also aware of the measures the provincial

government has taken to ensure that no one in Vancouver or elsewhere in

British Columbia need be without housing. My colleague the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) informed the House recently of our

concern in relation to the evictions and also the concern of the

government in general about the whole question of social housing and

the delivery of same in British Columbia.

[2:30]

Mr.

Speaker, during the past few weeks in my new role as Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing I have been made aware of the serious question in

relation to the delivery of social housing in British Columbia, and

more importantly its impact on people. There is a serious question as

to how well existing social housing programs meet the objects of

providing affordable housing for the greatest number of those people in

need in this province. There is a serious question as to how we can

enhance the effectiveness of programs to meet the needs of those

British Columbians who are truly in need.

As I have most

visibly been informed by the media in British Columbia, there is a

question of what happens to residents of those projects when the

financial status of the individual changes. I have very much

appreciated — and I say this with all sincerity — the information

provided to me by my colleague in regard to the whole question of

social housing and the role of the federal and provincial governments

in delivering social housing in British Columbia. I have also

appreciated the attention devoted to the issue by the media. I really

have. There is no quicker way to learn, no more intense method of

discovering the issues in a ministry, than the briefings given me each

day in the newspaper and each evening on the television set.

When

I moved into my wife's home at Wilderness Place Co-op, like many people

who live in co-ops we were not aware of the details of the financial

arrangements between the co-op project and the government. In fact, I

have to say quite honestly that prior to my appointment as Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing — one short month ago — the issue of housing subsidies was not one I was deeply familiar with.

[ Page 7414 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been made abruptly aware of the financial

details by my ministry and the media, and I appreciate — members may

laugh — that media doing its job in this regard.

While

having the attention of the media focused on my personal affairs may be

uncomfortable, it has served to create wide interest in British

Columbia about the real and pressing issues relating to social housing.

The media have made the point much better than I could ever have done

alone.

I wish to make two announcements to the House today

related to the question. Firstly, I'm announcing today the appointment

of a three-member commission of inquiry to investigate social housing

programs in British Columbia relative to their effectiveness in

assuring availability of affordable housing to those in need.

The

commission will be chaired by Mr. James Cosh and will include Prof.

James Cutt and vice-chairman Miss Shelley Tratch. They are all able and

distinguished British Columbians in their own right, and I am confident

of their ability to delve into this question in a speedy, responsible

and concerned manner. Because the government of British Columbia has

been asked to enter into an agreement in the near future with the

federal government concerning social housing, I have asked the

commission of inquiry to undertake their review with dispatch and

report back to my office by April 22, 1986.

I know British

Columbians are concerned, as I am, that we receive information as

quickly as possible, both as to the effectiveness of the program and

any irregularities which may exist in the delivery of social housing

programs in this province. I am confident that this inquiry will

accomplish that goal.

The second announcement I wish to

make to the House today is one of a personal nature. I wish to announce

today that my wife and I are taking steps to vacate our premises at

Wilderness Place. Since my appointment as minister last month, I have

become aware of the need for social housing for British Columbians, and

I have become aware of the tremendous amount of money, taxpayers'

money, which is devoted to subsidizing a large number of residents who

are not in need.

I don't think British Columbians generally

have been aware of the large amount of money being used to subsidize

co-op members who are not low- or limited-income residents. Frankly,

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I reflected on the need for those British

Columbians who cannot afford housing in the regular marketplace. When

we understood how the subsidy was being applied to us, like many

others, we felt that subsidies should be restricted to those in need.

Mr.

Speaker, my wife and I are much concerned about the welfare of those

British Columbians who have been displaced from their accommodation in

Vancouver, and those British Columbians who may be in need of social

housing. I am also mindful of the need for a public inquiry that would

report to me, unencumbered by any suggestion or appearance of conflict

of interest. That is why today, Mr. Member, I have taken action in

response to concerns raised in the House by my colleague — by

colleagues both in the press and on the floor of this House — and by

British Columbians in general.

summary, Mr. Speaker, I believe the appointment of the commissioner of

inquiry into this subject will make public a full disclosure of a

situation related to social housing in this province, so that we may

determine the best course of action for future programs for those in

need.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to thank the

minister for his tub-thumping speech, and, Mr. Minister, to say to you

that you don't have to move out of the co-op, if you would agree to the

rules that currently people who have a decent income in co-ops.... You

can stay in the co-op, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, all we ask is that

the minister pay a decent portion of his income, and he can stay in the

co-op; that's all I think people request.

Mr. Speaker, there is, however — although the minister has made light of his particular issue — a

very serious aspect to this matter. The minister has refused to deal

with the evictions in Vancouver. He's going to do another study on

social housing when we have all the studies in the world we need. He

won't admit that B.C. spends only $15 million a year on social housing,

which is far less than the money they spend on advertising their

programs. The social housing record in British Columbia has been

atrocious. All we're getting from this minister and this government is

an attempt to hide the fact that they have an atrocious record on

providing housing for British Columbians. That's the coverup, Mr.

Speaker.

The government itself did a study just recently on

social housing. The federal government has done a study, and they're

correcting the problems. By announcing another study, this government

is jeopardizing the agreement to be signed with the federal government

so we can get more allocations in British Columbia. By your coverup and

by trying to avoid the issue and announcing another study, British

Columbia is not going to get an agreement on social housing. All

they're trying to do is embarrass the federal government. This

government should have taken action on housing, should have taken

action on the evictions. Today we have a desperate attempt by the

minister to try to cover up his problems.

No more studies.

Let's have a decent budget for housing. Let's have some action on

evictions and the problems of the people in need in British Columbia.

B.C. requires a decent social housing program, and this government, by

announcing another study instead of doing a search-and-rescue mission,

as we stated the other day.... They're clearly on a search-and-destroy

mission on social housing in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

This

minister by his actions is going to threaten a successful agreement

with the federal government, and we're not going to get allocations for

units in the province of British Columbia, and people in need are not

going to get the things they need. It is a desperate attempt to cover

up a tragedy in terms of what's happening to social housing in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) seeks the floor. Shall leave be granted?

MR. LEA: Can you guess what it's about, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear several no’s, hon. member.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

[ Page 7415 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair recognizes the member for

Skeena, who earlier informed the Chair that he wishes to raise a matter

of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to

rise on a question of privilege that affects this House and its

members. This is the first opportunity available to me to raise the

question. My question of privilege is that certain persons other than

accredited news people, who have traditionally been afforded the

opportunity to view and study the budget and its documents prior to its

presentation to the Legislature, and upon the signing of a document not

to divulge the contents of the budget prior to its presentation, are to

be afforded access to the budget and its documents prior to its said

presentation, and to the exclusion of accredited research people

working for members of this House.

[2:45]

submit that this action on the part of the Minister of Finance puts

members of this House in the position of having their privileges

infringed upon, while the position of those other persons, whom I'll

identify in a moment, is advanced. In support of that, I want to draw

Your Honour's attention to a letter dated March 12 — which I'll ask to be tabled — written

by my colleague, the MLA for Nanaimo, to the Minister of Finance, in

which the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asks the minister if

representatives of the opposition caucus staff could be included in the

pre-budget lockup. The answer to the member for Nanaimo from the

Minister of Finance, dated March 18, says as follows:

have your letter of March 12. I regret that it is not possible to

accede to this request, and I should like to offer two or three reasons

why this decision was taken."

Then he goes on to give three reasons.

But the part of the letter that I want to draw to Your

Honour's attention is in the penultimate paragraph. It says, after

referring to the news media lockup arrangement:

"Another and separate arrangement is made for members of

the accounting profession. This is still in its experimental stage, but I believe

it is of value.

"I hope there will be no misunderstanding in this negative

response. I am not prepared to open up budget briefings for any research people,

including those who serve the government caucus."

Which wasn't asked in the first instance, and in any event, that was it.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, that action, I submit, by the Minister of Finance,

reflects this government's abuse of power, its tendency to violate any

trust or responsible action and to arrogate unto itself the ultimate

and supreme authority over this Legislature. It infringes upon the

opportunity of members to be able to examine rationally those questions

of the budget at the appropriate time, and puts in a prior and

privileged position members from outside of this chamber.

Your Honour finds I have a prima facie case of privilege, I have the

appropriate motion to move. Shall I table them, or ask leave to?

MR. SPEAKER: For tabling documents, hon. member, leave would have to be granted. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, as is customary practice the Chair will undertake to

review the matters as raised by the member and bring a report back to

the House at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. SEGARTY:

I rise on a point of order. On Monday, March 17, 1986, in a speech to

the House I made a comment on page 33 of the Blues: "We developed the

Sparwood Heights elementary school at a cost of $2.5 million in

1983...." Mr. Speaker, it should have read: "In 1980-81 we developed

the senior secondary school in Elkford at a cost of $3,490,000."

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. KEMPF:

It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this debate on the throne

speech, particularly as it's the first time that I've been afforded the

chance to enter into debate on the floor of this House as the new

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I just want to say how fortunate

I think I am to be able to stand in my place on behalf of those whom I

represent, and now the larger constituency of British Columbia, in that

capacity.

I'd like to also congratulate the first member

for Vancouver South (Hon. R. Fraser) and the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on their elevation into cabinet.

my many years in this House, I think I can truthfully say I have never

seen a more positive throne speech. You know, I sat for the last week

and listened to the debate from the members opposite, and it brought me

to one of the sentences in the throne speech itself, which says:

"British Columbians are showing they can work together."

Well,

if that's the case, the only group that's been left out are the

socialists opposite. I have never seen such doom and gloom from a bunch

of individuals in my whole life. There wasn't one — and I listened, if not here in the House, to my speaker in my office — not

one positive note shown by the members opposite in this debate.

Everyone in this province, during these most difficult times that we're

just coming out of, is trying to work together but the members of the

official opposition.

It's sad. It's sad because good things

are happening in the province of British Columbia. Good things are

happening, and good things will continue to happen, but only if all of

us, even the members of the official opposition in this province, work

together and cooperate. I heard the plea from the members opposite for

British Columbians to take their money out of bank accounts and invest

it in this great province of ours. Do you know what is keeping them

from doing that? It's the kind of doom and gloom and scare tactics that

we've heard in the last week from the opposite side of the floor.

That's what's doing it.

If you want it to happen, hon.

members, let's hear some positive speeches on the floor of this, the

people's Legislature. Let's hear of some of the good things that are

happening in our province of British Columbia. I said before, and I say

again, there are many, and I'll get into a few of them. And in the 30

minutes that I have according to the new rules I'll never have time to

get into them all. They need only have taken the throne speech — of

which, incidentally, I have only seen one or two used in the course of

their debate in the last

[ Page 7416 ]

week — itself

and read it to find one of those things that are happening in our

province that are of a positive nature. Bankruptcies have declined; new

businesses have been incorporated; retail sales and housing starts have

increased significantly. Those are positive things that every British

Columbian should hear about, and they should hear about them from the

representatives that they send to this place — this, their Legislature.

But

they're not getting that from the socialists opposite; they're not

getting that, and that's sad. That's too bad, because that's why a lot

of British Columbians are keeping their money in the bank. They're

afraid, from what they hear and see in the media, from what the

opposition members are saying in this House, of what may happen

tomorrow.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: We heard you yesterday afternoon, Mr. Member.

We heard you. I sat right here and listened to you — nothing but doom

and gloom, nothing but scare tactics. The people of this province of

British Columbia deserve better.

You

know, I heard the members opposite say that this province deserves a

better government. In every jurisdiction, no matter what the

government, the citizens out there deserve better. But I want to tell

you, there's a serious lack of good opposition in the province of

British Columbia, and the citizens out there should have access to that

as well. They need a good opposition; they need a positive opposition.

They need an opposition that puts forth positive debate in this

Legislature, tells of the positive things that are happening in the

province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I made up a

short list. Expo 86. We remember, and the people in the galleries

remember, how the NDP opposition spoke of Expo 86 at its inception a

few years ago. I can remember the debates on the floor of this House.

They haven't changed. They were doom and gloom then; they're doom and

gloom now. They haven't changed one iota. They said Expo 86 could never

be done successfully in the time-frame. I want to tell the people in

the galleries today that we're still 50 days to opening and we've

almost sold the expected gate. The money is in the bank. We've sold 12

million turnstile passes of the expected 13.5 million. Now they want to

get on the bandwagon. Even Mikey likes it now, now that it's going to

be successful, now that even they cannot say that it's not going to be

successful. They can't do that, because it's apparent. The writing is

on the wall. It's a fait accompli. Now they want on that trolley — you

bet they do. Now, because they can't speak against Expo, they're

talking about the post-Expo era — the

post-Expo recession. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that's

coming from the very same people that in this House and in this

province said Expo wouldn't be a success. I ask you, are the people of

this province going to listen to that? I think not.

The SkyTrain. That, too, they said could not be done in budget,

certainly couldn't be done in the time-frame given — could not be

opened before Expo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. KEMPF: You said it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never said....

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, if not you, then some of

your colleagues on those benches over there. I heard it said not only

here but all over the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF:

You want to know who said some of these things? Well, Mr. Speaker,

let's look at the Annacis Island bridge. You don't have to listen to

me; just go back in the archives and pick out the news item: "NDP to

Kill Annacis Island Bridge." Doom and gloom is all we've heard from

that opposition.

Let's look at the Coquihalla. You know,

that wasn't going to succeed either. We couldn't do it in budget or on

time. I don't have to tell those listening here today the success story

of the Coquihalla Highway construction.

I mentioned the

Annacis Island bridge, Mr. Speaker. Everyone, I'm sure, saw on their

television sets about a week ago the final link being put in place. The

Annacis Island bridge will be built. It will be built for use when Expo

is with us this summer.

Doom and gloom. Scare the people of

this province into voting NDP. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the

citizens of the province of British Columbia are not that dumb. I want

to tell you here today that I can hardly wait till that writ is dropped

so we can prove to those members over there as well that the people of

British Columbia are not that dumb.

You know, a lot of them are leaving the ship.

MR. BLENCOE: Where are you moving to, Jack? Another co-op?

HON. MR. KEMPF:

That's none of your business, Mr. Member. Maybe I should move into a

complex that was done by the.... Who was it then? Well, it still is the

member for Vancouver East. Maybe I should move to Vancouver and into

the complex that he bought in 1981, and from which he threw the people

out on the street so he could renovate. Maybe that's the complex that I

should move into, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Sure I can read it. I hope you'll indulge me, because when the print gets that small, my hair shows my age.

[3:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF:

Oh, I've hit the quick, have I? Let's talk about throwing people out on

the street. Let's bring it a little closer to home for those members on

the opposition benches. When the member for Vancouver East — an MLA in

this House at the time — did the very same thing that members opposite

are accusing this government of doing now — accusing hotel owners, who

have been directed in most cases by the city of Vancouver to clean up

their act....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Do your research, Mr. Member for Victoria, and you might find these things out.

[ Page 7417 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I read from a news item in the Vancouver Sun

on Thursday, December 7, 1972, when that member was a cabinet member in

the government in the province of British Columbia. "Williams recently

acknowledged that while he was an NDP MLA, he and his family purchased

a Vancouver apartment building, renovated it and then notified the

tenants that they would have to buy their apartments or move." The deal

was made while the NDP party was criticizing such situations, as they

do today. All they know how to do, Mr. Speaker, is criticize. It's

easy. You can criticize anything. It's the simplest thing to do there

is. But to put forward something positive is just a little more

difficult — far too difficult, it would appear, for those members over there.

Mr.

Speaker, very positive things are happening in the province of British

Columbia. High tech is developing like crazy. It's providing many new

jobs. I hear the members opposite talk about jobs. That seems to be the

key word in all of their speeches. Well, jobs are being created in the

province of British Columbia, literally by the thousands. In fact, from

one year ago this month 50,000 new jobs have been created in the

province. Do you tell that to the people of British Columbia? Do you

tell that to your constituents, Mr. Member? No, you don't. You don't

even do it on the floor of this House where you should be doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many long-term jobs?

HON. MR. KEMPF:

Well, many more than were created by an NDP government, when they

increased the size of the civil service by 13,000 in this province.

Many, many more, Mr. Speaker.

You know, those are positive

things, and those are the positive things that the people of British

Columbia should be hearing. If we want, as the members opposite say

they want, to see the people take their money out of the bank or out of

a sock or from under the mattress or wherever they put it, and really

put it into the province of British Columbia in the way of development,

then you've got to change your ways, hon. members. You've really got to

change your ways, because these scare tactics won't do what you say you

want to do.

Or is that really what you want to do? Or do

you really want to bring down the government of the province of British

Columbia, and you don't care how? I would suggest that that's the

reason. You talk about the evictions in Vancouver, and there again

there's an alternate motive, in my estimation. I think that was made

quite clear when we saw this news item that says, "Pickets May Hit Fair

Gates." It's from a Vancouver Province news item of Tuesday, March 4.

Therein

lies the real reason, Mr. Speaker, that we've got that situation in the

east end of Vancouver. It's not a people situation; it's a political

situation. You and your cronies would like to find some way to

discredit what is going to be one of the most fantastic and successful

world's fairs in the history of this world, Mr. Speaker. That's the

reason it's not a people problem. You're using those people, as you use

anything you can for patent political purposes.

Mr.

Speaker, that's the reason. They don't speak of the good things that

are happening in the province of British Columbia. One of the

committees that I sit on as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is

the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. Recently I was happy to

attend a tour made by that particular committee, a tour to Abbotsford.

Everybody knows where Abbotsford is, but I think some people should

know what great things are happening, not only in Abbotsford but all

over this province. There are some very good things happening in

British Columbia and in Abbotsford, where a small, unknown company is

extracting enzymes from egg whites. Would you believe, from egg whites,

in a province that has an abundance of eggs. Good deal! They're

extracting these enzymes and exporting them to Japan, where they

make....

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the function of an enzyme?

HON. MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't really matter what it is. What matters is that

it's creating jobs: it's creating a $1.4 million-a-year payroll in the

province of British Columbia. That's what is important to me. I

couldn't care less what an enzyme is. I care not what an enzyme is. I

care about jobs in British Columbia, and apparently that member doesn't.

Mr.

Speaker, you just have to look around this province and see what great

things are happening, and it's going to get better and better. All you

have to do is look at the small print in the uptown newspapers and find

that the price of dimension lumber this week has reached $196 U.S. a

thousand, and it's climbing. Those are the kinds of indicators, Mr.

Speaker, that mean something to me, not what enzymes are. You can

imagine how many jobs this is going to create for the people you

profess to represent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF:

I care not what an enzyme is, Mr. Member. I do care about British

Columbians, and I do care about jobs in British Columbia. That is what

is going to create jobs, not the

interpretation of what an enzyme is.

Mr.

Speaker, good things are happening in British Columbia, and good things

will continue to happen in British Columbia, regardless of the

doom-and-gloom socialists opposite. Many people in British Columbia

have ignored them over the years, and many people in British Columbia

will ignore them in the future. It's simply a doom-and-gloom story that

they tell. Doom and gloom, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, in my

own constituency of Omineca, because of government action, 250 people

recently went back to work. The success story of Bell copper at

Granisle goes even further than that. The success story is of what's

happening in that great little community in my constituency, where

people are working together — the company, the union, the community,

the local council and everybody. Everybody is working together. They're

happy that 250 jobs have been created there; they're very happy about

that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Speaker, we'll see how happy we are when that writ is dropped, and the

members opposite.... All they can talk about is an election. All they

want to do is sit over on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I want

to tell you, the province of British Columbia has had that experience;

and never, never again.

[ Page 7418 ]

Mr.

Speaker, they talk of doom and gloom. The Critical Industries Act,

passed by this government, is having a very positive effect out there

in this province. This is not the only success story. Granisle is not

the only success story. If you want to hear how really successful the

story is in Granisle, I ask you to phone the mayor there; he'll tell

you. He's been on CBC radio; he's been on other media. He'll tell you

the story. Don't ask me the story; ask that local representative how

happy that community is. Mr. Speaker, doom and gloom; that's all we

hear out of that opposition. And you'll hear it with the next speaker

that gets up. I'll count on it. That's all you'll get.

Mr.

Speaker, they talk of northeast coal. The little funny member gets up

in question period every day, and then runs out of this House, never to

be seen again. That member, who threw people out of his apartment block

after he renovated it — or before he renovated it — talks about

northeast coal and the hole being in the wrong place. He talks about

the refinancing, as if that's costing the taxpayers of this province

one red cent. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not costing them anything. If the

private sector wants to put the hole in the wrong place, wants to

refinance their operation at no cost to the people of British Columbia,

why should that bother us? That's the same as the member opposite

saying you don't know what an enzyme is. I don't care.

can tell you what I can see in my constituency: those coal trains

rolling through every day, and that means jobs to British Columbians

and revenue to this province. Mr. Speaker, whatever the members

opposite say, I'm in favour of that, because I know how many of my

constituents work on those operations. If you want to spread your doom

and gloom and spread fear into the hearts of those people, go ahead and

do it. For some of you, it's okay; you're leaving. It's like rats

leaving a ship. But I'll tell you that I like this sort of thing going

on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You

can try to divert the question, as you wish. But, Mr. Speaker, the

people of British Columbia aren't that stupid; they really aren't.

While I was attempting to give a very serious statement in this House

just very recently, I heard all the catcalls about social housing — that

maybe it was me who was trying to spread fear in the hearts of those

who live in social housing. That's the very last thing, I can assure

this House and the people of British Columbia, that I would want to do.

But when I see things such as this, I think there's something wrong.

When social housing costs to the federal government increased from

$34.8 million in 1980 to $474.9 million in 1984, an increase of 1,360

percent, I get very concerned. And really, does it matter whether

that's money paid to the federal government or money paid to this

government in British Columbia? It all comes out of the same pocket,

hon. members. I would be abrogating my responsibility to the people of

British Columbia had I not called for this inquiry, when I can see

quite clearly that there's something rotten in Denmark. There will be

an inquiry, and I don't want to prejudice the work of that very fine

commission, but the story will come out, the same as the story in

regard to the good things that are happening in British Columbia will

come out regardless of the negative opposition, regardless of that

socialist Leader of the Opposition over there, who travels throughout

this province spreading that fear. He said it himself — spreading that fear to even the children of this province. Shame!

[3:15]

know my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on and on, telling

the good things that are happening. I was in Terrace recently, to the

B.C. Winter Games, and even in Terrace, who have had that negative

representative for as long as they have.... They won't have him much

longer, because things are changing in Skeena.... People are fed up

with that negativism. They know that the only way that we are going to

better our plight is to cooperate and to be positive, and to tell the

people of British Columbia — who have their money in the bank.... The

Leader of the Opposition wants to see them invest. You won't, Mr.

Member, get them to invest it with the story you're spreading around

this province — never.

You can't have it both ways. You

can't spread fear on one hand and expect people to invest on the other.

It just doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how long it's going

take those people in that opposition to learn that.

My time

is up. I'll have another chance in the future to get up and tell this

House the good things that are happening in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON:

It was really interesting to hear the remarks of that pathological

conservative opposite. I envy him, because he sees this province much

differently than do most British Columbians. I think that most British

Columbians see that the gross domestic product in this decade has only

grown 7 percent, when in other provinces, like Ontario and

Saskatchewan, it's grown in excess of 22 percent. We see that other

provinces have single digit inflation; this province has double digit

inflation, and those are some of the things I think we have to see and

recognize before we can do our job as legislators. Certainly members of

the cabinet benches should see it. I hope they see it. I don't expect

them to talk about it, but if they don't realize that, then we will

only sink further and further in our relative position to the provinces

with whom we have been on a par economically, jobwise, opportunitywise.

We've

had the greatest optimism in British Columbia, probably ever since we

entered Confederation. No province so much epitomized optimism as

British Columbia did. We do have the spirit, and in spite of what this

government has been doing to the people in the 1980s, they are not

bowed. They are still trying. They are still taking risks; they are

trying to create jobs; they are trying to work; they are trying to

contribute; and they are not deterred by the efforts of this

government, good or bad.

Mr. Speaker, this Bennett government claims that the economy of British Columbia

is in the process of renewal. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has two

definitions

of "renew." One is: "Restore to the original state, make (as

good as) new, revive, regenerate." The Bennett government is spending 20

million tax dollars to persuade the public to believe that one. With unemployment

close to 200,000 people for nearly two years, some would think that they have

so far restored the economy to the level of the Dirty Thirties. The second definition

of renewal is "patch." That seems to be what the government is doing

as it polls and polls and polls again, trying to pick a date to face the people.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 7419 ]

don't think that British Columbia is in a process of genuine renewal,

nor will we be until there's a government over there that the people

can trust to act on their behalf to stand up for ordinary British

Columbians. I think rather, that we're in the middle of a profound and

disturbing series of changes resulting from the impact of technology on

the economy. The changes are disturbing for three reasons. First, the

changes are not widely understood. And certainly they are publicly

perceived as isolated occurrences, rather than as a broad pattern.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Second,

the Bennett government is unconcerned about the consequences of

technological change for ordinary British Columbians and for their

pocketbooks. Third, in the absence of discussion and consensus, the

ordinary British Columbian's interests will lose out to the

better-organized and — financed corporations, whose business it is to

exploit technology and maximize their profits, even at the expense of

their workers and for the British Columbia public interest and for

their own interest in the long run when there are no consumers with

dollars who can afford to take advantage of their services.

Mr.

Speaker, change is inevitable. And it's given that change is

inevitable. Every day sees the introduction of more and more highly

advanced forms of new technology. The question that the Bennett

government should be addressing is how best these vast technological

opportunities can be grasped so that the benefits flow to all our

people, so that there are optimal profits while British Columbians are

protected from their excesses and their unpredictability.

I'll

take as my example British Columbia Telephone. Some of my remarks may

seem critical of the company. I want to make it clear that what they do

is perfectly legal. Rather, the problem is in this Legislature, with a

government that refuses to negotiate with the regulatory powers and to

get those powers away from Ottawa and the federal government that

refuses to give the CRTC sufficient resources to do the job

effectively. The budget for telephone regulation coast-to-coast is less

than B.C. Tel spends on advertising in one year.

How do we

know that changes are misunderstood, Mr. Speaker? My first hypothesis

is that the changes are misunderstood and are perceived as isolated

events rather than as a broad pattern. The actions of two Bennett

cabinet ministers confirm this hypothesis. At the recent

inter-provincial conference, the minister responsible for

telecommunications — the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — called

for the abolition of the CRTC. That is the government's policy. The

CRTC is the means by which B.C. Telephone is regulated in our province.

Other provinces regulate their own, but for historical reasons, B.C.

Tel is represented by a federally appointed body not accountable to the

people of British Columbia. British Columbia's view was out of touch,

and every other provincial government at the conference repudiated it.

The

Bennett government's view was even out of touch with some of its own

cabinet. The member for Kootenay, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Segarty), a week after his Point Grey colleague called for the

abolition of the CRTC, was invoking the CRTC, urging it to prevent the

closure of the Cranbrook office in his constituency. The Minister of

Labour showed his ignorance of the changes and his ineffectiveness as a

representative in three fundamental respects. First, he should have

known that the CRTC has no power to intervene. Second, he should have

known that his Point Grey colleague has made it policy of this

government to keep out of touch with the CRTC — to refuse to talk to

them, because the member from Point Grey prefers talking to the federal

cabinet. The Bennett government perceives the federal cabinet to play

the role of the organ grinder to the commissioner's monkey. Third, he

should have known that the closure of the Cranbrook office is just the

latest manifestation of a high-tech company applying that technology to

our province to the detriment of the job market in Cranbrook and other

parts of the province. Information on these three points is readily

available to the member from Kootenay, not least of all in the Hansard of this House, where these matters have been raised before.

how do we know that the government is unconcerned about the

consequences of technology? There are really two major pieces of

evidence here. The first is what the government has not done about

technology, and the second is what they have done to our education

system. Consider what the government has not done. They have failed to

negotiate for British Columbians regulatory jurisdiction of our phone

company with the federal government. They have not made a study of the

impact of technology on our province and the need to protect jobs in

the interior. They have not tried to prevent increases in telephone

rates by intervening with the regulatory body — the CRTC. We have, but

they haven't. The member for Point Grey's claim that we talk to the

federal cabinet is a useless piece of rhetoric. The CRTC advise that

not once in all their years of regulation has the federal cabinet

intervened in the telephone rate decision.

They have not

developed policies to prevent the phone company from bringing in "local

measured service." LMS means that you pay for every local call that you

make. Long distance rates will plummet under this system. However,

since ordinary British Columbians make a vast majority of local calls,

the results of LMS will be a massive transfer of the cost burden away

from the large corporations and the banks who make most use of the

long-distance service, and on to the backs of the already hard-pressed

ordinary British Columbian. The senior citizens of this province are

informed and are fighting, and are concerned about the introduction of

local measured service.

In fact, it is not only true that

the Bennett government has failed by simple inactivity to protect the

consumer's cheap basic telephone service; they are actively taking

steps that will increase the cost substantially of basic local

telephone service. Crown corporations such as B.C. Rail have won the

right to interconnect their systems with B.C. Tel's. This will reduce

B.C. Tel's long-distance revenues. Long-distance revenues have

historically been set above cost to provide subsidy of local service so

that it can be universally affordable.

You know, we should

all take a short history course in the phone service in Canada. Canada

has had this government's ideal of unregulated telephone service

before. The Canadian telephone system is a confusing mishmash of

federally regulated monopolies and provincially run Crown corporations,

and there are three basic reasons for this. First, the public learned

from bitter experience that unregulated private enterprise could not be

trusted to provide service; secondly, the western provinces discovered

that the federal government did

[ Page 7420 ]

not care about western needs; and thirdly, the current structure of the Canadian telephone system suits the companies admirably.

1880 the federal parliament granted Bell Canada, a subsidiary of the

American-based Bell Telephone, a "Dominion charter" that gave Bell

Canada the exclusive right to make telephone equipment and provide

service from coast to coast. They naturally put their dollars where

they brought the greatest return and served the greatest number of

people. Farmers, homesteaders and other pioneers who helped open up our

province could not get on the phone. Bell president Charles Sise

shrugged off criticisms of their terrible rural service by saying that

once the cities had been serviced there wasn't much left for farm lines.

Bell

Canada's monopoly was withdrawn in 1893 and new competitors came on the

scene. Bell protected itself by refusing to sell equipment to its

competition and by denying them the right to hook up to its national

telephone network. It all sounds so familiar. The Morgan banking

dynasty bought control of Bell in 1907 and promptly set about buying

out the competition. They were successful, and by 1910 Bell was once

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my

place and make my few remarks concerning this throne speech, which is

really a document that summarizes what has happened over the past year

and giving some indication of where we are going into the future.

Mr.

Speaker, last night I attended a function in Vernon. It was the opening

of a new extension to the shopping mall there. There were approximately

1,000 people there, they tell me: enthusiastic, happy people who

appreciate indeed what is happening in this province. We saw signs of

confidence. We saw the people who were out to show respect for those

investors, who invested, I believe, in the neighbourhood of $5.5

million in that expansion — to express their appreciation for the

confidence that those investors have shown in the province of British

Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, that is happening all over the province. The throne speech

talks about 50,000 more people working this year than in February 1985.

I think that it is high time that we stopped using the negative. It's

very easy to say that we have 12 percent or 13 percent unemployed in

Victoria, but the facts are that we have 50,000 more people working

this year than in February 1985. Mr. Speaker, this didn't just happen.

It happened because this government, under the leadership of our

Premier, made it happen. They have instilled confidence out there, Mr.

Speaker.

We also hear them talk about bankruptcies and how

terrible that is. Well, I don't have the exact figures on bankruptcies,

but I understand that they are down. But the real facts are that 43,403

businesses have started since 1983. We talk about housing. We show

housing starts up 11 percent in 1985. ICBC rates have dropped, not just

because of conditions out there, but rather because of the management

that has been provided, good management, firm management, operating

under the policies of this government. ICBC rates did drop this year,

and many people out there, users of that service, are very appreciative

of that fact.

We also have another situation developing in

this province, something new in North America: that is, the program

under the critical industries commissioner. We had facilities out

there, very substantial investments in mills and mines and so forth,

that were either down because of foreign markets or were about to be

closed down. Mr. Speaker, under the critical industries commissioner

program, we are putting back to work more than 1,500 people, investment

already there — 1,500 people put back to work only because common sense is applied.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I call a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum is called.

There is a quorum. I see a quorum in the House.

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

I wanted to expand a little bit on the program of the critical

industries commissioner, because as I said earlier, this is succeeding

as it is because of the great deal of common sense that is applied. We

have more than 1,500 people working as a result of this activity. They

are Clearwater Timber Products in Valemount; Stege Logging, New

Hazelton; Victoria Plywood; Langford Forest Products; the Bell

copper-mine; and Brenda Mines.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, I think that this is a very forward approach, something new,

in my opinion something that is long overdue. I am extremely delighted

with this program, particularly because of the way that it has

succeeded in pulling all parties together. It has succeeded in pulling

together the employer, the employee, the bankers, the government and so

on. But more important to me, it is giving those employees the

opportunity to participate in the company where they worked and in some

cases giving them the opportunity to be owners. This is a program that

is going to be one of many for this government that is, no doubt, going

to leave its mark on the economy of this province for years to come.

also see successes taking place in our Small Business Venture Capital

Act. I'm advised that 17 venture capital corporations have already been

established, and they have raised, up to the last report, in the

neighbourhood of $13 million.

We're also told that there is

a great opportunity in our province to see the development of a major

movie studio taking place. There is also the great opportunity to

accelerate the Site C Dam project, which will put thousands of people

to work — again, depending on the success that we have in selling our energy to the United States.

Mr.

Speaker, there is a new mood out there with the consumer and with

business. It is a new mood of confidence taking place. I would like to

talk about that mood a little bit by referring to our

provincial-municipal partnership program. Up to this point it has seen

127 municipalities sign up to become partners with the provincial

government in the development of the economy at the local level.

strongly believe that if the services that are required at the

municipal level are going to be provided, then it has to be done on a

sound economic base. All services must pivot on a sound economic base.

We not only have activities taking place out there but we have a change

of attitude. In spite of the negative comments of the Leader of the

Opposition and others travelling throughout the province, they cannot

turn this mood that is taking place out there at the municipal level.

There is a change of attitude, a change of mood. They have changed

their complete direction.

I would like to list some of the developments that have taken place partly as a result of this partnership program. In

[ Page 7423 ]

Squamish

we have a distribution facility; in Maple Ridge we have Cooper Yachts

Ltd., with a $950,000 plant now in operation and expected to expand

next year; Moly-Cop Canada has a grinding ball mill in Kamloops, with

an $11.7 million facility and 81 jobs; Ocelot has a petrochemical plant

at Kitimat, with an $80 million facility; Western Match Inc. In

Penticton, with $40 million and 54 jobs; and the Louisiana-Pacific

waferboard mill in Dawson Creek, with 275 jobs. We have seen over 700

jobs created, mainly because of the way that local municipal councils

have cooperated with the private sector out there and with the

provincial government to make this work.

We also have

projects pending, projects that are under discussion, and we fully

expect that they will come on stream. We have projects in Squamish,

Britannia Beach, Maple Ridge, Campbell River, Hazelton and Kamloops.

These projects will involve over $600 million in investment, producing

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 new jobs.

Mr.

Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke in debate, he talked

about the need for infrastructure at the municipal level. He also went

on to say that our government, through my ministry, had opposed the

program being proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. If

that member would do his homework — or have his research people do it for him — he

would find that we did not oppose the proposal at all. We recognize

that there is a need for improvement of infrastructure throughout

Canada. What we did oppose was that this report produced by a committee

headed up by Mayor Mike Harcourt ignored the small communities of this

province.

I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition

would listen to this because the small communities of this province are

of real concern to us, just as the large ones are. The report proposed

by the team headed by Mayor Mike Harcourt did not take into

consideration the small communities of this province. I did oppose

going to Ottawa with cap in hand asking for money that they don't have

at this time. I am more concerned, at this moment, with protecting the

other, more essential programs that we have, such as health and

education. I was not prepared to be part of any move that would be

putting pressure on our federal government for more money that they

don't have, which could affect these other essential programs.

[4:00]

Talking

about infrastructure, back a few years ago British Columbia came in

with a program known as revenue-sharing. Revenue-sharing, I think, has

to be one of the fairest, most effective programs anywhere in Canada

when it comes to the provision of services and infrastructure at the

municipal level.

It so happens that we discovered after our

study that, indeed, the infrastructure, as it applies to sewer and

water facilities, is in better shape in British Columbia than almost

anywhere else in Canada. The reason for that, of course, is that we

have had a formula of funding that is set by statute, whereby a

percentage of the income of the province goes towards funding these

projects on a yearly basis.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record I would like to quote some figures — dollars

spent on services, the infrastructure, from 1974 to 1985. I wish the

Leader of the Opposition would stay for this, because he has made a

great issue out of the whole infrastructure question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

You shouldn't run out, all embarrassed. No, don't be embarrassed.

You're entitled to make your mistakes; and you make your share of them.

Take your seat, and take in these figures.

The fact is that

the revenue-sharing program has provided, from 1974 to 1985, $69.4

million in Highways grants; $186.1 million in water facilities; and

$355 million in sewage facilities programs; for a total of $541.1

million. On top of that, taking into consideration projected sewage and

waterworks facilities assistance payments, which we are committed to

for the remaining period of this whole program, British Columbia

through revenue-sharing will have provided in excess of $1.5 billion.

For those of you who are interested in infrastructure in Canada....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, that is taking $541 million spent up

to 1985, and the payments that must be made over the next period of

years — and I believe that runs somewhere between 17, 18, maybe up to

20 years into the future. Those are commitments.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

No, I don't agree that that's peanuts, at all. I think when you

consider what is spent in.... Well, we're not taking into consideration

new funding that will be coming in over the next 20 years as well. This

is money that is already spent and money already committed. If every

province in this country, Mr. Speaker, would commit that sort of share

of their revenue towards infrastructure, then I don't think that it

would be as serious as they indicate it is.

But the point I

want to make here is that I believe that the opposition should realize

two things: number one, we will not support any program that does not

involve all of the municipalities of our province, nor will we....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why? Because I believe that the small municipalities of our province are just as important as the larger ones.

The

Leader of the Opposition also used Surrey as one area that just wasn't

getting enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, Surrey is one municipality that got

the full amount possibly available through the revenue-sharing program.

It is one community in this province that has tremendous growth

potential because of the opportunity of infilling that has been

provided as a result of heavy financing over the years gone by.

spoke recently in my constituency on the whole question of public

spending. Of course, one area that I talked very briefly about was

education. I pointed out that no matter who delivers the money, the

taxpayer ultimately must pay the price. It doesn't matter where it

comes from. I believe that we as a provincial government do have a

responsibility to provide an excellent standard of education — and we are — and

I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that there is fair

funding. I believe that we also have a responsibility to make sure that

there is fair funding for all school districts throughout the province.

[ Page 7424 ]

don't disagree with those school boards who say it's not enough. It's

up to them. If they don't agree with the levels set, then they have the

opportunity to go back to the taxpayer and ask for more.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

Listen, you think it only comes from homeowners? Don't you believe that

taxes also become part of rents that have to be paid? Don't you

understand that whenever people make accommodation available for rent

it has to take in all costs, including taxes? Don't you understand

that? The people who own homes, the people who rent homes — we call

them taxpayers; they are the ones that pay the bill. I see nothing

wrong with any school board that believes that they need more going

back to the taxpayers themselves and letting them decide if they're

right or not.

But, you know, I am concerned about some of

the funding. I have a letter here, and I'll just read it to you. The

letter is from Wayne Anthony.

"This letter is

to confirm the appointment that I made with you through Mr. McClelland

over the telephone for February.... A delegation from our association,

comprised of no more than four people, would like to discuss with you

and Mr. McClelland some of the financial problems facing School

District 34 (Abbotsford). I believe the figures we will present will be

of interest to you.

"We look forward to a meeting with you on Wednesday, February

26, and having an interesting discussion over lunch."

Mr. Speaker, these people are very concerned because they are not getting

enough money — insufficient funds. The letter is dated February 20, 1975.

What

is enough funding? I believe that our government has come in with a

formula that is very, very fair. It gives the school boards the

opportunity to obtain more funding if they, in their judgment, believe

it's necessary. I am also very confident that our Minister of

Education, the Hon. Jim Hewitt, will be very open and willing to work

with them. I look forward to that, particularly in School District 34,

because that's the way we believe in solving problems. I certainly wish

him well in the position.

I'd like to touch very briefly on

social housing. I don't want to go into any detail there, because

that's going to be dealt with. But, you know, we hear all of the

nattering from across the floor about these people who are being turned

out of their accommodation in Vancouver East. Well, I was asked to take

a look at it and see what could be done, and I went there. I want you

folks to know that no one on that side of the House can tell me what

it's like to live in social housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't tell you anything.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I know. I want you to know that I

did go down there, and I talked to them. I was satisfied that there was

no one on the street. I also went into one of the buildings that at

that time had approximately 40 vacancies. These people who are

complaining that there was no space for those people who are being let

out of their hotel accommodation — no place for them to go — while

affordable housing was sitting on approximately 40 vacancies.... I

think that these members who have got into this act should be ashamed

of themselves.

Now the whole story has been that these

people are being evicted because of Expo. I have here a letter, dated

January 15, 1986, from the city of Vancouver. It's to one of our

downtown hotels, and it was signed by J.A. Perri for R.V. Hebert,

professional engineer, director. The letter calls for major renovation

of this particular facility, and it ends up by saying: "In accordance

with the bylaw, and to avoid further action, you are to rectify the

above conditions on or before April 15, 1986." We have Mayor Mike

Harcourt running around the city screaming about how bad we are and how

terrible it is that we wouldn't bring in legislation to force hotel

owners into retaining tenants who are presently occupying the

facilities, while the city itself is sending out letters that will

indeed put people on the street if they are followed through. How can

you do major renovations while people are living there? We are talking

about a facility here, Mr. Speaker, that has 73 units in it — 73 units

in the city of Vancouver, while out of one side of their mouth they're

criticizing the government for not forcing hotel owners to keep people

in their hotels while they themselves are forcing evictions through

this sort of action. I would say this: that is either hypocritical, or

the mayor doesn't know what is going on in city council. One hand

doesn't know what's going on with the other.

Mr. Speaker, I just want you to know — and I'm going to end with this — that

what we did get was cooperation, it appeared, in Vancouver when I

brought together mayor Mike Harcourt and Mr. Green and Mr. Pattison. I

should say that His Worship — not that I'd want to worship him, but

anyway.... The meeting was actually in accordance with a motion of the

Vancouver council, and the Vancouver council asked that a meeting take

place between the mayor, Mr. Pattison and our Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett). Our Premier, of course, due to other commitments couldn't

make it, so I was sent in his place. Mr. Green was quite offended

because the Vancouver council did not include him in that meeting.

However, we did bring him in, and a meeting took place, and it was

agreed that a task force would be set up to deal with those in need of

housing. The task force consists of representatives of the provincial

government, the city of Vancouver, the B.C. Hotels Association, the

Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, the Greater Vancouver Housing

Corporation, the B.C. Housing Management Commission and the Affordable

Housing Advisory Association. Mr. Speaker, the task force agreed upon a

mechanism to gather up-to-date information on current unexpected

demand, to list all possible vacancies in both social housing and

private accommodation, and to match these with the people who need them

and assist in their relocation with minimum disruption. We've got

cooperation all the way down the line, and I understand that another

meeting is due to take place tomorrow, March 20.

[4:15]

One

of the very important parts of this exercise was to try to identify

available accommodation. Keep in mind that when I went downtown and

visited some of these facilities I was told by an employee of

Affordable Housing that there were approximately 40 vacant units. I

felt that at that time those people — DERA, Affordable Housing and the city of Vancouver — should

have said: "Don't allow any of those units to be filled until we make

sure that the people who are in real need are accommodated." But that

is not what is happening. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the meeting that took

place has shown that both DERA and the Affordable Housing people have

not as yet produced the list of vacancies. Why is that?

[ Page 7425 ]

Would that be because they don't want them in those facilities — the

people who are being removed from the hotels? Would that be because

Affordable Housing and DERA and mayor Harcourt are discriminating?

Would that be the reason for it? But I think that whenever a group

comes together as has happened here, where hotel owners have not only

agreed to work with them to assist in relocating these people but have

put up funds to provide for such things as telephones, transportation,

etc., while on the other side where all the criticism is coming from

they're sitting on vacancies and won't tell us about them, I'm going to

tell you that that is an absolute disgrace.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to take my place

in this debate. I'm looking forward to a tremendous year in British

Columbia. We are going to have, I'm sure, a tremendous onslaught of

visitors to our province, and where in this world has there been an

exposition that has been shown to be a success before it has opened?

That has happened here in British Columbia with, they tell me, over 12

million visitations already sold, 54 countries coming, 84 pavilions, I

believe.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that as a

result of our municipal-provincial partnership program the communities

throughout this province are ready, willing and anxious to welcome any

visitor to our province, whether they're a tourist or someone else who

would like to invest in our province and in the various communities.

Mr.

Speaker, we can look forward to great enthusiasm. Believe me, as our

Premier has travelled the province, unlike the opposition, and some of

my colleagues speaking to the public, delivering the message, I have

found that indeed there is a great feeling of enthusiasm out there, a

great feeling of excitement. But more important, there is a great

feeling of hope with the unemployed that indeed we are doing something

to create jobs in this province.

MR. LAUK: On a

point of order, I would ask that.... The minister referred in his

speech to two letters substantially. One was a letter dated February

1975 from the Abbotsford School Board that he referred to, and he read

from it substantially.

The second letter was the Vancouver

city engineering department bylaw notification. According to the rules,

I would ask that the Speaker direct that those be laid on the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That type of material does not have to be tabled, hon. members.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, yes, any material that any member of the House substantially refers

to, particularly a Crown minister, must be tabled in the House. It's

clear in Sir Erskine May.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that Sir Erskine will advise us that if official documents are quoted from, then they must be tabled.

MR. LAUK:

These are in the nature of official documents. One is from city

engineering. If you live in the Vancouver district, you know that's as

official as you can get. It was a bylaw notification. The minister has

based a policy remark with respect to social housing on that letter.

Now we believe that if it is the usual bylaw notification, then it is a

misrepresentation. If it's not, then the minister's remarks should

stand.

He is required under the rules to table a document

that he has read from. We all are. The second thing is a letter that he

claims is dated February 1975. Surely, out of courtesy, if not under

the rules, he should table that letter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The reference to official documents refers to the government that has

cited them. In this case it would be a government of British Columbia

letter. However, that was not the case. However, there may be more

information.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's not the rules as

I understand them. As I understand the rule, Mr. Speaker, it's any

document read from substantially. It relates to official policy or

policy related to the statement from the minister, but also any

document referred to in the speech.

I don't know whether

the hon. minister needs the Speaker's protection in this regard, or

whether the minister is willing to table. Certainly the House would

grant leave, if the minister asks it, to table those letters. Is the

minister trying to hide something or...?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Come to my office and I'll....

MR. LAUK:

No, no, this is the chamber. You don't understand that. Mr. Speaker,

the hon. minister doesn't understand that he owes that duty to this

chamber, not in the corridor. If he wants to ask leave, nobody will

object. If the minister does not seek leave to table the documents,

then are we to assume that he made them up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: All right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Before recognizing the member for North Island, who will be

participating in the debate, I will state, as I stated earlier, that

the document that can be questioned is a state document, one of the

government. I am not referring to another government, but in fact to

the government who has quoted that. I so rule.

MR. GABELMANN:

Before making some comments on a very serious problem in British

Columbia relating to youth unemployment, I wanted to respond to three

things that the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about in his

speech.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The first is

the whole question of social housing. I find it unbelievably

hypocritical of this government to even talk about social housing when

in the last ten years they have thoroughly abdicated their entire

responsibility for social housing. They have relied entirely on the

federal government. They have done nothing. They have deliberately and

directly decided not to participate in social housing in this province.

Now, when they think it might help divert attention from a real issue

in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, they pretend to have this great

concern about social housing. It's the first time in ten years that

they've had any concern.

That aside, Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me most about words coming from that minister and the Minister of

[ Page 7426 ]

Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) is that they don't seem to

understand what the primary objective of social housing is, and that is

to make it invisible. We should never, in our society, be able to

identify social housing by simply seeing it. It should be invisible.

That should be the goal of any social housing program. I don't think

that very many people, particularly on that side of the House,

understand that as a fundamental goal. The day of constructing ghettos

to house poor people should have been over long ago. While there may be

problems in the way co-ops are funded, and some particular problems in

the development of a co-op housing program, the principle involved in

co-op housing is perfectly sound. People with good incomes should live

in co-op housing so that they can subsidize people with poor incomes in

those same housing complexes. That same principle must apply through

the whole range of social housing programs. To be able to identify a

Raymur Place or a Skeenaview — or any other number of buildings; and there are some in my constituency — is appalling.

think the government would do well to do two things: (1) to adopt that

policy; and (2) to assume its proper responsibility, working with the

federal government and municipal governments in the development of

programs that ensure adequate housing is available, so that we don't

have those long waiting-lists for affordable housing that we have now

in British Columbia.

The second point in the Minister of

Municipal Affairs' comments that I want to comment on is that he

suggests that local school boards have an opportunity to raise

additional funds from the taxpayer if they want to spend above and

beyond the limits provided them by the government. Mr. Speaker, in one

school district in my riding, Vancouver Island West, 86 percent of the

taxpayers cannot be charged; 14 percent of the tax base is available to

the school district. There are some constituencies where 90 percent of

the tax base is probably available to the school board. But in this

district 14 percent is available. In that particular example, bringing

their budget up to last year's level will increase taxes to the

residential taxpayer as much as $300 in some cases — additional for

school purposes. There are very few, if any, houses in that school

district over $100,000. They're talking about that kind of money just

to bring the budget up to current levels. Why? Because there is

virtually no residential tax base from which to collect that money. If

you're going to say to the school boards, "Collect from the local

taxpayers," fine — tax the local taxpayer. But include them all; don't single out one sector.

The

third thing I want to refer to is the reference to municipal

infrastructure, and the whole discussion the minister embarked upon

regarding municipalities and their viability in this province.

There are three municipalities — all

of them villages in my constituency which are virtually on the brink of

going bankrupt. In one of those three serious consideration is being

given, I might say, to giving their charter back to the government

because the economics are so bad. Why? A variety of reasons. The

funding formulas don't work appropriately.

[4:30]

Another

fundamental reason is that appeal decisions on assessments on the

industrial base have absolutely destroyed the tax base of some of these

municipalities. I say seriously that in all three cases these

municipalities wonder how they're going to survive, not from year to

year but from day to day. They've cut far beyond the bone already. They

can't find money for basic maintenance of their own infrastructure,

their own communities. They're already borrowing up to the limit — in

one case, with special permission, over the limit. What happens to them

because of a tax appeal process? They have their entire tax base

decimated. And what is the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing about

it? Nothing that I can see.

If you're going to make some announcements, you'd better tell me too.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

Tahsis is one, Zeballos is another and Alert Bay is the third. They've

considered the partnership thing, as has the council in Gold River.

When I was meeting with staff in Gold River they were asking my

opinion: should they, or should they not, encourage their council to

participate in the partnership agreement? I encouraged them to do it; I

said, "You've got nothing to lose."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Nothing to lose, lots to gain.

MR. GABELMANN: Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. There hasn't been a single job in North Island out of this.

said: "What are you going to lose?" They're worried about losing a lot.

In Tahsis, if they had signed the municipal partnership agreement, they

would have lost the tax base that might be created by the construction

of a new sawmill in that community. So why haven't they signed? Because

it would have cost them money.

If the minister is going to

talk about problems out there, he should talk about the real problems.

More than that, he should be doing something about particular problems

that exist in communities like Tahsis, Zeballos and Alert Bay, with no

possibility of.... The partnership in whatever programs don't do a damn

thing for any of those municipalities. Not a damn thing, Mr. Speaker.

There's a lot of things that an MLA can talk about during a throne speech debate. Obviously we all have an opportunity to....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry; I've just interrupted a meeting. I didn't mean to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The Chair has noticed that the member for North Island has been

recognized, but no one seems to pay attention to him. Possibly other

meetings could terminate, or have them outside the chamber. The member

for North Island will continue on the throne speech.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time I have remaining today to talk

about youth unemployment in British Columbia. Of all the problems that

we have in our society....

Before I hear taunts of "Don't

be negative," I think we need to recognize that one job of a government

and of a legislature and of MLAs is in fact to deal with problems;

that's what we're elected to do. Our role, our responsibility, is to

try to make life better for people, not to make it worse. In the last

ten years, life has been getting worse for almost every group in our

society, but what's happening to young people is particularly

devastating and should, I think, be of particular concern to all

members of this House; in fact, to anyone in

[ Page 7427 ]

British Columbia who's concerned about the future of this society.

Mr.

Speaker, 1985 was International Youth Year. What did we do in British

Columbia to recognize an internationally declared year of youth? The

answer is that basically we did nothing. We made youth unemployment

worse. We raised tuition fees. We provided a minimal summer youth work

program — and I'll get back to that later. On the positive side,

towards the end of the year the Minister of Labour announced the

formation of a youth council. I've seen the names on an

order-in-council, the announcement of the youth council. I don't know

who they are. The young people in my constituency that I talk to don't

know who they are. I don't know who was consulted as to the development

of that particular group. Who picked them, and who do they represent?

Do they represent those kids we see at 11 o'clock or midnight, hanging

around Douglas Street, or those kids you see on the Granville Mall

night after night, lost? I don't sense, Mr. Speaker, that that youth

council, whoever they are, represents those kids.

Year of

youth, 1985, and what was done? Toward the end of the year, the token

establishment of a provincial youth council, and absolutely nothing

else on the positive side. On the downside, the government cut back on

programs that could help — as I said, they increased tuition — and they

watched unemployment among young people rise yet again. So in the face

of this, in the face of the fact that at least one out of four young

people in this province are unemployed or underemployed, and a whole

bunch more working part time — I'll get back to that in a moment — what

was in the throne speech to deal with this problem? Nothing at all, No

recognition of this as one of the more serious social problems in our

province. The Senate report on youth had come out. No comment

whatsoever about that report — whether it was good, bad or indifferent.

No comment in the throne speech about the intention of the government

to take some or any or all aspects of that report and try to work

together with other governments to develop some programs. Nothing!

There's been more publicity on youth issues lately than we've had in many years. Katimavik was cancelled — no

reference to that in the throne speech, nothing at all. The other day

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), the minister responsible for

youth, spoke — not a word, no reference to any programs, nothing

whatsoever. What did he say, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the

government might be paying attention to this, possibly the most

explosive social problem facing this society in the years to come? Not

a word — nothing.

In preparing for this, I wanted to find

out just who we're talking about, how many young people there are, what

they do and what's happening to them in our society. The first thing I

found out was that there's not really very much clearly defined

information. It's very difficult to be specific in terms of what's

happening to young people between the ages of 15 and 24. In citing

these numbers, I want to caution you that they're rough. They may not

be entirely accurate, but they're in the ball park. The total youth

population — 15 to 24 — is about 440,000. Of the youth in that group

who are in the labour force — and clearly they all aren't — 62,000

are unemployed. There are 223,000 in the labour force. Of those 223,000

in the labour force, there are 134,000 working full-time and 89,000

working part-time, which is defined as less than 30 hours a week. So

you have 89,000 working part-time — and those are not people who are at

school; those are people who are just working part-time — added

to another 62,000 who are unemployed. It works out to something like 39

percent of young people working part-time. Now I guess that's better

than nothing. But when we talk about unemployment figures, we should

recognize that we're leaving out a significant element of the problem,

and that is that incomes for a great many other people who are not

counted as unemployed are in fact insufficient. In citing these

numbers, I should point out that all the statistics do not include

Indian young people. The estimates of unemployment among native kids

between 15 and 24 range — believe this or not — from 40 to 90 percent.

That's a very major problem that will, I think, lead to serious

concerns in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, the numbers go on and on, and I'm not going to refer to them

any more, other than to say that there are some serious problems. We

have an immense number of kids who are now not in school and who are

not working, and many more who are working but only in part-time work.

Now

there's a social cost to all of this. There's a social cost today, and

I think there's going to be one in the future when these kids move into

their thirties and their forties, many of them never having developed

an attachment to the workforce, never having learned basic things like

getting up at 7:30 in the morning, getting ready for work and being

there on time. If you spent ten years of your younger life not doing

that and not learning that, it would be very difficult to learn as you

got older. One of the reasons we have high drug use, high alcohol use

and a great many other social problems among young people is simply

that lack of discipline that working provides.

Mr. Speaker,

those social costs are, as I say, evident to anyone who wanders around

after a movie in downtown Vancouver or in downtown Victoria. You see

kids and you wonder who they are, you wonder where they're sleeping,

and you wonder how they're eating — at least, some of us wonder. I

wonder. I don't think the government wonders. Individual members on

that side may, but I don't think the government as a matter of policy

wonders. These kids, often as a result of the kind of life they lead as

a result of not working or not being trained, not being in school, have

lower self-esteem, lower life satisfaction, feelings of alienation and

feelings that they are incapable of controlling their own lives. That

point was brought home to me very graphically the other day listening

to CBC morning radio. An interviewer went down to the streets in

Granville Mall and asked kids what they thought of Senator Jacques

Hebert's hunger strike. Whatever we think of that, that wasn't the

issue. The absolute cynicism about the ability to affect youth programs

that was demonstrated by almost every one of those kids who were

interviewed absolutely shocked me. I could not believe the degree of

cynicism about their feelings of being able to influence government or

events around their own lives. They didn't believe it. They didn't

believe Jacques Hebert could help. They believe that the powers that be

— the government, the establishment, the forces in society that govern

their lives — are totally beyond anything they can influence. That in

itself, apart from everything else, is a tragedy.

We're

talking about, in many ways, a lost generation. It's difficult. One

doesn't want to predict what's going to happen, particularly when you

make predictions that are not happy and predict things that are going

to be bad. If too much of that happens, predictions can sometimes have

a self-fulfilling nature to them. I don't want to get into that kind of

situation.

[ Page 7428 ]

concerns me when I visit people in my constituency and discover that

26- and 28-year-old "kids" are back living at home, not working,

staying up all night listening to music and sleeping in the morning —

at that age. It concerns me about what is going to happen to them for

the rest of their lives — the dependency on alcohol and drugs, the lack

of attachment to the workforce is going to have monumental consequences.

generation grew up at a time when we could pick and choose jobs. Every

summer I had a choice of two or three jobs when I was going to high

school and to university. I always had a choice, as did most kids at

that time. It just isn't the case now. Our generation, I think, has

done fairly well. Many of my generation are now unemployed but are able

to know how to deal with that unemployment and know how to seek out

employment. That's not going to be true of the generation of young kids

today. They won't have the same kinds of abilities that my generation

had.

[4:45]

When you look, as I

do, at the kids on so-called reservations in this province, the Indian

kids, you wonder if they have any hope at all in this society — a

society which really has abandoned them. I'm not blaming one government

or another. I think as a society we have abandoned tens of thousands of

people. We have just said to ourselves that they don't exist, or if

they do, we don't care.

I am concerned about opportunities

that young people have to continue their education, because of the

level of cost in terms of tuition fees and living away from home and

not having opportunities to borrow money at a rate that we had in my

day. In my day we could work. We could do two jobs all summer if you

could stand the 16 hours a day. Then you could borrow money at zero

interest, and then at 5 percent after you graduated. I had a loan that

lasted for years at 5 percent after I graduated. Now what happens? You

graduate and six months later you pay prime plus 2. What young people

want to embark upon their lives with that kind of debt around their

neck. It's easily $15,000 to $20,000 if you have no other support

coming from your family or if you can't work. And then to think that

when you first do start work, if you can get a job after you leave

school, that you've got a debt of $15,000 or $20,000 at 13 percent....

How many young people are going to take that obligation on? So what do

they do? They don't embark on education programs anywhere near the

number.

In Canada 24.27 percent of young people between 18

and 24 years of age are in school. In British Columbia it's 17.03

percent. Why is that? Do we not want young people to be trained? Do we

not want them to get an education? Do we not want them to be productive

members of our society? Clearly that's the government's attitude. Why

else would they have embarked upon policies which have driven down the

number of people in school? That's 17 percent as compared to a 24.27

percent average across the country. It's an appalling statistic.

worry, too, about young people with learning disabilities. We're

talking about 15 to 20 percent of our young people who have learning

disabilities of one kind or another. I see dyslexic kids who are not — and I hope the Minister of Education is listening — able

to learn to read under the current systems that are in place in our

schools. I see parents with dyslexic kids who are required to send

those kids to private training at their own expense, and if they don't

have the money, the kids don't get the training, and the kids often end

up graduating unable to read. Those are the dyslexic kids; there are

all kinds of other learning-disabled young people in our society for

whom government appears to have abandoned its responsibility.

That's

by no means a complete description of the problems, nor is it a

complete description of government's programs or lack of programs. I'm

just appalled by, for example, the major program that the government

has for summer student youth work — Challenge 85 and this year

Challenge 86, nothing else. Last year the government spent about $9

million; I expect tomorrow's budget will tell us it's going to be $10

million allocated from the budget for the summer youth program, added

to the $16 million, I think it is, from Ottawa. I expect that will be

the budget — $10 million. I may be wrong slightly, but I bet that's

what it is. In 1975, when we had half as many young people unemployed,

we spent, as a government, $25 million. In today's dollars, the

purchasing power of that $25 million is $53.4 million. To provide the

same level of service, taking into account the value of the dollar and

the number of unemployed, the government contribution in tomorrow's

budget should be $100 million, just to be at the same level as we were

in 1975. I predict it will not be $100 million, as it should be; it

will be about $10 million.

In the few minutes that I have

left, I want to just talk about some of the solutions and some of the

things that should be done. I think the fundamental thing that needs to

happen is that governments at all levels, politicians at all levels,

need to consult with young people — not just young people in our

political parties who may have gravitated up through those ranks, or

not young people just who have gravitated to the top in their students

councils, or who have been successful in one way or another. But let's

have consultation with those forgotten young people, those we sometimes

see on the streets and the many others that we don't see so obviously.

Let's talk to some of those young people who are back home living with

their parents because they can't find work and can't afford to live on

their own. That consultation is essential. There needs to be a wide

variety of programs, not just job-related. Programs need to relate to

things like life skills, developing job attachment, training and access

to education.

We need proper funding of summer work, as I've said, and that summer

work needs to be available not just in the private sector — and

it should be available there, no quarrel with that. But it's got to be

available too in the public sector and in particular in community

organizations. Those work programs have to be available for students

and youth through the summer, and for other youth through the rest of

the year. We have no programs whatsoever from September to April. Those

programs need to be developed.

Programs similar to

Katimavik need to be developed at the provincial level or, if Ottawa is

going to develop its own program, we should buy into it as a province

and participate as well. We need, perhaps, to develop programs which

say to young people that for a couple of years in between 18 and 24,

let's say, they will be guaranteed an opportunity to do two years — and get some income for it from society — of

job training, or two years of entrepreneurship, life-skill training, or

post-secondary education, and be given some financial support by

society to do that.

I think the government should look at

some of these proposals and many, many more, and they should encourage

young people to participate in looking at these kinds of proposals and

to develop some kinds of programs. They've done it in other places.

Katimavik has been a model to the world; they have the youth guarantee

in a state in Australia; a

[ Page 7429 ]

whole variety of things have been done that we can look at, instead of doing nothing as we have.

the final few seconds that I have, I thi

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33p 04s 860319p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33p 04s 860319p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	20221c118db629c26f194a3ca708359b784731e6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 19, 1986 — Afternoon Sitting (33rd Parliament, 4th Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986

CONTENTS

Division –– 7435

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1986

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

FOREST RENEWAL ACT

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS:

HON. MR. BENNETT:

MR. WILLIAMS:

HON. MR. BENNETT:

PURCHASE OF SEEDLINGS

MR. HOWARD:

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

PRICE OF GASOLINE

MR. LAUK:

HON. MR. VEITCH:

MR. LAUK:

HOME-HEATING OIL COSTS

MS. SANFORD:

VOTERS' LIST

SOCIAL HOUSING

HON. MR. KEMPF:

MR. SPEAKER:

MR. SPEAKER:

HON. MR. SEGARTY:

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

HON. MR. KEMPF:

MR. NICOLSON:

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

MR. LAUK:

MR. LAUK:

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

MR. LAUK:

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

MR. GABELMANN:

MR. GABELMANN:

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

MR. GABELMANN:

Document details