1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5225 ]

CONTENTS

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act (Bill 2). Hon. A. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M202). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

Oral Questions

Transfer of timber allocation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5225

Shipbuilding financing. Mr. Mitchell –– 5226

Five-year plan for universities. Mr. Nicolson –– 5226

Education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5227

Bulk food sales. Mrs. Dailly –– 5227

Throne speech debate

Mr. Veitch –– 5227

Mr. Lauk –– 5231

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5234

Mr. Passarell –– 5237

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5240

Mr. Lockstead –– 5242

Mr. Ree –– 5245

Mr. Rose –– 5247

Tabling Documents –– 5251

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery today we have three very

energetic representatives of the Young Socred. I would like to ask the

House to welcome the president of the Young Socreds, Mr. Robin

Williams, who is a representative of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I'd

also like the House to welcome Janna Kirkwood, representing

Vancouver–Little Mountain, and Mike Sporer, representing

Burnaby-Edmonds. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to welcome with me three members of the United Party who are in the gallery today.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of them?

MR. LEA: All of Victoria. There is John Smith, a director of

the United Party, Rene Wassink, a former director of the Social Credit

constituency in Victoria and now a member of the United Party, and

Anthony Beks, who up until last week was the president of the Young

Socred group in the Victoria constituency and is now a member of the

United Party. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today as well

are 16 members of the Cowichan-Malahat Social Credit Women's Auxiliary,

who are visiting our precincts. As a brief editorial comment, they

serve about the best potluck supper I've ever enjoyed.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, included among the group of women

who have just been introduced, I would like the House to recognize

Donny Redding, who is the president of the Social Credit W.A. Would you

please all welcome her.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would have

Commonwealth flags on my desk today, because yesterday was Commonwealth

Day. I would also like to encourage those of you here to do what I plan

to do: introduce Commonwealth Day in the schools in Vancouver. With

that I would like to introduce James Dougan, president of the Royal

Commonwealth Society. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION ACCELERATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act.

HON. A. FRASER: In moving the bill to be read a first time now, I'd

like to make a few comments. As the bill states, it is the Coquihalla Highway

Construction Acceleration Act, which speeds up the construction of this new

highway from Hope to Kamloops via Merritt. It provides for this highway to be

in use approximately seven years before it was originally anticipated. We hope

to be to Merritt by 1986 and to Kamloops by 1987. It will be a four-lane highway

built to freeway standards. It reduces the travelling time from Vancouver to

Kamloops by approximately one hour. The bill provides for the charging of tolls.

It creates jobs now and for the future.

Mr. Speaker, today there are 1,650 people working on this worthwhile project.

Bill 2 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.

AN ACT TO REGULATE

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M202,

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places was introduced.

MRS. WALLACE: In commenting on the act, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to point out that this is no stranger to this legislation. It's an

act that has the support, obviously, of both sides of the House. It is

an act that is in order, as has been ruled previously, and it is

an act

that would bring to the province the type of legislation that is now in

place in many regions of this province — the capital region, for one. I

would move that the bill be introduced and read now a first time.

Bill M202 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

TRANSFER OF TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of Forests.

On February 19 I requested that the minister release a portion of the

timber allocations of Drew Sawmills of Salmon Arm, now in receivership.

The minister replied he was reviewing all proposals regarding the

disposal of Drew's assets. I am now advised that the minister has

approved in principle the sale of Drew Sawmills to Beaumont Timber with

no apparent reallocation of the timber to the many small local mills

which expressed an interest in this timber. My question to the minister

is: can the minister advise the House why he has failed to respond to

the needs of the many small mills in the Salmon Arm area which are in

critical need of this timber allocation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to the member, I have

approved in principle the transfer of the cutting rights to another

organization which wishes to acquire the assets. This does not mean

that I have actually approved the transfer. The formal request has not

yet come forward. However, providing that those conditions which I

expressed in the approval in principle are met, I see no reason why the

final approval will not be made.

[2:15]

Some of the conditions include the continuation of the operation of

the Drew sawmill so that those people who are employed by that company

can expect to be continually employed in manufacturing. I would hate to

see those people laid off work and have the timber distributed to

others who so far have been able — although with some difficulty, I

must admit — to maintain a supply of timber for their smaller

[ Page 5226 ]

mills. One of my chief criteria is to make sure

that we maintain that employment base for those present employees of

Drew Sawmills.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In supplement, Mr. Speaker, the allocation of

the timber of Drew Sawmills to Beaumont Timber will, in effect,

significantly increase its timber allocations significantly above their

needs. Other small mills in the area employ a number of individuals on

a steady basis. They're in a crisis situation in which they cannot find

enough timber, and the minister had advised that he was in fact in

consultation with these smaller outfits — to respond to their needs. In

light of the fact that none of that allocation has been stripped off

for the smaller independent operators, why has the minister failed to

respond to the needs of these independent operators? Please answer the

question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy

to answer the member's question. It's called question period because we

can have questions and answers. I think that somewhere in that long

preamble there was a question.

First of all, I most emphatically deny that any crisis exists in the

supply of timber for smaller operators. As a matter of fact, it is

under the policies which I have brought forward as the Minister of

Forests that we have a small business enterprise program whose

objective is to provide timber for the small operators in the province.

The usable portion of the Drew Sawmills timber allocation is not in

excess of the requirements of that mill. As I have already stated, one

of the conditions of the transfer of cutting rights to, as the member

mentioned, Beaumont is that the mill, if they conclude their

arrangements with the receiver of Drew, be continually operated, so

that the employment base will not be dissipated and those people who

currently work there will continue to have jobs. The maintenance of

employment is one of the chief criteria which I will consider.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Minister, these small operators are so

frustrated with the lack of the promised real consultation that they

have gone to the ombudsman in search of a reallocation of these timber

rights. I have such a letter in front of me here. In view of these

facts, would the minister now agree to halt the sale to Beaumont and

the allocation of the timber resource, which is in excess of Beaumont's

needs, until such time as these local sawmills are given some access to

this timber?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I most emphatically will

not. The small operators do have access to Crown timber and have had

for a number of years. The volume of wood being allocated for small

business operators is increasing year by year. There is never going to

be enough Crown timber to satisfy all those people in the province who

may desire to put it to use. We have reached the limit of the allowable

cut in British Columbia. It is no longer an expansionary period. If

anything, it's a period of more intensive utilization. No, I most

emphatically will not eliminate that employment base from all those

people who have worked for Drew for so many years.

SHIPBUILDING FINANCING

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. I'm hoping that he can assure the House

with the same enthusiasm as the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

had when he pursued a similar question yesterday. In the last election

the Conservative government promised $75 million for shipbuilding;

instead of that they have cut the budget by $40 million. My question to

the minister is: has he contacted his counterpart with the federal

government, and is he pursuing that government to get the $40 million

back so we can have our shipyards working in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Certainly I'm enthusiastic about the

opportunities to work with the new Conservative government in Ottawa.

We are pursuing a number of options; we will continue to pursue them.

We will travel to Ottawa every week, if we need to, to make sure that

British Columbia gets treated equally — perhaps for the first time in a

long time.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping that with his travelling

back and forth he won't spend the $40 million we're after. But I want

some assurance from that minister: has he contacted his counterpart in

that government? Without travelling back and forth, are we going to get

that $40 million back here so we can get people to work? That's the

question I want answered. I don't want to hear about his holidays or

his travel budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee that member

that ministerial visits to Ottawa and vice versa are very productive.

We won't act like the government of 1972 to 1975 and sit back and hope

that something might happen, and it never did.

FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR UNIVERSITIES

MR. NICOLSON: Last night the Minister of Universities,

Science and Technology outlined some plans he has calling for the

preparation of a five-year plan to cut courses at the universities to

make them more exclusive institutions. I ask the minister: given that

in 1984-85 only 101 young British Columbians in 1,000 went to

university –– 25 percent below the Canadian average — how exclusive

does he intend that these universities are to become?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member has attributed to me

remarks that I never made. I don't know from where he gets his quotes,

but it wasn't anything I ever said — he said it. We have asked each of

the universities to develop, for the first time, five-year academic

plans. We had asked the universities previously to provide capital

plans; now we have asked them, through the Universities Council, to

provide academic plans. Since the universities have not done this

before, it will be a wonderful opportunity for each university to know

what its academic plans are. Each university will know what the others

are planning, and everyone in British Columbia can then understand the

directions in which the universities are going.

Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite think there's something wrong with that?

[ Page

5227 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says that they want to understand where we're

going. When is the minister going to make public the directions that were given

to the universities so that the public of British Columbia can know where our

universities are going?

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to make

available all correspondence that we've had on this matter with the

Universities Council, which after all is charged with the

responsibility of allocating the funds that this Legislature gives to

the universities on behalf of the taxpayers. That's a wonderful thing

to do, and I would be pleased to make that correspondence available at

6 p.m. this evening.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to lob a gentle question over

to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). On February 14, the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications credited the

federal government with funding 50 percent of the grade 12 program in

our high schools. Since federal funding is going up by 7.5 percent next

year, can the minister assure all grade 12 students that those funds

will be used for grade 12 programs, or is it the plan for the

government to divert these funds to some other purposes unrelated to

education, as they've been doing with the college and university

funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again I would call

the member's attention to page 19 of the Standing Orders regarding

argumentative questions. However, the minister may respond.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to the

member, because I really don't know what he was referring to. He is

making reference to federal funding into the public school system, and

he made reference to grade 12. The only federal funding that I know of

is available for the startup costs for French immersion programs in the

public school system, along with some contributions made by the

Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of National Defence. I

don't know of any other federal funding made available to the public

school system K to 12.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps, then, I could ask a question of the minister that he does know something about.

Government policy expressed in the present School Act, the Education

(Interim) Finance Act and the Compensation Stabilization Act requires

school boards and teachers to bargain for teacher settlements to be

arbitrated and then approved by the compensation stabilization

commissioner. I'd like to ask the minister whether the government has

decided to amend the fiscal framework to provide school trustees with

enough money to pay for any increases that the government's policy had

produced.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've made it abundantly clear that

the amount of money in the framework for both the transitional year, commencing

January to June, 1985, and the full fiscal year, commencing July 1, 1985, and

ending June 30, 1986, has now been allocated.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would agree then that the whole arbitration setup under the School Act is a farce?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members?

BULK FOOD SALES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health.

This question is with reference to bulk food sales. The minister will

be aware that the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors has

called on the government to develop regulations to deal with the sale

of bulk foods in British Columbia. Can the minister inform the House

whether he's prepared to respond to these concerns with a set of

intermunicipal guidelines, and will he at the same time assure

consumers that whatever guidelines are developed, the consumer will

still be able, though, to enjoy the opportunity to buy food in bulk.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question of bulk food sales has been

creating some difficulties for a year and a half or two. There is an

inconsistency at the local level among various union boards of health

and other health authorities with respect to what the appropriate

bylaws should be for bulk food sales. We do have a basic standard for

the province, but there are some individual areas who insist that their

standards be different from the provincial standards, and some have

themselves introduced specific bylaws with respect to the sale of bulk

foods.

I believe that we have the capacity, with the cooperation of the

various union boards and other health organizations, to establish fair,

reasonable regulations with respect to the sales of bulk food which

would permit maximum access to the consumer, with maximum benefit with

respect to health protection. It's new to a lot, and some of them are

resisting rather strongly, but I think we can overcome their

difficulties.

[2:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, last week I took as notice a

question about the salary and benefits of Dr. Pedersen of the

University of British Columbia. I undertook to bring an answer to the

House, and I file it in the form of a letter from Mr. David McLean,

chairman of the board.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. VEITCH: It is certainly my pleasure to rise and support

the Speech from the Throne. In so doing I'd like to congratulate the

mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne; they did a very

commendable job. I'd also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on

his elevation to the new official position that we have of Deputy

Chairman of the Whole House. And, of course, the new government Whip,

who is about, doing his business; that's a very demanding job, and I

understand what his responsibilities are.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5228 ]

I'd also like to congratulate the committee that brought in the fine

new rules that we're working under in this House. I had the pleasure of

serving on that committee. It appears to be working very well. I must

say that every member of that committee worked very hard, and there was

a degree of cooperation that I have never seen before emanating from

the members of this House.

I'd also like to congratulate the new ministers on their positions.

In particular, I'd like to congratulate the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in his new position. What a lot of us, and

especially people in the New Democratic Party, fail to realize is that

you can have all of the coal in British Columbia and all of the natural

gas in the world, and it's potentially valuable, sure, but it's

worthless until someone sells it and takes it somewhere. That's what

this gentleman is doing, and he has been doing it very well over the

years. I congratulate them.

I heard a lot of talk from the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), who was speaking just prior to me, mentioning that we

should be expanding welfare rates. That's probably a good idea if you

are able to do it, but what he doesn't seem to realize is that British

Columbia is a very small open economy, and the only way that we can

bring prosperity to British Columbians — and indeed to Canada — is to

do the things that that minister is doing and sell our products to the

world. We just simply do not have enough people in this.... A rising

tide, Mr. Speaker, will lift all ships. That's something that they have

to learn.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes about my constituency of

Burnaby-Willingdon. I want to tell you that an undertaking of this

government which has been much maligned by the NDP — and I'm talking of

ALRT — is bringing about hundreds of millions of dollars of development

right in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. I refer to CAL Investments,

who, I believe, are to commence in May in the Metrotown area. The ALRT

provided the catalyst for that development, and that is a $500 million

development. That's what this government is doing. That's the good news.

I'd like to say that in my opinion the good news in British Columbia

is that the bad news is just about over, and we're working on a new

economy and a new era. I'm looking forward to that.

My colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds), mentioned something to me, and during the noon hour I did

some investigation. The member for North Island was speaking about all

the problems with tourism on the Island. My colleague here so kindly

told me about an undertaking that was going on in Chemainus. So I

investigated and I find that the village of Chemainus on Vancouver

Island has taken the situation into their own hands, in the British

Columbia spirit, Mr. Speaker, and are doing something about it — people

doing something about things. What they've done is created a system of

painting murals on buildings in that village of Chemainus.

I talked with a Mr. Bill Jameson, who is the past president of the Chemainus

Chamber of Commerce. He said that the murals have created masses of tourists.

They had 60,000 tourists go through Chemainus last year, and they are looking

forward to 100,000 in the year that's up and coming. New businesses are

springing up as a result of this initiative. The town has been written up in

most leading magazines, and National Geographic, I believe, is doing an

article

on it. There was a television documentary done called: "The Little Town

That Did." There are new restaurants opening up. Mr. Jameson himself is

building a new mall, and every shop in that mall has been taken up. That's

the British Columbia spirit. That's the spirit of optimism that we have.

I believe that what we've got to do in British Columbia — and indeed

in Canada — is stop accentuating the negatives, and we've got to push

the positive button. That's where we're at.

I'm very pleased at the opportunity of being appointed Parliamentary

Secretary to the Minister of Education. I see it as an opportunity. I

see myself as one of those very few privileged British Columbians to

have been elected twice to this Legislative Assembly and to have the

opportunity to participate in this very worthwhile undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to reply to the

Speech from the Throne. I'd like to congratulate the government for

proposing a course of action for post-secondary education which is both

creative and cooperative. Indeed, the necessity of those two qualities

for education and training in British Columbia is what I wish to bring

to the attention of my fellow members of the Legislature today. In

doing so, I hope to contribute towards convincing all of us in this

chamber of the value of not just the innovative measures advanced by,

but also the spirit of partnership which I hope will be embodied in,

any legislation that is brought forward to this Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. Members who wish

to stay in the Assembly could do the Assembly a service by showing some

courtesy to the member who has now taken his place in the debate.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Speaker. I needed that.

The opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete and specific

measures that meet the challenges that we face in this province, and I

personally welcome their commitment to abandon personal attacks in

favour of cooperative dialogue. This is a responsibility of each member

in this House. In 1976 I had the privilege of moving the first Address

in Reply to the Speech from the Throne of what was then the new Social

Credit government. I mentioned that at that time, and I'm glad to see

that someone has finally taken heed.

We as a province and as a nation must prepare for our future, and

education is the principal way a society readies itself. We are at

serious risk if we fail to meet the challenge of the all-too-rapid

economic and social changes which confront not just British Columbia

but Canada and the world. No wish, however sincere, has held history

still, not for a day, not for a moment. It's a moving vibrant thing and

never static.

Mr. Speaker, from Burnaby to Bangkok and Birmingham to Buffalo the

world economy grows ever more interdependent and ever more competitive.

The sawmill in Prince George competes with one in Stockholm for markets

in Spain. A copper mine in Highland Valley competes with one in Chile

for sales to Japan. An electronics manufacturer in Surrey competes with

one in Seoul for sales of telephone switching equipment to Saudi

Arabia. We simply cannot afford to ignore what our competitors are

doing in this world. No matter how abundant our resources or how

talented our workers and engineers or how high our hopes, if we do not

prepare for the future, someone else will and thus seize our markets

and our opportunity and thus the prosperity that could lie before us.

[ Page 5229 ]

We cannot afford to wait, and we cannot afford, as Canadians and

British Columbians, to fail in this undertaking. No one ideology, no

one person can guide us to success in the turbulent world economy

which, for better or for worse, holds us in its tight grasp. We must

always be open-minded and creative, and we must continually work

together or we will pull apart. Creativity and cooperation mix most

potently at that point in our economy where post-secondary education,

business and government meet on the same plane, that fluid interface

binding together research and technical skills, entrepreneurial acumen

and business skills, and public leadership and support, which forces

the world to catch up to us, not the converse. That three-way

interaction creates new industries and new jobs, it revitalizes

existing industries and jobs, and it generates new answers and new

challenges.

The Social Credit government has focused and energized that

cooperation among itself, the academic community and business. Before

the second great war and the great sea change it wrought, the

interaction was conducted unconsciously, and at that time without any

direction. Colleges and universities suspected that contact with

business would erode their objectivity and freedom, and business saw

the concerns of higher education as largely irrelevant to the world of

industry and commerce. Government could not at that time articulate a

clear role for itself.

Today we find an entirely different and better situation. Colleges

and universities, business and government at all levels have entered

into a new relationship. We've proven that we can work together to

adapt and to succeed in our complex and competitive world economy.

We've overcome petty rivalries, a hesitation to look forward and the

failure to try new ideas. We've learned the inadequacy of half-hearted

decisions and the value of sustained commitments to human and economic

potential.

I wish to bring to the members' attention here today some of the

ways in which the government is ensuring the continued life and

increased intensity of cooperation. In other words, I wish to highlight

some efforts of the government to meet the challenge of the future.

One such initiative is not without its warts or problems. It is the

TRAC program, which provides goal-based, competency-based training and

retraining for anyone over the age of 16. It provides individuals with

the opportunity to move as quickly as possible to the training they

need to succeed in their chosen occupations and those other occupations

which will become available to them. TRAC provides an innovative

alternative to traditional lock-step education whereby a student

advanced through a set curriculum of courses regardless of whether or

not he or she already knew the material or whether or not the required

courses were pertinent to their goals. This system called TRAC, the

training access program, provides a modular system of education whereby

a student can test out the common core of courses involving basic

language and mathematical skills. Having tested out this common core,

he or she can go directly to specialized courses in a variety of areas.

The TRAC program is, in my mind, a good example of government

responding to the needs of an economy and helping post-secondary

education to fulfill those needs. It's another part of the good news

that we have in British Columbia.

It is important to remember that this program is being brought to

light because of the long-term commitment of the Social Credit

government to post-secondary education in this province. This

government, firm in the belief of the power of cooperation, has

provided sustained and substantial financial and administrative support

for higher education in the province of British Columbia. It developed

innovative programs and agencies, such as the discovery parks and the

Science Council of B.C., to bring education and business together so

that each could contribute to sustaining the creative interface that

only they can work out.

[2:45]

Social Credit governments have provided British Columbia with an extensive

network of community colleges throughout the province. Starting with the recommendations

of the influential Macdonald report of 1962, which was entitled Higher Education

in British Columbia: A Plan for the Future, it is the Social Credit government

that has built and developed 21 colleges and institutes which served approximately

70,000 students in British Columbia last year. For those who seek post-secondary

education, but who are unable to attend regular classes, this government has

provided for distance education — the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge

Network. The Open Learning Institute can create for students a flexible and

in-depth course of study; this need can be fulfilled at home. The Knowledge

Network pioneered the use of television and satellite technology to reach students

and all interested British Columbians throughout the province. As never before,

people in remote areas or with responsibilities at home or at work now have

the opportunity to benefit from post-secondary education in this province, and

that's another part of the good news that we have to tell.

The simple fact is that the provincial government has guaranteed

that post-secondary education has received sufficient funding. The

three universities in British Columbia — University of British

Columbia, University of Victoria, and Simon Fraser University — have,

since 1975, increased their funding from $170 million to $340.6

million, an increase of 103 percent. The 21 colleges and institutions

have since 1975 increased their funding from $86 million to $265

million, an increase of 208 percent. Who says that our Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) does not support education in this

province?

A graduating senior this year, Mr. Speaker, assuming he or she has

been enrolled for the last four years, will have benefited, from their

freshman year until now, from a 32 percent increase in the amount given

to colleges and institutes. For the past two years, the community

college budget has exceeded $300 million a year and accounted for 5

percent of the total provincial budget. In the fiscal year 1983-84,

their total budget dollars rose by 14 percent.

In this year 1984-85 the government faced a situation whereby the

costs of education rose dramatically faster than the ability of the

people of the province to pay. The budgets of all educational

facilities virtually doubled from 1979 to 1984, from one billion to

nearly two billion dollars in this province. Provincial revenues during

the same period only increased by 18 percent. Community college and

institute budgets rose by 50 percent, or $100 million, during that same

period.

The improved financial position of the province, as it comes about

as a result of the policies of this great government, will help to

create new jobs and opportunities for the graduating students who will

come out of those colleges and institutions.

Indeed, in 1984, we saw increased investment in capital goods and repair, in trade, finance and services. It rose 28

[ Page 5230 ]

percent in those areas, and in manufacturing it

rose, I believe, by a powerful 115 percent. Only confidence in British

Columbia's future and in the quality of its people's skills and

training could motivate such an investment and, I might add, confidence

in the government of the day, which is Social Credit.

I've had some experience, Mr. Speaker, in working in finance in the

community college system. In examining the community colleges and

institutes, it's helpful to remember that the provincial government

actually receives very little assistance from the federal government.

The funds which Ottawa provides come through the established programs

financing arrangement, the EPF fund. The EPF funds are given for health

and post-secondary education combined, and they come in that envelope.

What has happened in recent years is that the federal government has

been silent, completely silent, on rising health costs. This indicates

that the formula is somewhat dated as far as the provision of adequate

funding from the federal government goes.

MR. LAUK: You want to put a tax on the sick.

MR. VEITCH: You may learn something at this late date even you, hon. member — if you listen.

What this means is that the rise in health care costs has meant that

a larger share of the EPF funds must go to the health budget. Last

year, 18 percent of the EPF funds went to post-secondary education —

both the college system and the university system. It's my hope, and

I'm sure it's the government's hope, that the federal government will

realize the reality of the health costs and their continuing increases.

They should restore, in my opinion, the funding flexibility which was

the objective of the EPF in the first instance.

As a result of rising costs, tuition fees have been raised at universities and colleges. Fees, however, remain....

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, protect me, please, from this big member over here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VEITCH: Fees, however, remain comparable to what students

pay in the province of Ontario and less than those in the Maritimes.

It's important to remember that student fees only account for, I

believe, 15 percent of the cost of their education. What other

investment reaps a 566 percent dividend? The return over a lifetime is

not calculable. That's a very small investment, and the rest of the

people in British Columbia make up the difference.

The thousands of jobs which will be available to students from Expo

86 next summer may prove to be one of the best financial education

assistance programs to British Columbia students in the history of this

province. Indeed, a survey of grade 12 students taken in 1981 indicated

that a full 40 percent of them going to college intended to pay their

tuition fees from their own summer earnings. Of that group, 99 percent

were to some degree confident that they could finance their education;

only 4 percent of that group stated they depended on provincial

government assistance. That's something else that points out to me that

the NDP are completely mistaken when they think that youth are

following the socialist line. They're not. They're supporting private

enterprise; they're supporting the Social Credit government, and don't

ever forget it.

The Social Credit government is proud of the tremendous human and

economic potential for our province's post-secondary students. This

government knows that it is their keen and inquisitive minds and their

determination to succeed, both as providers and as citizens, which is

at the heart of much of the progress in this province. The Social

Credit government recognizes the powerful and creative potential of our

students to make new advances in research and in the business field. As

a result, we have developed several exciting programs and initiatives

which are helping to connect ideas and innovations with the

entrepreneurial skills and business acumen necessary to bring to

reality new products, new services and, what is more important, new

jobs.

The Science Council of British Columbia supplies funding for both

academic and industrial researchers to pursue applied-technology

research. Graduate and post-graduate students engaged in research and

development work, in cooperation with industry, can receive graduate,

research, engineering and technology awards as well as industrial

post-doctoral fellowships. The work being funded covers a multitude of

technologies, not just high-tech electronics. Examples of projects

include a device for the better lubrication of heavy machinery,

diagnostic test kits for fish farming and software for satellite

imagery. The list could go on and on.

The Discovery Foundation aims to strengthen....

MR. LAUK: It sounds like Chemenko's last speech.

MR. VEITCH: I need your protection again, Mr. Speaker; this

little member keeps interrupting. I'll be happy to listen to him when

he speaks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will come to order, please.

MR. VEITCH: The Discovery Foundation aims to strengthen the

province's economy by promoting growth in scientific and technological

industries. It does so through its subsidiaries, the discovery parks.

Discovery Parks Inc. maintains properties next to universities and the

PVI-BCIT complex which allow for an interface between students,

scholars and the business world. A new building adjacent to PVI-BCIT is

a great success, with 40 companies, a private investment of $2 million

and 270 jobs being provided.

The facility at Simon Fraser now houses Microtel Pacific Research.

Plans are underway, I believe, for sites at UBC, the University of

Victoria and an aquaculture research centre at Malaspina College. The

discovery enterprise program, in its first year, invested $3.4 million

in 22 projects, which generated $30 million in outside investment and

270 jobs. The program, directed by volunteers from the private sector,

concentrates on small business, where, after all, 85 percent of the new

jobs are created in the Canadian economy.

Various colleges have been active with their own projects. For

instance, Malaspina College has begun a unique initiative — the student

venture capital program. The program is funded through a joint

agreement by the college, the local Kiwanis Club, and the Nanaimo

District Savings Credit Union. An initial contribution of $13,000 was

made in 1984. Depositors in savings and term accounts can enter into an

[ Page 5231 ]

agreement whereby half of their earned interest

could go to the community ventures account. The program has already

supported 20 programs, most of which are successful.

The Social Credit government has also entered into several

agreements with the federal government to reassess and redirect

apprenticeship and employment training programs. These will provide

skills for our young people in the areas of industry and commerce where

new advances are being generated every day. No advance in business and

in industrial technology can succeed without the trained personnel

capable of putting their intelligence, training and skills to maximum

use. We are training our young people for the jobs of tomorrow in both

existing and new industries in our resources, our service and our new

technological industries.

The Apprenticeship Board has just completed a major report on its

future directions. It is currently reassessing the capacity of the

employers of the province to take in new apprentices and the skills

most in demand now and those that will be in demand in the future. As

of the end of 1984 there were 11,850 apprentices involved with 16,000

employers. In 1984, 4,210 apprentices were certified.

The Social Credit government and the federal government have entered

into a joint program for the summer employment of youth. The Challenge

85 program will embody the principles agreed upon as the best truly

national approach to human resource development. This program will

provide summer employment for over 15,000 young British Columbians.

These people will gain work experience, valuable career training and in

some cases the chance to exercise their entrepreneurial skills by

operating a small business for the summer.

I do not hesitate to say that all of the money and the time the

government, the colleges and the universities and the private investors

have committed to the initiatives, agencies and programs I have

mentioned are part of a wager. All of us have gambled some of what we

now possess on the hope that it will bring a greater return in the

future. After all, isn't that what education is all about? As with all

ventures there is a chance involved, but I know we'll win. We will

search for excellence. We will not lose our conviction that the future

demands our attention, preparation, creativity and cooperation.

We as a province will emerge stronger and as committed as ever to meeting the challenge of the future.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to close by saying that this throne speech gives proof of the

power of the individual. The legislation which I am sure will be

introduced, particularly that dealing with education, has no clearer

object than to help the young person willing to meet the challenge of

the future. We have the obligation, Mr. Speaker, as members of this

Legislative Assembly, to work in a positive way to do those things for

those future British Columbians to help bring those dreams to reality.

[3:00]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody treats me with the

same courtesy during the course of my remarks to this thronging mass in

the House. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has used a great many

figures. I think we're going to change his nickname from Slim to

Smokescreen. The parliamentary secretaries, I've noticed, are reading

from prepared scripts and using all of the research staff that they've

now acquired to prepare their speeches. I might say that I think they

were better off when they just spoke extempore in the House — although

it was once a year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's okay when you've got nothing to say.

MR. LAUK: Yes, either way, Mr. Member. But with respect to

the Speech from the Throne, a number of speakers on the government side

have made remarks.

Firstly I want to bring greetings from downtown British Columbia,

which is my constituency. Greetings from the city of Vancouver to the

Legislature of British Columbia. With those greetings comes an

expectation, a hope or a prayer that the legislators will give some

relief to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver. The homeowners in the

city of Vancouver, like other British Columbians, have borne the brunt

of the recession and of the star-crossed restraint program of the

Social Credit government. It's not enough that we have to bear the

tremendous cost of bringing services in downtown Vancouver to the rest

of British Columbia who visit us and do business there. It costs us a

great deal — us people who have homes in Vancouver. It costs us extra

taxes every year to pay for extra policing and servicing and everything

else because we are the downtown of the province of British Columbia.

The provincial government, through its megaproject idea, has given

us Expo. Hon. members of the Social Credit Party keep on saying to me:

"You should be so pleased. We're spending more money in your

constituency than the rest of the province put together." Well, the

people of the city of Vancouver are paying extra taxes for the

servicing of Expo and the visitors that will come in 1986. We know that

we're paying taxes provincially, we know that we're paying taxes

municipally, and we know that we're paying taxes federally. So far all

we've had are grandiose, complicated speeches, like those of the hon.

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) and the Premier, promising

us pie in the sky with these megaprojects. But all we can see is that

every year, relentlessly and as predictably as the sun comes up in the

morning and goes down at night, our taxes on our homes are going up.

It's not based on our ability to pay; it's based on the fact that we

have homes in the city of Vancouver and have got to pay these extra

taxes.

Now there's a dispute between the provincial government and the

federal government and the city government with respect to who's going

to run the convention centre. The provincial government, through the

Premier — like Sam Slick — is saying: "Hey, well, you know, the

province and the federal government have given you the capital cost of

this convention centre. Now we're going to let you operate it." There

isn't a convention centre in North America that makes money. What a

favour! More tax money. More increases in taxation on homeowners in

Vancouver to pay for the operation of the convention centre. We're not

going to make any money off the convention centre in the city of

Vancouver. It will provide jobs to people in the city and outside the

city. It will bring revenues to private merchants within the city, to

the operators of facilities such as hotels and to those who attract and

carry on the convention. It will bring tourist dollars to the city of

Vancouver. That's all very fine. But once again the people of the city

of Vancouver are going to be asked to pay

[ Page 5232 ]

taxes without any revenue coming back from that

operation. There's no possible revenue to the city of Vancouver from

the convention centre.

The other great gift from the province of British Columbia is the

ALRT system. Thank you very much for the ALRT system. The province

says: "Now that we've built it, we're going to have to have a way of

paying for it. We've got such a great idea: the city's going to pay for

it; the local taxpayer is going to pay for it."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's going to use it?

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Very few of

the people using the ALRT system will be from the city of Vancouver —

they already live in downtown British Columbia. It's going to be people

from the member's constituency; it's going to be people from all the

surrounding constituencies. I don't mean to square off one municipality

against another, but I will say that paying for the rapid transit

system is going to be another burden on the Vancouver homeowner.

Instead of providing financial support for regional development,

which benefits everybody in British Columbia, we keep on getting these

gifts from the province of British Columbia. I say to the province of

British Columbia and to the Premier: don't do us any more favours; we

can't afford it. We simply can't afford to pay for these. If you're not

going to carry through with provincial funding to keep those things

afloat, or with separate financial authority as in the ALRT system,

then forget it.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is going to

have a great big meeting with the mayors of municipalities in the

province of British Columbia, and he's going to offer them a great

deal. Well, I have a solemn warning for the mayors and council people

of the municipalities of British Columbia: beware of Socreds bearing

gifts; it's going to cost the taxpayers in your municipalities more

taxes.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, the jobs. Here's the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) talking about jobs. He's just heard

his colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon talking about all those PhDs who

are so lucky because they can sell hotdogs at Expo in 1986. They've got

that good old free enterprise spirit. While their parents are paying

hundreds of dollars more in taxes on their homes each year, they can

feel satisfied that their sons and daughters are making that extra $300

or $400 for six months' work selling hotdogs or souvenirs at Expo.

That's the good old free enterprise system, says the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Coquitlam is interrupting my speech, Mr.

Speaker. I don't mind that; it helps the flow. I made a note of part of

his prepared speech — his evidence that the economy is turning around. The whole

press gallery was waiting with bated breath for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

to tell us how the economy is turning around. He has brought incontrovertible

evidence to the Legislature. He says that the advertising in a weekly newspaper

up north somewhere has increased substantially. That's his evidence that

the economy is turning around — a weekly newspaper has increased its advertising.

The new parliamentary secretary comes in here and replies to the address of

His Honour, and then he turns around in his speech and says that the recession

in British Columbia was the fault of the press. Do you remember that? He said

it was the media's fault. They're the ones who preached doom and gloom,

who went out with their cameras and captured on film people in soup kitchens,

who went out to the UIC lines and took photographs. These are people with negative

thinking. We've got to ignore all of those negative things and pretend they

didn't happen. We've been hearing far too much of that in this country

lately, ignoring reality. It's one thing to be positive and give hope. It's

another thing to ignore reality and sidestep responsibility.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)....

Where is he? Where's the cabinet? There's no one here from the cabinet.

They're out having tea with the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary. They

won't sit here and listen to a speech, because they don't want to

listen to the facts. The other day I heard the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs say there is proof that the whole economy is turning

around — a 10 or 15 percent increase in incorporations last month.

Well, anybody could tell you — and you could tell that, Mr. Speaker....

Lawyers who do incorporations can tell you that one out of five

incorporations results in a going concern, so it would have to increase

many more fold than 15 percent to be an impressive turnaround.

Bankruptcies in British Columbia are ever increasing; bankruptcies

every day, receiverships every day, and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs says: "Well, there are more incorporations." People

incorporate to lease a car, for heaven's sake. Who is he trying to kid?

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes money for lawyers.

MR. LAUK: And rightly so.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Point Grey, the

Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), speak in this debate. He

pleaded with the NDP to listen to reason. He said that every year he's

disappointed in the NDP, and he gave us words of wisdom. I want to

canvass with you the other times....

I've wanted very much to follow the reasoning and accept the advice

of the Minister of Universities over the years. I've listened

carefully. I even read his book, Mr. Speaker. Have you read his book?

Perhaps one or two people in this House have read Politics in Paradise.

Since then I've been wondering about the Minister of Universities. I've

listened to a number of his speeches and I want to canvass some of them

with you.

Do you remember Brazil? Three or four years ago he said he was sick

and tired of hearing from the NDP and he pleaded with us to listen to

him. He said that the classic example of people who know how to run an

economy is Brazil. He forgot about the 300 percent inflation. He forgot

that it's a pyramid there and that the vast majority of the people — 60

to 70 percent — live in abject poverty. But the Minister of

Universities stands up in the House a few years ago and says we've got

to use Brazil as the classic example of how to turn British Columbia's

economy around, and since that time this government has moved

steadfastly in that direction. They've created 16 percent unemployment,

food banks and long lineups of unemployed at the UIC and for

job-hunting. So we didn't take his advice, but the government did.

[ Page 5233 ]

The Minister of Universities has steadfastly, in that position,

destroyed the pride and confidence of us all in the universities of

this province. He has single-handedly, through his actions, meddled in

the affairs of the universities. He announced recently that he's

demanding of them not only operational plans for the foreseeable

future, but their academic planning. Why does this government want to

know the academic planning of B.C. universities? I'll tell you why.

It's not restraint. It's not budget. It's that they want to meddle in

the academic freedom of universities in this province. Up until now,

our universities have been second to none in the world, but the

ill-conceived meddling of the Minister of Universities is destroying

the pride that the professors and students themselves have had in their

universities.

[3:15]

It's unforgivable and inexcusable for a government to use its power

to interfere in academic freedom on the university campuses of the

province of British Columbia. Every self-respecting citizen of British

Columbia should stand up and be heard and defend our universities and

their independence against the political interference of this

government and that minister, who is misguided and elitist in his views

of education.

On the lighter side, we can look at some of the less harmful aspects

of the Minister of Universities and his approach. After all, he brought

us the satellite dish. He stood up before the world and said that he

was going to use taxpayers' money and put a satellite dish in the

garden of the parliament buildings. Was it a wooden one? Well, it

didn't work, but it cost us $12,000 or $75,000. He was going to fight

the CRTC to the last drop of the B.C. taxpayers' blood.

But when we asked him to do something about hiking the rates of

telephone users in this province, he said: "That's an intergovernmental

issue. I'm not going to even deal with the CRTC on it." He wants it

both ways. Now why wasn't he enthusiastic about defending ordinary

users of telephone services in this province? Why didn't he humble

himself and make a strong representation to the CRTC against the

usurious and greedy moves of that monopolistic utility, the B.C.

Telephone Co.?

Do you know that the B.C. Telephone Co sends out between $40 million

and $60 million a year in dividends alone to the United States? You

read the figures, Mr. Member. Compensating foreign shareholders of our

utility. There is no excuse for that outflow of capital to foreign

shareholders. Has he taken a position on that? He's thrown up his

hands: "Oh, it's a federal issue. I won't deal with the CRTC, because

it's intergovernmental, and we demand control of the utility to British

Columbia." He was courageous with his satellite dish. He was less than

courageous defending ordinary British Columbians against the usurious

and greedy moves made by B.C. Telephone.

Do you remember this great minister who is advising the House, who

told us he wanted to build a STOL airport in Victoria and in Vancouver?

Again I waited for some rational advice that I could accept. Do you

know where he had the STOL airport in Vancouver? On Terminal Avenue,

right where the ALRT system had already been planned. He announces this

to the world as another great idea that he hatched in his office in the

comer over here. Do you remember the underwater tunnel from Vancouver

to Victoria, the longest exhaust pipe in the world? The cost of

hundreds of millions of dollars? He thought this was a great idea too.

What about Discovery Parks? He held a press conference in Victoria,

a simultaneous press conference in Vancouver, other press conferences

here and there. He says we're going to attract the great industrial

research of the world here to British Columbia. They spent millions of

dollars of the taxpayers' money building Discovery Parks. Do you know

what we have in that great big building in Burnaby costing us millions

of dollars?

AN HON. MEMBER: Great job-creating projects.

MR. LAUK: Great job-creating projects! Do you know what they

are, Mr. Member? They're all sales organizations. There's no research

anywhere in that building: not a square foot of research except

probably....

AN HON. MEMBER: Prevaricator.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you rising on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: It's up to the Chair to respond to something like that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. Mr. Member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, I'm sure you will withdraw any untoward

comments about the integrity of the member.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, are you deeming that expression unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am.

MR. PARKS: Well then, clearly I would be prepared to remove

that. But I would also be pleased to have the member make sure he

qualifies the exact statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. You will have your

opportunity. I draw your attention to

section 42 of the rules, which

provides that: "No member may speak twice to a question except in

explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new

matter...." The member for Vancouver Centre is making comments with

respect to points of your speech which you do not agree with, and he

may be misquoting you. You may rise afterwards. Otherwise the member

for Vancouver Centre should be allowed to continue in orderly debate.

MR. LAUK: Now these Discovery Parks were.... Speak of the

devil: there he is with his notes. That's an expression; I'm sure

that.... Mr. Speaker, here is the man that brought us Discovery Parks.

Every square foot of these Discovery Parks, if they're not empty, have

groups of sales organizations and an ordinary type of commercial rental

space. It's not being used for this great undertaking of attracting

worldwide industrial research to British Columbia. I don't want to

spend too much time on the minister; he's heard all of my speech on his

loudspeaker in his office — which he always does. But he was also in

favour of the Crow rate being repealed at the expense of the British

Columbia Railway. It was double-dealing by the federal government and

endangered the special rates that we had that gave Vancouver a

much-needed and much-deserved trade advantage in the shipment of goods

from back east out here. It was the trade-

[ Page 5234 ]

off against the tariffs in the Niagara Peninsula,

and this government didn't have the wisdom to protect its own people in

British Columbia.

Our view of the economy, be it public, private or mixed, is somewhat

different than that of the government opposite. They have over the past

three years tied the B.C. citizen in a chair, beat him about the head

and ears, and then stopped and said: "All right, I'm going to untie

your hands, because there's going to be a new spirit of cooperation, a

new spirit of partnership." It's asking all of the people of British

Columbia to suspend their judgment and disbelief and to forgive the

unforgivable. Our view of the economy is somewhat different than that

of this government: we believe there is a way in which we can recover

from economic recessions that are fuelled by an uncertain world economy

and by the rather unpredictable events in Ottawa. But it's not the way

that this government has gone in three years.

In Manitoba, which we use as an example not simply because there's a

New Democratic Party government there doing an excellent job, which it

is, but because it's very similar to our own province.... It has a

smaller population, but the economy is about the same. They have mining

and forestry resource development; they have transportation advantages

in Winnipeg and so on. So there's no excuse. You can't draw any

differences between Manitoba and British Columbia in terms of the

economic base of both provinces.

What's happened in Manitoba while the recession in British Columbia

has been fuelled by the restraint policies of this government? With

approximately the same unemployment rates in both provinces in 1981,

the B.C. rate now is almost double the rate in Manitoba. They sell to

the same international markets as we do. During the last 12 months of

1984, Manitoba's unemployment rate fell from 9.4 percent to 8.3

percent, while B.C.'s rate continued to climb from 13.8 percent to 14.8

percent during the same period. During 1984 Manitoba's economy grew by

3.9 percent, while B.C.'s economy showed no growth. In 1984 new capital

investment in Manitoba is predicted.... The figures are expected to be

15.6 percent in growth, compared to a decline of 8.5 percent in British

Columbia. During 1984 the number of jobs in Manitoba grew by 2.6

percent, while employment in B.C. showed virtually no growth.

Mr. Speaker, what are they doing differently than us? They are dealing on a

cooperative basis with the various groups in society that must produce the wealth:

industry, labour, the unorganized worker and capital. They have worked with

those groups, not against them. They have not governed by confrontation; they've

governed by consultation. They have managed to survive the recession much better

than we, and they've done so without confrontation, without pitting neighbour

against neighbour. They have managed to do that by maintaining high educational

standards that have far exceeded British Columbia's in the same period of

time. They have kept their young people at school and in the universities. Their

participation rate is much higher than ours.

That is a government that governs for the people, and not by poll.

It takes its advice from the various interested citizens' groups in

their province and doesn't take advice from Kinsella about how to

present an image to the electorate during election time. That's the

difference. That's why we moved our motion of non-confidence, and

that's why in the main debate we're opposed to supporting the motion in

support of the address from the throne. The government's approach

today, through this Speech from the Throne, is really an admission of

failure. It's a confession of guilt. They're condemned by it, and now

their pathetic attempt to reverse their course at this time is

transparent. The people of British Columbia can see it, and they are

marching ever more in larger groups, relentlessly toward the ballot box

in this province's next general election. They're going to throw this

government out of office, and they will do so because the pain and

cruelty that was foisted upon them, ostensibly because of the

recession, was done so simply for cheap political appearances and not

in the interests of the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased and

honoured to stand in my place today in the Legislature and support the

Speech from the Throne. But before I get into it, I want to comment for

a couple of moments on the last speaker's deliberations in the House. I

notice that he didn't really talk too much about NDP policies and he

certainly didn't offer any new alternatives to the government, which

has been typical of that group opposite. What he did do was make a

constituency speech, because whether or not his party forms the

government in the next election, he wants to ensure that he is indeed

elected.

I was also interested, Mr. Speaker, in what he had to say about

universities. I remember that when Microtel was purchased by B.C. Tel

and brought back to British Columbia, that member for Vancouver Centre

said it would do nothing for British Columbia; it would not create any

jobs.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: He was against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he was against it.

Today, Microtel Pacific Research Ltd. at Simon Fraser University is

indeed doing research in communications equipment, assisting our

manufacturing industries to compete in the international marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues in the Speech from the

Throne, but I want to relate my remarks mainly to renewal initiatives,

preserving our trading relationships and the sections dealing with

international trade and investment. We have just come through a period

of difficulty not only in British Columbia and Canada, but indeed in

the world. This government recognized that if we were going to be able

to provide the climate for future investment to keep our industries

competitive in the international marketplace, we had to take less from

them. Taking less from them meant that we would have to curtail

government spending. That is what is referred to as the restraint

program.

Mr. Speaker, our restraint program has preserved British Columbia

for the youth growing up today so that they will have opportunities

tomorrow. That's what restraint is all about. Had we continued with the

same magnitude of spending and increases as we had when we started the

restraint program, today we would be in the same position as Ottawa.

Before my ministry change, I had the opportunity for some negotiations

with the new government in Ottawa. What are they telling Canadians?

"Canadians, we're broke." They don't have the money that they should to

plough back into programs, because every year $20 billion of our tax

money goes to pay off the national debt. We would have been in the same

situation in British Columbia had we not gone on the restraint program.

[ Page 5235 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's about one-third of the total budget.

We are able to come out with a throne speech that talks about the

initiatives that will indeed be in the budget, because we went on a

restraint program.

I have listened to the members opposite talk about jobs, and I don't

think they really understand the Canadian economy. Any jobs that we're

going to create in Canada will have to come from exports. Canada is a

major trading nation and international trade is crucial to Canadian

income and employment. If you're going to create new jobs and more

income, it's going to have to come from international trade. Growth in

our exports means more economic activity in Canada and more jobs for

Canadians.

Three basic conditions of success for us in the world economy are

competitiveness, access to foreign markets and effective export

marketing. Each of these conditions is necessary and they are related.

Effective marketing requires a competitive product and secure access.

Our budget, I have a feeling, will address the necessity of keeping our

industries competitive in the international marketplace. Our

transportation systems and the new talks on a general agreement on

tariff and trade will indeed ensure that we have access to foreign

markets. Of course, this new ministry has the responsibility of

ensuring that we have effective export marketing,

Mr. Speaker, of the seven countries that participate in the annual economic

summit meetings, Canada is the second most dependent nation on exports: 28 percent

of our gross domestic product. Canada is exceeded only by the Republic of Germany

at 32 percent. In contrast, our two main trading partners, the U.S.A. and Japan,

depend considerably less on exports. We must remember that Canada, with a relatively

small population, cannot consume the goods and services that we produce. Therefore

we must trade to survive. We must trade if we're going to have economic

activity, and we must trade if we're going to have new jobs. It's great

to talk about people going out and spending more money and buying more from

the department stores. Yes, that will create maybe a few more jobs in the immediate

future. But in the long run, the lasting jobs must come from the international

marketplace.

I don't think that our opposition in this House realize this or want

to come to grips with those facts. Exports are vital to Canadian jobs.

Canada's share of world merchandise exports was 4.5 percent in 1970.

Unfortunately, it went down to 4 percent in 1983. Had we achieved a 4.5

percent share in 1983, an increase of 0.5 percent, we would have

employed an additional 160,000 Canadians in Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's fancy arithmetic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member opposite says it's fancy

arithmetic. I don't suppose that he wants to believe that. If he

doesn't want to believe it, maybe he can run it through his computer

and come up with another figure. But one thing he must remember....

Maybe the 160,000 is not totally accurate. I'll agree with that,

because we're running a series of scenes through a computer. But I

don't think the member opposite will disagree that indeed the new jobs

will have to come from additional exports.

The Economic Council of Canada projects that in 1990 our share of

world exports will be 3.8 percent. The same forecast by the Economic

Council of Canada has unemployment at 9.8 percent. An increase by 1990

of our share of world market exports back to the 4.5 percent that we

had could lower unemployment to 7.3 percent from the 9.8 percent

predicted by the Economic Council of Canada. That is where the new jobs

are going to have to come from. Between now and 1990, every $1 billion

increase of merchandise exports should generate approximately 16,000

new jobs.

The member is right. While no one can accurately predict the job

impact of an increased share of world market, there is no doubt that it

would be significant and very positive.

Mr. Speaker, as we look to future opportunities for growth in our

exports, we must focus on both large and dynamic markets. The Wharton

Economic Outlook of December 1984 forecasts that the world gross

domestic product will grow at 3 percent per year between 1985 and 1989.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about B.C. in just a moment.

The Pacific Rim developing countries are expected to have the

highest growth rates, at 5.6 percent; next is Japan, at 3.8 percent,

followed by the total for all developing countries, at 3.7 percent. The

U.S.A. is forecast to exceed world growth by a small margin, while the

European community is expected to lag behind. The Pacific Rim is

Canada's fastest growing market, and the forecast suggests that this

may continue to be the case for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that this has been British

Columbia's position for a number of years. The member says that British

Columbia may not grow. Well, I happen to have a lot more faith in what

is going to happen in British Columbia than does the member opposite.

Not only did British Columbia talk about the future of the Pacific Rim,

but we have built that infrastructure so that we will be able to take

the opportunities when they come. We have built them not only on behalf

of British Columbia but on behalf of all of Canada. Practically

everything we have done in building that infrastructure has been

opposed by the opposition, the NDP, who are talking about creating jobs.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we built Duke Point to serve

the industry on Vancouver Island so they would have decent port

facilities to take advantage of that growing trade with the Pacific

Rim, the NDP were against it. They talked about it for three years, but

nothing happened at Duke Point until this little government came to

power and made some positive decisions.

The same is true of Roberts Bank. Yes, it was this government that

encouraged the expansion of Roberts Bank. It was this government that

sat down with the then Minister of Transportation and made the deal,

and said to the lawyers: "You can allow the expansion to go on. You can

draw up a legal agreement. You don't have to wade through the Strait of

Georgia case and all that paraphernalia." It was this government that

saw the future and the need for the expansion of Roberts Bank to serve

the dynamic growth that will take place in the Pacific Rim.

It was this government that supported the changes in the harbours

board act, so that the port of Vancouver could have more autonomy over

its own decisions, and not be controlled by a bunch of bureaucrats

3,000 miles away in Ottawa. This government helped that to take place.

I'll tell you, decisions are now being made.

[ Page 5236 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Your audience is leaving.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You just listen. Never mind about the

audience. If I can get through to you, I'll figure I've made my case.

When you were the minister of everything in this province, nothing was

happening — a lot of talk.

MR. WILLIAMS: Everyone was working.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, most of them for the government. You

didn't have a job because you were paid $80,000 to lie in the

background. Well, nobody's bought me off yet, so I'll continue to speak.

One little item in Vancouver harbour, called Fibreco, was put

together with the assistance of this government. It's been the saviour

of those little sawmills in this province, because they were able to

export their chips into the international marketplace.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you what happened. You

should know what happened. Just as soon as we built Fibreco, there were

more chips produced, and it wasn't left on the forest floor. You know

that as well as I do. I'll go on, Mr. Speaker.

[3:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's been a great success. If that

member had been Minister of Forests, it would never have been built.

All he did was fill up a huge bureaucracy to control the price of

chips. Sure, that old NDP scheme: put a whole bunch of people....

Control the marketing and control the price. Because of Fibreco we set

chips at the world price and let them be competitive in the world.

That's what happened; not any NDP bureaucracy to control the price.

It's all part of the infrastructure to serve the future, to serve

that growing market in the Pacific Rim. What else? Talked about since

1914: a new port of Prince Rupert. Now it's a reality: a new port for

the export of coal; a new port for the export of bulk commodities;

Fairview Terminals is busier than ever; and a new grain terminal. They

were all helped, fostered and promoted by this government, so that

British Columbia and Canada would be in a position to take advantage of

those growing markets in the Pacific Rim.

That whole northern transportation corridor will assist Canada to

export her goods and services. Today the Canadian Pacific Railway is

spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading its line, so that it

will be prepared to take advantage of those additional exports. It's

happening. The Canadian National Railway is employing thousands and

thousands....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, from British Columbia and from the

rest of Canada. Our job and our responsibility is as the gateway to the

Pacific; it's not to be parochial. We're good Canadians. We'll provide

the exports. We'll provide the transportation system, I should say. And

we'll use the employment here. Yes, we'll take the employment here as a

result of it. But the NDP were against that as well.

I don't hear much talk lately about the British Columbia Railway.

But the British Columbia Railway today is a well run, profitable

railway, in place to take advantage of and to serve those additional

exports. Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that's only a small part of the

infrastructure which has been put in place to serve British Columbia

and to serve Canada.

What about the Annacis Island bridge? When those fellows opposite

talk about jobs.... They were against that. "Oh, don't build the

Annacis Island bridge. Who needs the Annacis Island bridge? Put your

televisions on your back and take them on the bus with you. You don't

need an infrastructure to serve the transportation needs of the

commercial area in the lower mainland." You'd see everybody — a team,

thousands of people — with little televisions on their backs, all the

goods and services, jumping on the bus. They said: "You don't need a

transportation system to serve commerce in the lower mainland." I don't

know what they thought we were going to do. That's their idea of

providing jobs and getting the economy....

What about the Coquihalla Highway, to serve our growing tourist

industry and to serve the interior of the province? They were against

it, yet they have the audacity to stand up in this Legislature and talk

about jobs. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, what about jobs?

I know things aren't as good as they could be. But there are 23,000

more people employed in February 1985 than there were in February 1980,

and there are 21,000 more employed in February 1985 than there were in

February 1983. I want to tell you, recovery is happening, and when that

great budget comes down, it'll take off like a shot out of a cannon. I

want to tell you, just in the last few weeks the proposals are coming

in faster than we can handle them.

There's confidence in Canada today. We've got a new government in

Ottawa now, not one that was in bed with the NDP and further left than

they were, probably. No, we've got a good government in Canada today, a

government that will provide opportunities for Canadians and return

that entrepreneurial spirit so that Canadians will be able to fulfill

all that pent-up energy and enthusiasm that they've had, not be

depressed by socialist philosophies.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much money are they going to give for the pipeline?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not through yet, Mr. Speaker,

talking about how we have prepared. We haven't just talked about doing

things. We have built the infrastructure so that British Columbians

will be able to have the opportunity to work and to take advantage of

those opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean the railway to Tumbler Ridge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the man who talks about a railway

to Tumbler Ridge. Well, I want to tell you, I don't know whether he was

on the negotiating team for the NDP back in 1972 to 1975 but, you know,

those guys over there, they make me laugh. Gary Lauk announced that

northeast coal would go ahead about four days before the election in

1975. If you were on the negotiating team, you wanted to buy out the

companies and develop northeast coal as a government project. That's

what you wanted to do. Well, I want to

[ Page

5237 ]

tell you, northeast coal went ahead and is

employing thousands of people today. It is a very good project and is

helping Canada with the balance of trade.

Oh, yes, you laugh, my friend. You must have been on the negotiating

team that tried to buy out all the companies and wanted to go ahead and

do it yourselves, you thought it was such a good idea. They wanted to

do it themselves, and now they make fun of it. They said it would never

go ahead. They actually not only wanted to build the infrastructure;

they wanted to buy out the companies that built the mines. So it's

pretty shallow when you start talking about northeast coal.

I know the story. I won't give you all the details in the House, but

I know the story — how you guys tried to buy out the mines up there and

then talk about.... You couldn't put it together. You didn't have the

ability to do it. It took this government to bring it into reality.

That's what happened, I want to tell you.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is prepared for the future. Ski areas

now abound. Destination ski areas abound in British Columbia because of

the policies of this government in putting those ski areas together. We

set out to make Canada the Austria of North America. We're just about

there. Some of the finest skiing areas you'll find anywhere in the

world, assisted with a little bit of infrastructure and a little bit of

seed money by this government.... The private sector went ahead and

developed them. It's bringing tourists here in the wintertime. Oh, yes,

it's bringing tourists here in the wintertime, helping to make British

Columbia a 12-month-a-year tourist destination area.

Canada Place. Where did the idea for Canada Place start? Where did

it start? It started with this government. It started with the member

for Vancouver–Little Mountain; that's where Canada Place started.

Another idea from this government looking to the future, preparing for

the future; that's where it started. And who laughed at it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your light's on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish your light would come on. Maybe we'd see a little bit of brightness around here from that side of the House.

Anyway, Canada Harbour Place, built by the federal government as a

trade and convention centre, contains the first hotel investment in

North America by Tokyu Corp., the fourth largest company in Japan. They

have one in Hawaii, but their first investment on mainland North

America is in British Columbia. Why? Because they've got faith in the

future of British Columbia. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that

idea of the trade and convention centre, to make Vancouver harbour

beautiful, to compete with the other three most beautiful cities in the

world, had to come from this government.

Expo 86 will bring the world to our doorstep. We've heard the opposition

criticize Expo 86. They're not really sure whether they want to be against

it or for it. They're sort of talking around the edges. But I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, Expo 86 wouldn't be happening in Vancouver if it weren't

for the government of the province of British Columbia. I want to tell you that

it's all very easy for those socialists over there to criticize it, because

it wasn't their idea, and to try to tear it down. I'll tell you what

will happen. We will have some intelligent press people come here one day from

Toronto or somewhere else, and they'll tell the rest of the world what is

happening at Expo 86. Then some of the local boys will have to smarten up. They

will be embarrassed when somebody from outside comes in here and says Expo 86

is a good deal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not attacking the press; I'm making a statement, my friend.

The B.C. Pavilion being built as part of Expo will remain, as will

Canada Place, a heritage for all British Columbians. Then there's ALRT.

It's all part of the infrastructure that this government is putting in

to serve the future. Lonsdale Quay is another great development started

by this government to help make that lower mainland area, Canada's

gateway to the Pacific, a much better place. These things that I

mention are not idle talk. They're there for everybody to see: a new

harbour development at Duke Point, expansion at Roberts Bank, Vancouver

harbour and Fibreco, the new port at Prince Rupert, the northern

transportation corridor, upgrading of the Canadian Pacific Railway,

upgrading of the British Columbia Railway, upgrading of the CNR, the

Annacis bridge, the Coquihalla Highway, industrial parks throughout

British Columbia, ski areas, the Asia Pacific Foundation, Canada Place,

Expo 86, the B.C. Pavilion, ALRT. All of those have been built with the

idea in mind of serving the youth of today when they grow up and make

British Columbia fulfill its destiny as Canada's gateway to the

Pacific. That's not idle talk. That's providing jobs and that's

building for the future.

I want to tell you that when the world economy takes off, there will

be one province that's ready to go, and there will be one province that

will have the incentives for their industry. Why? Because we had the

foresight to bring in restraint. We will be the envy of other provinces

in Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the Address in Reply, the Chair recognizes the member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you said the member from Austria of the north, but Atlin will do okay.

That was a hard act to follow. I was sure that while I was sitting

listening I heard some harps in the background. A bright light came

down over on that side.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your being appointed for

another term, and the members who have been assigned to cabinet

ministers.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think this is going to be a little different than throne speech

debates that have been heard around this Legislature for a number of

years, because I'm not going to be attacking any of the three political

parties in this House. Mr. Speaker, I get a little fed up at times

sitting in here and listening to the arguments going back and forth and

people not really caring, not really listening to what's going on. I

think that all of us at one time or another have an idea to present. If

that idea is a little different from somebody else's, it seems that we

just don't want to accept it, because we've labelled one another with

one political stripe or another.

[4:00]

I think all we have to do is walk out of the Disneyland that this building is incorporated in, and go out and talk to people.

I think people are really concerned about what's going on. I

[ Page 5238 ]

think we've lost touch with reality. Look at the

customs in this place: what is it — two-and-a-half sword lengths

between us? We don't talk about flowers between us or bookcases. We

talk about two-and-a-half sword lengths between one political party and

another. I've been here in the comer for the last six years, and I can

say that the members that I've talked to — and at times they've sat

less than two-and-a-half sword lengths from me.... We've been able to

discuss ideas, to talk, without the impasse of two-and-a-half sword

lengths between us.

Then I hear also a new phrase that the media — all you have to do is

look up, and you won't see one of them around — talk about:

cooperation. I'm going to get into the media a little later in my

presentation, because that's a sore point with me. The media likes to

talk about televising the Legislature. I think that would be a great

idea, but I think it would be great to televise the press gallery at

times to see what goes on there.

We hear about cooperation. In the six years that I've spent in this

House, Mr. Speaker, I've walked over to cabinet ministers; I don't

think there's a cabinet minister across the floor that I can't go to

and talk to and discuss issues with. I find that that is what

cooperation is all about, not this new phrase — this new catchword that

the media likes to throw around. It would be nice at times if we could

spend a little bit more time talking between cabinet ministers and

backbenchers, and explaining ideas. There's a lot that we have to

offer, and by the same token there's a lot that you have to offer too.

I think if we just spent some time talking and discussing, without the

circus and having to perform in front of each other.... Well, we see

one who has just come in.

In cooperation, I had an interesting experience last week. The

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) asked me to go

and discuss some matters with some planners from Expo. I said sure. It

was upstairs, and there were two planners from Expo. They wanted to

hear some ideas from the north for the B.C. pavilion. We spent about a

half-hour talking; there wasn't anything political about it. We were

talking about some of the legends of the north, some of the geography

of the north that might be incorporated into the B.C. pavilion. They

asked about having the Nishga band come down to perform at Expo.

Do the media report any of this? To them it's not of any importance.

What they want is sensationalism. They want somebody from one side of

the floor to call somebody else a name, to go out and throw your hands

up and say, "I'll meet you out in the hallway," and pretend this little

fight's going on. They really don't care. You see them sitting up there

when there is question period. You have some of the media sitting up

there knitting. Some of the media sit up in the press gallery and knit

with question period going on, and they're supposed to be the ones that

explain to the general public what's going on in here. How are they

going to be able to explain what's going on when they're knitting?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I wouldn't. Not big Jim — Big Jim's a little bigger than I am.

I think any of us who have sat around here long enough know the mainland media.

It's a little after 4 p.m. right now, so it must be happy hour over at the

Empress or wherever, and they've scampered over there to see what they can

dig up or drink up or whatever the case is. I'm getting to the point where

I don't even want to discuss anything with these people down here, these

mainland media, because they never report anything factual half the time. They

make up their own stories. If I'm going to report something, I'll go

to the media in my own riding, the media up north, who at least give you the

opportunity to discuss something with them — not like this group down here.

On to the Legislature after I've had my little shot at the media,

which I will continue to do until some of the people in the media here

— these overpriced journalists — start reporting the truth.

There are two-and-a-half million people, more or less, in this

province of British Columbia, and representing two-and-a-half million

people are 57 of us. Mr. Speaker, you stand a better chance winning a

lottery than being elected to the Legislature. So we represent less

than one-half of one percent of the people of British Columbia in this

House. It's getting larger. Twelve new seats are coming up — something

that I don't particularly want to see, but by the same token, I've

heard in the last couple of weeks about the constituency of Atlin.

To me, Mr. Speaker, at times people matter more. It doesn't matter

what your customs are, what your cultures are, or what your political

stripes are. I think people matter more, and often the media dictate to

political parties what issues we should discuss and what issues we

shouldn't. I have nothing against the cities. I was born in the city

and got out of it quick enough, but I've heard in the last couple of

weeks comments regarding the constituency of Atlin — one of the oldest

constituencies in the province of British Columbia. Historically, at

one time, it used to have two members. Before there was a community of

Prince George, it used to go down almost into the Cariboo.

I remember looking at an election, I think it was.... I should have

listened to the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the other

day when he was going through it, but he only started in about 1933 and

worked up to 1985. I think this was in 1893, or something. The

constituency of Atlin had two members; I think there were six people

running for the two positions. It was a February election and there

were only 30 votes cast in the entire constituency — which must have

been one heck of a race, from one to six, particularly when there were

no roads up there.

I wish the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) were

in the House, because he often likes to discuss how the constituency of

Atlin should be eliminated because it's small. But that type of

thinking would have led us as a country to only stretch, maybe, to the

Great Lakes. If we were just worried about population and where the

media were, we would never have stretched out. The media would have had

this country going from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Great Lakes.

They wouldn't even have reported what was going on in the west, let

alone the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: Upper Canada.

MR. PASSARELL: That's it.

For years that member has, prior to the Constitution debates, spoken

about how the west was not truly represented and the east had this

domination. I hear that same type of stuff; everything is east and

west. They forget that there is the north. Everything does not exist

along the 49th parallel. At times we forget that there's a strident

lifestyle north of 60. Tom Berger one time said: "How we treat the

north will tell us what type of country we will have."

[ Page

5239 ]

This weekend that member for North Vancouver–Seymour was speaking on

one of the open-line shows, "For the Record" — I don't know how they

ever came up with that name. He spoke on taxes, roads, and how the

north really shouldn't be complaining too often about the road

conditions they have, because people don't pay as many taxes as they do

in the cities. He said we shouldn't expect this, which I find totally

alienating to what this province and this country are all about. There

are people who live up north who are good Canadian citizens and good

taxpayers, and they shouldn't be delegated to a second-class road

system because the member for North Vancouver–Seymour with all his

education said on television that northerners shouldn't expect to have

the same types of roads as the south.

I was going to take a shot this time — I know the galleries are

full, the back benches are full — at my colleague the new member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) regarding his comments about Atlin. I

think we fail to realize that from Prince George over to Prince Rupert,

and north to Atlin and east over to Fort Nelson, the residents who live

in that area — by choice — through their jobs, their taxes, and the

items that they produce keep the south with their majority of people in

a lifestyle that would be worse off if there were no north. Those

people have their aspirations, their wants, their hopes and their needs

planted in the far north. Certainly I would hope that this Legislature

would never come to the point, whether it's an NDP member representing

Atlin, or a Social Credit member or a United member, that we would

replace the voice, the concerns or the aspirations of the far north

because they don't have as many people as the south.

Since I'm taking shots, I might as well take a shot at the NDP MP

for the area, Mr. Fulton, when he talks about our work habits and what

we do. For years that MP, who represents the same political party that

I do, has not been seen in many communities. So when I travel and

people come up to me.... A lot of times residents don't know the

difference between an MP and an MLA. If they have a problem they come

to their elected official, and so often I'm doing — as I think all

members in this House do — work for our federal members. At times I get

very upset that I'm representing over 20 percent of this province with

less than 1 percent, let's say, of the public and that I'm doing jobs

for a federal MP who is making a lot more money than I am and receiving

a lot more benefits than I do — and then I hear the great media here in

the mainland who criticize me for some travelling allowance, when I

might receive $824 a year more to travel 20 percent of this province.

MR. R. FRASER: Is there more?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, there's more. You just settle down there.

I could go on further about the north and what we produce, how we

feel, and how we often feel alienated from this Legislature — and from

the mainland, and from Ottawa — because it seems that our concerns and

our wants and aspirations are not always important to the people down

here. They fail to realize that when you are attacking residents who

live in the far north, you're attacking good Canadian tax-paying

citizens.

I think the second sentence of the throne speech is the most important one. I'd like to read it into the record.

"I trust and pray that the people of our province and

their needs will remain in the forefront of your thoughts and

deliberations, and that all members of this assembly will strive during

their service to work for the common well-being of all British

Columbians and to ensure that their hopes, dreams and aspirations are

realized to the fullest extent possible."

How can anybody in this Legislature attack or criticize a statement

like that? I think that's why we're elected. It's to use that simple

statement presented two weeks ago as what we should be moving for, as

the 1 percent solution that this Legislature represents. What caring,

thinking human being can criticize a statement of that nature? I guess

if we are allowed to forget about our political stripes and about the

two-and-a-half sword lengths, and we sat as in many bodies around a

round table.... We do so in committee: we sit next to Social Credit

members, or whatever, and discuss issues. If we came to something like

this it would be very difficult for any of us to vote against it,

figuratively. How can you vote against hopes or aspirations of 99.9

percent of the people of this province? If you're voting in favour of

this simple statement, then you're making a commitment to the people of

this province that you're going to try to achieve these goals.

People are hurting, and have been hurting for the last few years.

Economic renewal? I don't think you'll find any caring, thinking human

being who is opposed to economic renewal. All of us want to see renewal

in the economic area, because we know that that's the future of this

province. It's in our minerals, our fish, our natural resources, the

trees. But an interesting, and I think very important, word was used in

that statement on economic renewal: the word "promise." I think if this

government.... They have more seats than the opposition does and

they'll be able to pass this, if the NDP votes against it and the

government votes in favour of it. You're making a commitment, a promise

that you are going to strive to have economic renewal happen in this

province very quickly. I think it's difficult for any individual on the

floor of this House to attack the creation of real and permanent jobs.

You stated this as your number one priority. You've made a promise, and

you have the opportunity to fulfill that promise to the people of this

province. I guess if you get down to the very short strokes, Mr.

Speaker, if you succeed with this promise of creating real and

permanent jobs, you will be re-elected. If you fail, then the opposite:

you probably will not be re-elected. But that is a promise that you

have made. And if you fulfill that promise, then you pick up the

marbles at the end of the road.

[4:15]

I'm going to be trying to do something in this session of the House

for the next four months, or five months, because I represent an area

that Statistics Canada doesn't even put out figures for when it comes

to unemployment, or people on assistance; we're incorporated with other

areas of this province. I'm going to be doing something different this

time around, Mr. Speaker. When I see something that the government

presents that's good, that's going to benefit the constituents of

Atlin, then I will be supporting you on that. If it happens in the next

four or five months that you present things that hurt people in the

Atlin constituency, then it is my duty to attack you on it. I'm going

to make that commitment to the Legislature here. I think we have to

forget about the labels, the two-and-a-half sword lengths between us,

and start to work for the people who are putting faith in us.

All of us will be judged in the next 12 months on what we do in this Legislature, and how we help the 2.4 million people

[ Page 5240 ]

in this province to regain some kind of dignity, to

have their hopes and aspirations brought back. There's no quick-fix

solution. I don't think any political party has the medicine to say:

"Here, take two of these and you'll wake up in the morning and

everything'll be rosy." But I think it's about time we started looking

at alternatives and some other opportunities. Politics got us onto the

floor of this House, and politics can have us removed from the floor of

this House just as quickly.

In conclusion I'd like to quote from Mahatma Gandhi, who once said

to the political leaders of England: "Man cannot change his temperament

all at once. It is against the laws of nature to suppose that these

gentlemen will suddenly become different."

I think we owe it to ourselves — you can forget about the media — to

use what Mahatma Gandhi has said and maybe change a little bit: to talk

a little bit, to plan a little bit and help out those people who have

elected us to represent them in this Legislature.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to speak in support of the

throne speech, because I think it does point out — in the way that

throne speeches do in very general terms — what we need to do and where

we need to go in order to restore the economy in this province.

As I indicated in my comments speaking against the amendment, there

were just too many negatives that were injected into that. The

opposition criticized the throne speech for not dealing with the

unemployment situation and for not dwelling on the stopgap measures of

government creating jobs. It does dwell on what needs to be done to

create jobs in the long term.

Certainly that is what I and my colleagues support. How do you

stimulate the recovery in the province in order to create the jobs? The

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has just expressed some very positive

thoughts — it's a hard act to follow — about getting involved with the

various criticisms that go back and forth.

Let me comment briefly about my own constituents, who were probably

hurt worse than almost any region in the province. Part of it was that

they were caught up in the euphoria that all of us were caught up in —

government and the private sector — that tomorrow was going to be

better, the prices were going to go up tomorrow, the wages were going

to go up tomorrow and everything was going to go up tomorrow. So

borrowing was the way to go: the more you developed, the more money you

would make. It didn't matter how much it cost to borrow. Of course it

went on as though there would be no end.

There were warning signs that it was going to come to a day of

reckoning, and that day of reckoning came, and, of course, it came very

abruptly. My constituents, I believe, do recognize that there is a

downturn in the forest industry, the oil and gas industry and the

agricultural industry. They got hurt very badly. They had overbuilt in

the area in expectation of the Site C Dam going ahead, the Alaska

Highway gas pipeline going ahead and the oil and gas industry to keep

booming. Everything was looking good, and there was a certain amount of

over-optimism and overbuilding.

So of course when things turned around, they got hurt, probably

worse than a lot of other areas. But I can tell you this: they did

support the spending restraint in the public sector. They didn't

believe that the public sector should increase in numbers and salaries

while the rest of the people in the area were subject to the realities

of the marketplace. In other words, if you couldn't sell the goods, you

couldn't keep the jobs in place. They did not want to pay higher taxes

in order to have one special-interest group or one segment of society

increasing their benefits while they had to pay from a decreasing

revenue supply.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many of the people up there are

up there because they are basically entrepreneurs. They know that they

face some difficult conditions. They face some risks and so they will

be in the forefront in leading the program for recovery. That's their

very nature. I know friends of mine who lost a lot of money, some of it

on paper, if you like. We have people who have lost most of what they

have worked for for 10 or 15 years, and then they say: "Well, I didn't

have that much when I started. The country's been good to me, and so

I'll start again."

So these people are there. They are working on it now. I can give

you a couple of good examples, not just of the employers but also some

of the employees. I know Canfor's sawmills in my constituency were

losing something like $150,000 a month at their mill when the lumber

industry was really down. They got their employees together — and it

was a unionized operation — and said: "Look, we'll try to hang in there

in hopes that it will turn around. But we need all the support we can

get from you. We need productivity, we need your cooperation." And

those members said: "Fine, you've got it. You hang in there, and we'll

hang in there with you." And they hung in there for six months. I know

their losses went almost to a million dollars before it turned around.

When it turned around, they were in place. Their workers have kept

working, and tried to get that company back on its feet. Somehow or

other those people seem to think that if the company survives, then

their jobs survive. They don't seem to believe that the company is an

enemy. Of course, what a lot more people have to recognize is that the

employers, the big corporations, the small businessmen — these people

who are trying desperately to survive — are not the opponents, the

protagonists; they are necessary friends.

I'll give you another example. While all this has been going on, in

Fort Nelson Tackama Forest Products has expanded its mill operation and

is starting a plywood plant. Why? Because they believe in the future,

and that it is going to benefit them. So they're taking advantage of

the lower construction costs, of the desire for people to work, and

they're using that to build up, to keep people employed. There are

others that have gone under.

Just last weekend when I was home I met a fellow who has bought up a

certain amount of land there and is going to increase and put in a

fairly large cattle ranch operation. That's the kind of optimism that

the people in those areas have. I think it's that kind of optimism that

is going to build the recovery, not the negative criticism that we hear

so much about. We're hearing now continued negative aspects about Expo

going to be a failure, and so on. I guess what I'd like to do is just

compare briefly some of the things that have happened in the very

recent past. The opposition seems to look for all of the possible

negative aspects to anything, and then develop that and expand it to

the utmost. I really have to wonder why. There seems to be almost a

concerted effort to undermine every development project that is going

on in the province; and those are development projects that have kept

some jobs going and will keep jobs going in the future.

Shortly after I became minister we found out that there was a fairly desperate financial situation at Whistler. We

[ Page 5241 ]

analyzed it as carefully as we could; we took a look at it and felt that the

potential and the prospects at Whistler were great. I had a number of people

who said: "Whistler has got the potential to keep going, to do great things

in the future, but it's going to need something to prevent it from going

under, for a few million dollars that was owed to the bank." So we decided

to take that step: to salvage, if you like, the situation at Whistler. I can

well remember the flak that I got about how wrong we were: let it die, it's

not worth saving, that sort of thing. Yet in a very short time — remember, this

is during the difficult times that we've been going through in the last

couple of years — the golf course was finished, the occupancy rates doubled and

tripled in the summertime. It has kept many of those businesses alive. We talk

about creating new jobs, but what about the jobs that were saved there, with

all the people who are working in the service industry at Whistler? I know there

was just an

article in the January edition of B.C. Business that extolled the

benefits of what has been done at Whistler and what's happening.

The convention centre will be finished soon. I can tell you that

they have already booked thousands and thousands of people who are

going to come there for conventions. That means room revenue to the

province. It means jobs for the people. That convention centre has

employed about 130 people during the construction phase; it will employ

at least 50 people full-time. Here was another example of where had we

listened to the critics, the negative thinkers, we wouldn't have those

jobs in place; we would have a lot of people who would have gotten

hurt. Yet because the positive thinkers prevailed, it is a success

story and will continue to go on and be a success story.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can remember when the B.C. Place Stadium was being built: people

were saying — and among them the opposition member — that it would

never work; it shouldn't be built; we should drop it; we should let it

go. Yet it has been built, and it's a success story in Canada and in

North America, if you like.

Northeast coal. My colleague from South Peace River is very

knowledgeable about that. But if the opposition had had their way....

They said: "Shut it down. Don't do it." Under that emotional term

"megaproject".... If it's a large project, we shouldn't do it because

it's a megaproject. But what is not stated often enough is that by

providing the incentive, by providing the government assistance in the

infrastructure, that brought a great deal of investment into the

province. Remember, what the government put in was a pittance compared

to what the private sector brought in. They created a lot of the jobs.

[4:30]

We had the ALRT, and some members opposite are still trying to stop

that, still trying to destroy it; yet it's soon going to be operating.

What is not mentioned on many occasions is that if it wasn't for the

ALRT, there would certainly have to be a great deal of money spent on

more freeways that are going to bring traffic into the city. So it's

not just the direct costs and benefits that you're dealing with; it's

many of the indirect benefits that you have. This government has tried

to encourage foreign investment in this province, yet we have people in

the opposition who apparently do not want foreign investment. It's evil

somehow or other. Yet that foreign investment builds buildings and what

have you.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about

all the things that have been done wrong and all the pessimism that

apparently exists. Yet in Vancouver the people in the private sector

don't seem to be buying that: they are building apartments, hotels and

all of those things in the constituency despite that member's

pessimism. Obviously those people must believe there is a future.

MR. LAUK: In spite of your government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would say that this government has tried

to encourage that investment. This government has tried to encourage

people and say to them: "Yes, there is a positive future ahead, and

that's why those people are building." It's not in spite of this

government but because of it that they....

MR. LAUK: Nonsense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'll tell you, I don't think that too

many of them who are building those buildings are socialists. I know

the oil industry are not socialists either, and if they thought for one

minute that there might be a socialist government in this province,

they would pack up their bags and go away, as they were driven out once

before. The opposition members have gone out of their way to attack,

criticize and, if they can, stop the marketing efforts of this

government by attacking the trips that ministers make overseas, where a

few thousand dollars are spent. The opposition has basically attacked

every one of those trips with snide remarks and various types of

comments. Yet those trips have resulted in sales. This government has

increased lumber sales, agricultural product sales and....

MR. LAUK: Nonsense.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can say "nonsense" if you like, but

there are contracts that have come in because of those trips. Certainly

they would not have come in had those people not have gone out.

We have a great many critics. Let me use Expo as a classic example:

here we have recognition in eastern Canada, in the United States and in

many parts of the world. Obviously there has to be recognition when

that many countries are coming here to Expo to put up their booths and

to spend money to do it. So there is recognition that Expo is a

world-class fair. Other people have said that it's well organized, and

you would think that because it's in British Columbia and it's never

going to happen again in this century, and because we have an

opportunity here to attract the world and to sell our best side to the

world, sooner or later even the opposition members would drop their

partisan position, support Expo and say, "Hey, Expo is a great thing;

we're pulling for it; we're going to do everything to try to make it

work," instead of constantly hitting the media with: "It's going to go

broke, it's going to go under, it's going to do this, and it's going to

do that."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You people do that constantly. You do it in

your speeches; you do it outside the House. You're constantly attacking

the Expo situation. I guess about the only job creation you do is the

extra work that the

[ Page 5242 ]

promoters have to do to say: "No, it's not going to

be that. Hot dogs aren't going to be selling for $8." Someone makes

that kind of statement, and then they attack this sort of thing. I

would think that most of the people in this province would get behind

it and say: "Let's put our best foot forward. Let's put our best face

forward. That is a great thing, and we have a great province here to

sell, and let's sell it in the best possible way." That will bring a

great deal of revenue into this province. With a little bit of positive

support all around, instead of hoping that something will go wrong and

pointing that out.... Perhaps if everyone got behind it, we could

attract more people and assure its success. It can be a success. It

will be a success despite the critics, because what did the critics

ever build?

I reiterate that this business of disparagement sometimes becomes a habit.

MR. LAUK: You're constantly whining.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Maybe I'm whining; maybe I'm really

concerned that never will you people ever get on a bandwagon that

boosts this province. You're so intent on attacking this government

that you will not get on anything that is good for this province and

support it. Just once I would like to hear you do that.

MR. LAUK: We think that by attacking you we're boosting the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe you had your turn to give your

speech, didn't you? It's strange that the very things that have brought

the most to his own constituency.... That second member is still

against them and still trying his best to undermine them in whatever

way he can.

MR. LAUK: That's not true.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it's certainly apparent, if it's not true.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look very optimistically ahead to the

budget to give some more specific direction of what the throne speech

has indicated, and to support it. Certainly the throne speech did not

talk about unemployment and government measures to create short-term

jobs, but it did point in the direction that this province can and will

go, and the direction that I think the people of this province will

make it go despite any negative and pessimistic outlook. The positive

thinkers have built this province and the positive thinkers will

prevail in the long run.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity

I've had to speak in this particular debate and I appreciate the

opportunity to do so. Before I get into the body of my delivery, I

would like to comment on some of the remarks.

I've listened very carefully over the last week or so to the remarks

of the members opposite, generally from the government. For example,

yesterday we were subjected to speech No. 4 from the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We've heard

the same speech in here for 12 years, and that's all right; many of us

repeat our remarks. But once again that member, as do many members on

that side of the House, was refighting the 1975 election. They blame

all the ills of the world on the fact that the New Democratic Party was

the government in this province between 1972 and 1975, and the best

government that this province has ever seen. We will be back in office

again, I can tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm definitely not going to support the Speech from the

Throne. I've listened to 13 — I think — Speeches from the Throne since

I was elected to this House in 1972, and this is by far the vaguest,

the thinnest I've ever heard in this Legislature. There's very little

meat in this speech, and I've gone through it very carefully.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of gravy, though.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A lot of gravy for a few, but perhaps we'll get into that in a few minutes.

I want to say at the outset that while I'm going to discuss the

economy as the result of mismanagement by that government sitting

across the floor, I'm going to try to be a bit more positive in terms

of job creation and hopefully improving the economy of this province.

It has been said in this House on a number of occasions that at the

present time 16.4 percent of the people in this province are unemployed

and seeking work. That translates into 228,000 people currently on UIC,

and about 200,000 on welfare, as a direct result of the policies of the

government opposite. You will notice that they've stopped using the

word "restraint," and there's a reason for that. They're embarrassed.

None of the people on this side of the House was....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member asks what I suggest, and hopefully I'm going to get into that in a few moments.

These are shameful figures — the highest number of people on UIC and

welfare in this province since the Great Depression. In numbers we

certainly have more people on UIC and welfare than were ever in this

situation from 1932 to 1939.

When our government left office in December 1975, the province's

debt was some $4.3 billion. That included all debts of Crown

corporations, which a former Premier of this House, W.A.C. Bennett,

used to refer to as contingent liabilities; they didn't call them debts

at all. The figure in January 1976 was $4.3 billion — the total debt of

this province. Our last budget as a government in 1975 was a balanced

budget, despite what was said on that side of the House in a speech the

other day. The current debt of this province is $17.6 billion,

according to the government's own figures. That's shameful. They have

the nerve to get up and tell us, in speech after speech, what fine

managers they are of the public purse. Every man, woman and child in

this province owes, on that debt, approximately $6,000 — the

government's own figures, Mr. Speaker — and that is shameful.

The government refers to this again in the throne speech. Certainly

the Premier has stated this in his public address to the province some

six weeks or so ago, perhaps less. And they tell us that there will be

no tax increase. I say: nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Let m