1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, NOVEMBER 24, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Wage equity. Ms. Sanford –– 6619

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Enumeration of voters. Mr. Howard –– 6619

Mr. Lauk

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Ritchie –– 6621

Mr. Segarty –– 6624

Tabling documents

Ministry of Tourism annual report, March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6627

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is my

pleasure today to introduce to members of the Legislature Compañera

Julia Vargas, head of international relations for the Sandinista Trade

Union Central in Nicaragua.

Compañera Vargas has been

travelling through B.C. as guest of the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of

Canada to acquaint citizens of this province with activities in

Nicaragua and to seek support for the government of reconstruction.

Members might also know that there is a ship leaving Vancouver sometime

this week which will be taking the second shipment of 17,000 tonnes of

Canadian wheat to assist the Nicaraguan government in their Bread for

Nicaragua program.

I'd like the members to make welcome Compañera Julia Vargas.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome

an old friend of mine from Rossland, Mr. Harry Lefevre, who is in the gallery

today. Harry has a long and distinguished career in supervisory capacities in

the mining and smelting industry and with School District 11, as well as a distinguished

community career in the city of Rossland on city council, in the Rotary Club

and on the Chamber of Commerce.

Oral Questions

WAGE EQUITY

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Premier

recently stated that the fight for equal pay for work of equal value

must become a cornerstone of Social Credit policy. What steps has the

minister taken to implement this change in government policy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I watched the

television clip and saw the Premier make the statement: "Equal pay for

equal work." The Premier was very clear in that particular statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I presume that when we have a question we wish to hear the answer.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing the minister has a TV. I'm wondering if

the minister has decided to instruct the new deputy minister to

undertake the implementation of this policy in the government service.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters with respect to opportunities for women which we will take under consideration.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that sounds almost like a threat. My question

is directed to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary,

as the minister responsible for the public service, is going to implement this

policy of equal pay for work of equal value in the public service as it affects

the clerical staff.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think, as the member is aware, there are opportunities for

advancement in the public service report which the ministry and the

government have dealt with with some positive actions and are

continuing to do so.

MS. BROWN: I wonder whether the

Provincial Secretary understood that I was speaking about the Premier's

commitment to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Obviously this matter is one of the policy of the government and will be dealt with on that basis.

MR. LAUK:

A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. In the ordinary course of

events, the Premier, the first minister, states government policy. Is

the Provincial Secretary now stating that the Premier's commitment to

equal pay for work of equal value is not government policy?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has gone about asking the same question

which was asked previously in another manner, and it's just a matter of

government policy, as has been indicated. I think the question is out

of order.

MR. LAUK: It's clear that future policy is

out of order. I asked: "Is it now government policy, as stated by the

Premier, that the government will make as its comerstone equal pay for

work of equal value?" I don't see how the question could be any more

precise.

ENUMERATION OF VOTERS

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the Provincial

Secretary. Inasmuch as the Premier has said that there will be an

enumeration of voters in this province sometime, and on the assumption

that the Premier was reflecting government policy when he made that

statement, I wonder if I could ask the Provincial Secretary if he or

the person in the ministry in charge of such matters has received any

authorization or instructions from the Premier to commence an

enumeration of voters.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker,

it's very clear. The government has announced the policy, both through

the Premier in public statements and myself, that there will be an

enumeration conducted before any next general election.

MR. HOWARD:

I asked the Provincial Secretary if he, the minister in charge of that

department under which that activity takes place, has issued any

instructions to the registrar of voters to commence the conduct of such

an enumeration. Has he issued any instructions to the registrar in that

regard?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In answer to the member's

question, I can say that I have issued instructions to prepare for such

enumeration to provide a plan for such preparation. It's a rather

extensive and much involved procedure, and preparation has begun. I've

issued instructions to prepare for enumeration.

[ Page 6620 ]

MR. HOWARD: Would the minister tell the House when he gave such instructions to the registrar?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the precise date, but I could get that for the member if he wishes.

MR. HOWARD:

Would the minister be prepared to table whatever communication went

from him to the registrar of voters with respect to preparing for an

enumeration?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further questions? The member for Skeena has a question?

MR. HOWARD:

Well, I posed a question. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary didn't hear

it. I asked him if he would be prepared to table in this House the

communication between himself and the registrar of voters with respect

to making preparations for the enumeration of voters.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I have already indicated to the member that I would be prepared to

supply him with the date or approximate time of when those instructions

were given. I think that should be satisfactory.

MR. HOWARD:

It may be satisfactory to the Provincial Secretary to keep such matters

secret from public view, but it's certainly not satisfactory to me.

Could the Provincial Secretary tell the House upon what date that enumeration is to commence?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I've taken the original question on notice. I think that should satisfy the member's request.

MR. HOWARD: No, he did not take it on notice, Mr. Speaker. He's just now dreamed that up.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I think we're aware of the rules of

question period. We can state a question; it is out of order to restate

the question in a similar fashion. It is also not the prerogative of

any member to insist upon an answer; that is the prerogative of the

minister. But we'll proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker,

I'm fully aware that the minister need not answer if he does not desire

to answer. I'm also aware that it is an obligation to point out to the

general public that he is keeping that information confidential from

the House.

I ask the Provincial Secretary if he has made any

representations to Treasury Board to get approval for the funds

necessary to conduct such an enumeration.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, that is a cabinet activity. But I have discussed the

matter, I can tell the member, with Treasury Board, and I can say to

him — this is the best way I can explain it — that this procedure will

be commenced in the near future.

MR. HOWARD: We would be able to find out when that near future is if he'd only table the documents we ask for. I'm sure of that.

wonder if the Provincial Secretary would mind communicating with the

Premier and advising the Premier that he was wrong in spouting out the

comment a while ago that the chief electoral officer has this function

of enumeration, and tell him that it is in fact the registrar of voters?

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the same minister on the same subject,

Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether or not this enumeration will

be commenced and completed before the call of the next general election?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member would continue to ask that

question. I've indicated very clearly earlier that the government has

stated very publicly, through the Premier and myself, that such an

enumeration will be held before the next general election.

MR. LAUK:

Under current rules the enumeration can be started at the call of an

election and must end within eight days. That's why I ask the question

of the Provincial Secretary. Can he guarantee that the enumeration that

we've referred to will be completed before the call of the next general

election?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, question period does have a limitation of time.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to be clear on the member's question. In all

sincerity he's asking whether such enumeration will be commenced before

the call of an election.

MR. LAUK: Completed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You must understand that this is a procedure that takes a considerable amount of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's already been indicated that such an enumeration procedure would take at least six months.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, the members may not wish to hear what I would like to

explain to them. The actual taking of the names on a door-to-door basis

can be done with a fair degree of speed, but it takes a considerable

number of months to actually develop the lists after that point in

time. I would like to respond to the member if it's clear that that's

what he's asking. The answer would be yes, enumeration would be

conducted and completed before any future election is called.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears that every member seems to take

it upon himself, whether or not he has possession of the floor, to speak out

in more than just interruption. I would suggest that it is disorderly. It makes

it very

[ Page 6621 ]

difficult to run the House. I would ask for the cooperation of members.

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the same minister. The minister has confirmed that it

will take up to six months, as was indicated by Mr. Goldberg, registrar

of voters. The federal government can enumerate the whole country in a

maximum of four weeks. Can the minister explain the different…?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think I explained yesterday that it requires a substantial number of

people to do this job, and having done so, to do the collating of

lists, etc. The equipment necessary to do so is also a consideration.

Built into the present system and capability, it will take a

considerable period of time. I'm simply giving the information I have

in that regard to conduct the obtaining of the names and then to

prepare the lists in the proper manner for their use by the registrars

across the province.

MR. LAUK: From the nature of the

minister's answer I t think that he is undertaking to personally do

this, rather than the federal minister who gets staff to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. LAUK: Is the Provincial Secretary taking steps to bring British Columbia's enumerating procedures up to date?

If so, what steps are being taken — that is, the procedures

— so that we can get down to about four weeks instead of six months?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the member is aware that it has been clearly

indicated in the throne speech that legislation will be brought forward

to deal with this question: to improve our capability for providing

voters'lists and so on. That's a clear indication which we'll have before us in the near future.

MR. LAUK:

It is clear from the Election Act in this province that no amendments

are necessary, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why the minister raised the

question of legislation. The question is the efficiency of his

department in dealing with this matter. Federally they don't need

legislation to be efficient and do it in four weeks. Why the difference?

The minister must admit it's because of the outdated machinery in place. Does he not agree with that statement?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If there is a question there, does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated

yesterday, these are interesting questions coming from a group which

never in their term of office between 1972 and 1975 did one thing about

the voters' list. Nor did they conduct any enumeration in this

province, amend the act to improve the voters' list system, or attempt

to advertise to the people of this province that they had an obligation

to come forward so that their names were on the voters' list. They just

attempt to stand here today and befuddle the people of this province

into thinking we're trying to cook the books or do something that we're

not supposed to do.

Mr. Speaker, this is all very good

discussion and questions, but these matters will be dealt with in new

legislation to provide for an automatic enumeration system in this

province so that in future any government will be required to conduct

enumeration between elections, not be left to their own whim as to

whether they do or don't. Any government is going to be required,

ordered, or instructed by the act to conduct an enumeration. That's

what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, may I first welcome you back. I do hope you took

sufficient time during your summer break to continue your recuperation

after your major surgery. I am sure you will apply your own surgical

skills to our debate as the time goes on.

Let me also welcome back our Deputy Speaker and all those who serve this House and its honourable members.

course, I also extend a welcome back to the opposition members. I'd

like to get this in before they all leave, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of

the government caucus, you're all welcome back.

We hope that

the time which all members have had to be with their constituents has

given them new perspectives on heir needs, on their hopes and

aspirations. We look forward o a lively and, above all, a constructive

debate.

My own constituents, I know, have much to say to me,

The great constituency of Central Fraser Valley, Mr. Speaker, which you

know well, is mainly an agricultural community with a strong small

business sector. Our people have many concerns, but they retain a pride

in and, above all, a perspective on the quality of life and the

fundamental values of family and community. Many are new Canadians and

perhaps the majority are but a few generations removed from other lands.

all experience moments of deep pride throughout our lives. One of my

greatest moments of pride was when I first returned, as a new Canadian,

to visit the land of my birth, as a new Canadian, to speak proudly of

the Canadian sense of adventure — to travel, to learn, to work hard at

a job, to take the risks in building a business, all in the spirit of

freedom which we Canadians hold so precious.

Like untold

thousands of emigrants throughout our great and, with their faith and

hard work, Canada has fulfilled our dreams. Let us all keep that

perspective as we strive to provide the leadership to keep fulfilling

those dreams and the dreams of new generations.

One of those

dreams has been a made-in-Canada constitution which would enshrine for

all these principles of freedom. All British Columbians, I believe, and

particularly all those who are Canadians by choice, join with me today

in an expression of thanks to our Premier for his phenomenal efforts in

drawing together his fellow Premiers to the accord which will now lead

to the patriation of our constitution. Such a moment in history comes

only once.

Thanks too is due to our Premier for his valuable

leadership role in the recent meeting in Victoria of all Premiers which

produced a unanimous agreement on economic-restoration priorities for

Canada. That accord has already led to energy agreements which will be

a sound base for our future growth and security. That challenge, I

hope, will be met.

[ Page 6622 ]

must say, however, I view with the gravest concern the savage blow to

the Canadian initiative which is now apparent from the newest federal

budget. Farmers, homeowners, small businessmen and — directly or

indirectly — all Canadians are being brutalized by a high-interest

policy deliberately pursued by Ottawa. Instead of encouraging the

productivity of our people, massive government debt and high interest

rates are pushing many of them under.

It's true that

economic problems are being felt throughout North America; but that is

not a satisfactory answer for having done nothing to protect the homes

and the livelihoods of all Canadians. Inaction breeds reaction, as in

this case when crowds of ordinary Canadians marched on Parliament Hill

to say: "Please do something to help us."

The foresight and

initiative of this government have given great numbers of British

Columbians a real chance to survive the economic storms that are now

blowing around us. Great projects such as northeast coal, B.C. Place,

the stadium and light rapid transit are providing and will provide

thousands of jobs for our people, but the high-quality benefits of

these projects and others go far beyond the job sites.

know there are doubters, Mr. Speaker, and I ask of them only a simple

courtesy. I ask them to go and talk to the working men and women and

talk to their families on the job. These initiatives for the people of

British Columbia have followed the path of optimism led by our Premier,

who has the ability to identify those great untapped opportunities that

will build a diverse base for economic development and remove our

dependence upon a narrow base of public revenue. While forestry will

remain our number one industry, we recognize how sensitive that

industry is to international market conditions. So we must renew our

efforts to provide the balance and mixed growth which will assure

continued prosperity.

One of the best reasons for supporting

British Columbia's exciting initiatives is the contribution that we

make to all Canadians through strengthening the national economy. As

our Premier has often said, economically strong provinces are an

integral part of a strong Canada. Economic growth also brings problems.

The provision of affordable housing and rental accommodation is an

immediate concern, but we can be encouraged by the initiatives planned

to correct the housing problems. I'm excited by the special emphasis

that will be placed in the area of rent-to-own. How many times have you

heard someone say: "I cannot afford to buy; I must rent"? How many

times have you heard it said paying rent does nothing towards building

equity in a home? For the first time in the history of our province,

and possibly Canada, a government with this imaginative approach will

remove that concern of never owning a home or building equity in a

home, because with this initiative, the first-home buyer will have an

option to own without the total loss of dollars paid out in rent.

Mr.

Speaker, less government is better government. With continued prudent

fiscal management, the privatization of select government activities

and a strong commitment to balance our budget year after year will

ensure a high standard of essential social programs at the least cost

and with minimal government involvement.

Our economic

structure is like your bank account. If you continue to withdraw more

than you deposit, you're heading for some financial hardship. Such

hardship in British Columbia can be avoided if British Columbians

strive to keep our production at least equal to our demands. I'm

encouraged by the proposed move to expand the mandate of the Ministry

of Labour to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. This ministry has a

responsibility to all citizens of the province, whether they be

unionized or non-union, whether skilled or unskilled, whether male or

female. The challenge is to coordinate all job training programs so

that all citizens have an equal opportunity to enrich their lives

through gainful employment.

Also, as we continue to see

reduced enrolment in our schools, and at the same time see job

opportunities continuing to expand, the participation of women in many

new economic roles is both welcome and needed. So it is very

encouraging indeed that our government is also meeting this challenge

with the establishment of equal-opportunity targets within government,

and full cooperation with labour and business to promote fuller

participation of women at all levels in the private sector.

Science

and Communications is focusing worldwide attention on our drive to

develop first-class research and a new, environmentally sound

alternative to gasoline. The world's first methane conference clearly

identified our government's leadership on issues that count in the

day-to-day lives of our people, and with the superb efforts of the

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

McClelland), our energy goals for British Columbians will be reached.

course, Mr. Speaker, the most important energy of all, the energy we

all live on, comes from food. I am encouraged by the recognition in the

throne speech of the vital role which our Ministry of Agriculture and

Food plays in our government's development policies. One does not have

to look far to see the suffering when food is in a critical short

supply. British Columbia has the ability to produce a wide range of

foodstuffs — poultry, pork, beef, vegetables, fruit, grain, and so on —

because we have in various parts of our province the ideal combinations

of essentials for food production. I speak of soils combined with the

proper heat and water.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, if you wish I can take a moment at this time and tell you about Panco.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you like to hear about how you took the freedom away from our growers out there?

MR. SPEAKER:

Would the member for Central Fraser Valley please come to order? Hon.

members, the rules provide that we do not interrupt the member who is

making his speech. If the member who is making his speech will continue

to address the Chair, it will help the situation greatly. Please

proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I

go back, into those days in 1973, 1974 and 1975, when I personally

experienced how they took away the freedom of our growers out there, I

can't help but lose sight of the fact that I am not really following

the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that.

We also

have a large and growing market which can be best and most profitably

catered to if the skills of the producer, the processor and marketer

can be consistently updated and are constantly improved upon through

government cooperation in the development of new techniques.

[ Page

6623 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to note the changes planned by our

Attorney-General to help put an end to the slaughter on our highways,

by imposing much stiffer penalties on the drinking driver.

Great strides have been made in the past year in people programs, in transportation,

in environmental protection, in education and in job training. Our ministers

and their staff in those areas deserve our congratulations. In my constituency

the new Fraser Valley College campus, increased hospital facilities for acute

and extended care and projects such as our Kinghaven Alcohol Rehabilitation

Program are but a few examples. It is with a great deal of pride that I, on

behalf of over 60,000 constituents from that great constituency of Central

Fraser Valley, stand in my place to move the adoption of the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, this is an easy task. It is an easy task because I know the policies

of this government are strongly endorsed by the Central Fraser Valley constituency,

a community made up predominantly of German and Dutch people — people who have

demonstrated over the years their willingness to welcome others to the community

irrespective of their nationality. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today I would

say that I am living proof of that.

They

are people who for many years now have endorsed the policies of a

Social Credit government, and with this healthy mix of ideals have

built a very strong community originally from basically an agricultural

economy. Today agriculture still rules predominantly as our economic

base, but we are fast becoming more diversified as younger generations

come along and take advantage of the opportunities created by this

government's vigorous and dynamic policies. We are a people, Mr.

Speaker, who believe in the least government involvement in our lives.

We believe that when possible, government should only create the proper

climate for the willing workers or businessmen, and only be involved

when it becomes an essential public service. We respect our seniors and

will work to protect the needy, but not the greedy, who would cheat

them. We believe very strongly in the old work rules — you are entitled

to take out no more than you put in. We believe that an economy built

on this philosophy is better able to create the wealth that government

requires to provide the essentials.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

return to the area of labour, because it is my opinion that our

government could do a great deal more to strengthen the position of the

working man and woman. I spoke earlier about the fact that we're a

nation of immigrants who have come to this land for the opportunity to

share, through our labour, in the wealth which can be produced in a

free enterprise system. It is time that we made that sharing a very

real part of our way of life for working men and women throughout our

society.

Our industrialized democracy is still far from being an industrial democracy

in which labour is elevated above the standards of a commodity that is bought

and sold for a price. I believe that the blind adherence, on both sides of the

bargaining table, to the ideas of the thirties has too often held back our

society and poisoned and divided many communities needlessly. Labour must recognize

the crucial role which profits and productivity play in its well-being, while

management must learn to promote and respect the creative potential of its

employees, to more fully recognize their very humanity. The belief that labour's

gain is always management's loss, or that management's gain is always

labour's loss, is a cruel and demeaning hoax which blinds society to the

fantastic potential which we all share.

need not copy Japan and West Germany — our culture is our own — but we

cannot afford to fail to learn the lesson underlying their prosperity.

Cooperation yields everyone more than confrontation does. Men and

women, especially in traditional, unchallenging jobs, want desperately

to gain a sense that they matter and are not mere digits, but have

ideas o contribute and a say in their destiny. The federal budget has

drained away any real opportunity for the average working person to

build a sound equity. Therefore, while it was not in the throne speech,

I will be recommending to our government a program already proven in

the field which greatly enhances productivity, employer-employee

relations and security for retirement. Mr. Speaker, we hear our Prime

Minister talk about Canadianization. What better way is there to

Canadianize our industries than to assist those employees who make our

economy tick to become shareholders in their companies.

it is possible for someone who is off in Toronto or New York to acquire

major shareholdings in Canadian industry because of his financial

muscle, why shouldn't it be possible for our provincial government,

with the cooperation of the federal government, to set these mechanics

in place through tax incentives to assist our Canadian workers to own a

piece of their companies? Government may put in place all the programs

they wish but, believe me, no program is more dynamic and productive

than employees benefiting from heir own productivity. There may be some

small cost to government initially, but, believe me, those costs come

back manyfold because of the dramatic effect employee profit sharing

has on the profits of the company and the income of the employee.

Much

concern is expressed about the ability of our pension funds to keep up

to the demand. What better pension fund is there than retiring with an

interest in your company which you have had an opportunity to build

while working? Our country would benefit in the world markets if we

would move in this direction, because the cost of production drops as

the enthusiasm of the employee increases.

Mr. Speaker, this

portion of my speech should not cause unionized employees to fear the

loss of their bargaining position. An employee-participation program

does not make a union obsolete. On the contrary, an

employee-participation program fits in extremely well with a union. It

would, no doubt, make much of our confrontation between union and

management obsolete, but that should be our goal.

I expect

that I may hear a few chuckles from some quarters when I state the

following: employee-participation programs could be effective in our

Crown corporations. Yes, the reduction of losses or subsidies to those

corporations means more money in the hands of the taxpayer. So why not

share the improved position with the employees? We have already adopted

the reward system for government employees who find ways to save the

taxpayers' dollars. Extending this principle of employee

profit-sharing, or sharing in profit, a reduction of loss through our

Crown corporations could enhance both our finances and, more important,

Mr. Speaker, the pride in work and achievement of our employees. I

intend to exert my energies in promoting employee participation in

industry with my government, because I know what pride of ownership can

mean to anyone.

In 1968, Mr. Speaker, there was a small

company in the Fraser Valley which was on the brink of disaster —

bankruptcy. It was purchased by two people who believed in the golden

rule: treat others as you would have others treat you.

[ Page 6624 ]

They

took over six employees who were grossly underpaid and promised them an

opportunity through sharing the profits. Today, I believe, the staff

numbers in excess of 30. This company grew to become a major supplier

in British Columbia and far eastern markets. Today — 13 years later —

the original principal owners have retired, and using the employee

profit-sharing and employee equity participation program, sold the

company to the employees, who continue to set records. Last year the

share of profits ranged from $5,000 and up for each employee — and

that's on top of a competitive salary. It is estimated that an employee

serving this company from an early age through retirement would retire

with an investment of approximately $250,000. That, in my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, is what you'd call a sound, modern, imaginative type of

pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care where a person has

worked or anything else. In my opinion, pension plans of today are

obsolete. This, in my opinion, is the way that you can bring these

things right up to the modern day stage. This is no fairy tale; this is

real. I was the originator with a partner, Mr. Smith, and the company

is Ritchie-Smith. It is one of the most dynamic companies involved in

the British Columbia feed industry. This was done without government

assistance in the marketplace where others were showing losses as great

as our gains. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because we cared about our employees

and they cared about us.

Just recently I was asked on a

radio hotline: "When will the government nationalize the British

Columbia Telephone Company?" I said: "Never." Don't get me wrong. I

sympathize with the desires of British Columbia Telephone employees,

but I believe I have a better way. I say: "Don't socialize the company;

capitalize the workers." My friends, even hotels can prosper under this

system.

So in recognition of this progress in leadership,

I'm therefore proud to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty), the following motion: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful

and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in

session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious

speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the

present session."

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's with considerable pride that I stand here today representing the

constituency of Kootenay. I feel honoured, Mr. Speaker, to be able to

take my place in debate of the throne speech, which the member for

Central Fraser Valley just so ably moved. His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor outlined the program for the coming year. It

addresses itself to alleviating many of the problems that beset the

people of British Columbia — many problems, Mr. Speaker, that are not

of our making. Action, or the lack of action, on the part of the

federal government has a detrimental effect on the citizens of the

province of British Columbia. Those problems, Mr. Speaker, require our

most serious attention.

I was indeed pleased when our

Premier announced, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, his

support for the entrenchment of women's rights in the new constitution

of Canada. It is a matter of record, unfortunately, when you talk about

the plight of women in our society today, that women face such problems

as low pay and unequal status in the workplace and society. Women,

numerically the majority, form the largest single minority in the

nation. Every day they're out there campaigning for pension reform,

equal pay, day care for their children and human rights legislation.

Our Premier's support for the entrenchment of their rights is a

decisive step forward to helping women achieve their goals.

was pleased to hear His Honour announce in the throne speech the

appointment of a deputy minister responsible for women's opportunities

under the new Ministry of Labour and Employment. Until now women have

always been outside the power structure of government. When, in 1970,

the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled,

there was only one woman in the House of Commons. Today there are 14 in

the 282-member House of Commons, but there are only two women in the

33-member federal cabinet.

Women are also outside the power

structure of the federal public service, the largest employer of women

in the country. Although women comprise 34.6 percent of the federal

public service, only 3.7 percent are at the senior executive level. In

provincial legislatures across Canada the story is even sadder. In all

ten provincial legislatures there are only 37 elected women out of a

total of 683 members. Only ten of 192 ministerial posts in provincial

parliaments across the country are occupied by women.

Women

who work during their lives or who never marry usually receive such low

wages that their pensions, if any, are too small to save them, when

they retire, from need. Only 27 percent of female salaried employees

are covered by private pension plans, and most of those employees are

women employed in government service or Crown corporations. Both

private and public plans' pension benefits are based on the percentage

of average earnings. As women's salaries are lower than men's, their

benefits are obviously smaller. Plans such as CPP base their benefits

on the average earnings over the number of years a worker could have

been employed. This does not exclude child-rearing years.

Technological

change and microchip technology will replace many jobs traditionally

held by women, yet women are still being counselled to train as

secretaries. The Institute for Research on Public Policy predicts that

up to one million Canadian women will be unemployed by 1990 if they

haven't received training in computer technology and other fields.

Today women represent over 90 percent of tellers, telephone operators

and clerk-typists. Automation is threatening to reduce employment in

these occupations by between 30 and 40 percent.

[Mr, Davidson in the chair.]

Although

there are an increasing number of women going into medical and law

school, there is a depressing lack of entries into non-traditional

jobs. Two out of three entries to the workforce by 1990 will be women.

Government campaigns to direct women into non-traditional, blue-collar

type jobs have intensified over the past few years. There are currently

more than 600 women, of the 20,000 women taking industrial training

programs, heading for industrial-type jobs or non-traditional jobs. The

role of government and educational institutions in adult training

programs is critical if we are to address this problem. Education

institutions, for example, should establish training programs in

engineering and science to encourage women to go into those programs.

When

negotiating contracts the trade union movement must ensure that pension

plans, health benefits and life insurance plans equally cover both male

and female employees. They must work to ensure that adequate facilities

are provided, such as change-rooms, washrooms, showers and

[ Page

6625 ]

so on, for working women. A typical example of this

situation can be found in Elkford, where Fording Coal now finds it

advantageous to hire a wife as well as a husband to work in their

open-pit mine. This is less costly for the company, which currently

provides a second mortgage of about $20,000 for a family planning to

purchase a home and work at their mine in Elkford. It also results in

less cost for community services such as schools, hospitals and

recreational facilities.

While I have just identified some

of the problems facing women in general today, women in the age group

from 50 to 65 have some unique problems. Older women in our society are

the poorest of the poor. Women who marry and stay at home all of their

lives often have no pension benefits, because their husband's pension

plan does not include widow's or survivor's benefits. Financial

stability may be affected by the sudden change in marital status or by

health problems of such magnitude that a steady income is no longer

available. Obviously this can dramatically change the individual's

lifestyle.

For example, a widow left with a home and some

savings could find that after medical, funeral and administration

expenses she is left in a very difficult financial situation. And her

income is fixed until she is eligible for federal old-age benefits. In

her group, even though job training is available, employment

opportunities are limited. She is faced with the problem of trying to

live on a spouse's pension which probably does not meet the cost of

inflation. She is not eligible for old-age security and other financial

benefits which are available to those 65 years of age and older. The

assets of these women, although marginal, negate the availability of

assistance from social agencies such as Pharmacare, OAS, and GIS. If

these women have physical disabilities or chronic medical conditions,

the cost of appliances, physical aid and other medically related

equipment is expensive and soon depletes the financial resources. When

living in such places as the interior of British Columbia, out-of-area

referrals for medical treatment by specialists is costly. And because

of their few assets and minimal savings, they cannot qualify for

subsidies for air fares and bus fares, etc. The stress of attempting to

stretch their funds until they are eligible for federal or provincial

old-age security aggravates their physical and psychological condition.

such cases could be reviewed by social agencies, with the possibility

of providing partial subsidy or interim financial assistance, these

women could be spared the humiliation of becoming totally destitute and

being forced to apply for social assistance, I know that all of the

government resources will be made available to the new ministry of

labour and employment, and that the minister responsible will be able

to harness those resources, in particular the resources of the Ministry

of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education. The new information

centre announced in His Honour's throne speech will help alleviate some

of the problems facing women in our society today.

One of

the most vital areas of endeavour to come under the responsibility of

the new ministry of labour and manpower is providing increased

opportunities for young people to attend training programs in industry

through apprenticeship training programs. Some steps have already been

taken to help young people achieve their potential in the British

Columbia workforce. In January 1980 there were 13,800 indentured

apprentices undergoing training in the province of British Columbia. In

October of this year the figure had increased to 18,543. These are

particularly in the skilled trades of heavy-duty mechanics,

millwrights, welders, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and automobile

mechanics. The Minister of Labour should be congratulated for the

success of his program, although the emphasis continues to be placed on

large-scale operations. I would like to illustrate....

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: Obviously they are not interested in women's rights and employment opportunities.

Let

me illustrate to you for a moment an incident which took place this

year in an interior sawmill certified by the International Woodworkers

of America. As you are aware, I spent many years working as a mechanic

in the forest industry prior to coming to this assembly in 1979. During

that time, Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the IWA, and served as a

plant committee chairman and safety committee chairman. As some of you

may be aware, trade unions many years ago fought for and won a

seniority clause in their collective agreements to protect the

membership of the trade union movement from layoffs and other

situations. The union fought hard for that right and won it — and

rightly so. This also provides an opportunity for union members to

progress through the ranks to a more senior position within the company

under the seniority system — again, a very commendable situation.

this particular situation an employee had just completed his

electrician's apprenticeship training program. That company spent forty

thousand dollars training this apprentice to meet his qualifications.

The company then posted a millwright's apprenticeship program. The

electrician who had just completed his five years of apprenticeship

training program now applied to become, at the company's expense, the

millwright apprentice. Two other employees with less seniority also

submitted applications. The opportunity was awarded to the electrician

who had just completed his apprenticeship training. Mr. Speaker, would

you invest another forty thousand dollars after training somebody to be

an electrician? Would you turn around and invest another forty thousand

dollars training somebody to be a millwright? I doubt it.

There

is a great failure in the system of apprenticeship training programs in

that particular area. We must not place all our emphasis on developing

apprenticeship training programs with large companies. There's a great

untapped resource, a great untapped opportunity in the British Columbia

small business sector — your neighborhood plumber, your welder, your

carpenter, your electrician and your garage; the list goes on and on.

There's a vast resource, of gifted young British Columbians eagerly

seeking opportunity to develop their skills in the trades. So one might

say: "What's the problem? Why, with so much opportunity, are these

young people still waiting to get into the trades?"

One of

the reasons is simply that the small business community can't afford a

training scheme. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that such a training

scheme would cost in the neighbourhood of forty thousand dollars per

apprentice trained. One solution would be a government-sponsored

subsidy program, that would offset the cost of training the individual

apprentice, tailored specifically for the small business people of this

province.

[ Page 6626 ]

The

advantages of such a program are plainly obvious. Not only would it

provide opportunity for our young people to get into the trades; it

would do so without prejudicing the hard-won rights of those senior

workers in union shops. In addition, it would ensure a ready

availability of skilled Canadian workers to meet the growing demands of

British Columbia's expanding industrial climate. The new Ministry of

Labour should develop a key mandate aimed at strengthening the role of

apprenticeship training programs in the small business community of

this province.

We in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, have

enjoyed tremendous opportunities in employment over the past few years,

and I know that all British Columbians recognize this didn't come about

by chance. It didn't come about because we inherited a full treasury

and a healthy economy as the NDP did back in 1975, when they took

office from the old Social Credit government. It has taken us six years

of hard work to get this province back on its feet again. You don't get

a triple A credit rating, the highest credit rating available in North

America, by turning off investments, running huge deficits, encouraging

large debts and generally discouraging the provincial economy.

Take

a look, Mr. Speaker, at this government's achievements since 1975, and

you will plainly see that its policies have worked. British Columbia is

in good financial shape thanks to wise fiscal management and

imaginative government policy.

And then, Mr. Speaker, look

at the throne speech again, and you will see that it responds in the

same decisive manner, taking into account in its responsible measures

the needs of the people of my constituency as well as of the province

as a whole. Since 1975 this government has been working hard in trying

to diversify the economy and halt the dependence on a single-resource

industry. We're indeed fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have a government

with the courage, the foresight, the leadership and dedication to meet

the challenges that we're about to face in the decade of the eighties.

We've been particularly fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in the east Kootenay

region of British Columbia because of the government's attitude toward

the mining industry in this province and the government philosophy

toward that industry in the past few years. We have succeeded in

diversifying our economy and removing our dependence on a

single-resource industry.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are

three mines operating in southeastern British Columbia: Byron Creek

owns and operates a mine east of Sparwood, employing 150 people;

Fording Coal has a mine operating in Elkford, employing approximately

900 people; and the British Columbia Coal company has a mine operating

in Sparwood, employing approximately 1,000 people.

There are

currently two mines under construction, Mr. Speaker. The British

Columbia Coal company has a new mine under construction in Elkford with

export contracts to Pohang Iron and Steel Works of Korea. The

construction of this plant will cost approximately $250 million and

will employ approximately 400 people in the construction project. When

the construction project is completed two years from now, it will

provide 350 full-time jobs for British Columbians. Crows Nest Resources

are in the final stage of their construction of a new mine between

Sparwood and Elkford, costing again approximately $250 million to

complete. It's currently employing 900 people in the construction

project alone. When that construction project is completed, it too will

provide 350 full-time jobs for British Columbia workers and their

families. Esso resources, Mr. Speaker, will be going through a major

expansion later this year. When that expansion is completed, it, too,

will employ approximately 300 people.

All of this positive

economic development, Mr. Speaker, combined with a $47 million Roberts

Bank port expansion in Vancouver, will be of enormous benefit to the

people of my riding, the people of British Columbia and the people of

Canada. It will provide long-term employment opportunities for British

Columbia workers, security for their families and enhance market

opportunities for the sale of British Columbia coal. By 1990 we expect

to be exporting from southeastern British Columbia alone approximately

28 million tonnes of coal per year.

There is a problem.

Potash, uranium and coal can no longer be expected to subsidize the

export of grain from our prairie provinces. Unless the federal

government resolves this issue in the very near future, coal shipments

from eastern British Columbia will have to be placed on a quota system.

This will have a very serious effect on the development of the region's

coal reserves, resulting in mass layoffs and wide unemployment. Action

must be taken now, Mr. Speaker, to have that Crow rate resolved. It is

becoming increasingly obvious that the elimination of the Crow rate

system and replacing it with a user-pay system plan designed to meet

the needs of the producers as well as the railway companies is a

situation that is long overdue and must be addressed.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no sense in putting a band-aid on what is a very

serious problem. In 1979 coal contributed $868 million to the British

Columbian and Canadian economy. This year coal will contribute in

excess of $1 billion to the British Columbian and Canadian economy. The

situation must be addressed if we're to get our coal moving. An

agreement recently signed by the Premier of British Columbia and Prime

Minister Trudeau is important for all of us, because it provides the

basis for future cooperation between the government of British Columbia

government to pay the federal government withheld taxes and interest

collected by B.C. Hydro on natural gas sales and by the British

Columbia Petroleum Corporation on the sale of natural gas liquids. The

decision to pay these taxes will in no way prejudice this province in

the future court action relating to taxation on provincial-owned Crown

corporations.

Over the next five years the petroleum

industry will generate $12.1 billion as a result of this agreement. Of

this amount the government of British Columbia will receive $4.6

billion in the form of land payments, oil royalties, corporate income

tax and British Columbia Petroleum Corporation revenues. The government

of Canada will receive $3.2 billion, of which $600 million will be

recycled in incentive programs to Canadian-owned companies to boost

exploration and development of British Columbia petroleum resources.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) is to be complimented on reaching this agreement with the

federal government.

I believe that the direct result of this

agreement will lead to an energy-secure British Columbia and Canada.

While energy security and revenue-sharing are important components of

the agreement, the most important single component is, I believe, that

it was done in the Canadian way, through discussion, compromise and

consultation.

We all remember what happened to the mining industry when that party was in power in 1975. We all remember what

[ Page 6627 ]

happened

to the gas industry and the oil industry when that party was in power

in 1975. The economic health of this province went into serious decline

and the economy followed suit. The New Democratic Party took the

ridiculous position that the natural resources of British Columbia

should be left in the ground. It took the ridiculous position that the

resources of British Columbia should be handed over to the government

of Canada to be managed by Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent. The Leader

of the Opposition even went on record in support of natural resource

prepared to surrender its ownership of natural resources if the

country's natural resources, revenue-related ownership, processing,

production and distribution." Fortunately for us all, he was thrown out

of office before he had an opportunity to give away British Columbia's

resource heritage.

The NDP have always been against active

mineral resource development in the province of British Columbia. I

would like to know and the people of my riding would like to know

exactly where you stand on natural resource development in British

Columbia, exactly where you stand on your position with the Crowsnest

freight rates.

We all know that there are 10,000 known

mineral occurrences in the province of British Columbia, with many more

waiting to be discovered. You will find oil and natural gas by looking

for them, and not by adopting a policy of non-development.

I find it incredible that the New Democratic Party would give away British

Columbia's resource heritage, trusting Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent to

look after the interests of British Columbia and the west. The New Democratic

Party would do away with the commitment, initiative and active involvement by

the private sector in developing British Columbia's resource heritage.

If recent events in the energy

section are any indication, that would be a terrible

mistake. Yet despite this, they seem willing to sell this province down the river in order to achieve their political objectives.

The

one path that we shall never choose is the path to surrender to a

philosophy we cannot agree with. Our programs must be aimed at

expanding British Columbia's industrial and productive capacity at a

rate that shows the vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not

a time to abandon the drive, the optimism and imaginative, creative

energy that has characterized this province for the past 30 years,

except for a short period of time. This is not a time for timidity or

doubt; it's a time for boldness and energy. It's a time for

stouthearted men and women to turn dreams into reality and to continue

to make this province a great place to live.

We've all heard

those members of the opposition say: "The free enterprise system is the

heartless system." He probably doesn't remember. Do those members of

the opposition fail to recognize the great programs that have been

provided by the system of free enterprise — the social benefits we

enjoy in the area of health care, human resources, education programs,

programs for handicapped, revenue-sharing to assist municipalities in

providing services for their communities and infant development

programs? This beautiful building we sit in here with all its marble,

all of the great things we enjoy and the ferries that go up and down

the mainland and back and forth from the Island to the mainland were

not provided from the profits of government but were provided from the

hard work of free-enterprisers who are willing to pay their taxes.

We enjoy the benefits we enjoy because we have a good government and because

we have a good Premier at the helm of our government and because we have created

investors' confidence in this province and because we have thousands of

hard-working British Columbians who are willing to get out there and get their

hands dirty — to take up a pick and shovel and do a hard day's work.

They

expect rewards but will always return what is needed to be returned so

that we, as government, may provide more programs for those people in

Canada and British Columbia who are less fortunate than we are. We must

show our people that we can provide more social programs under an

enterprising system and that socialism doesn't have a comer on the

market of caring for people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, free people working

together showing initiative can provide more benefits on a continuing

basis than any heavy-handed socialist government.

I would

like those members of the New Democratic Party — especially those

members who tell the employer community in British Columbia to go to

hell, and who continue to say that they will bring this country to its

knees — to return for a while to the country of their origin. Perhaps

they would come back to this country far more appreciative of the

things we have to offer. Indeed, it would do us all good to visit other

parts of the world from time to time. Perhaps we would come back to

this country far more appreciative of what it has to offer and of the

opportunities that are available to us here in Canada under an

enterprising system.

Mr. Lea moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:28 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada