1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3511 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 3511

Private Members' Statements

Small rural communities. Mr. de Jong –– 3511

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Savage

Government services to agriculture. Mr. Rose –– 3513

Hon. Mr. Savage

Heritage development. Mr. Bruce –– 3515

Mr. Lovick

Foster care. Mr. Cashore –– 3517

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Throne speech debate

Mr. Clark –– 3519

Mr. S.D. Smith –– 3522

Mr. Lovick –– 3525

Appendix –– 3529

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a birthday; however,

it's for tomorrow. Since tomorrow is Saturday and we will not be

assembled, I'm taking the liberty of reading it now. The horoscope says

that if March 19 is your birthday, your current cycle highlights

popularity, appearance, personality, body image and travel. You are

sensitive, psychic, independent, inventive, sentimental and sensual.

There seem to be a lot of sensual comments lately, In any event, would

you please join with me in wishing many happy returns to our Deputy

Speaker, who will be celebrating a birthday tomorrow.

MR. CASHORE: ML Speaker, in the same vein as the remarks of

the government House Leader, I think we should also acknowledge that

last Saturday was the birthday of the opposition House Leader. We're

still finding out whether he's sensual or not; that's an open question.

But in a more serious vein, visiting in the gallery today are six

social work students from the University of British Columbia, along

with their professor, Chris Walmsley. Their names are Janet Adamson,

Lisa Brebner, Paulette Deveau, Robert Hebron, Darlene Hoeppner and Dawn

Orser. I ask the members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are six very

special people from the great constituency of Cariboo: Sharon Cleveland

and Marisa Peter, and four members of the Bridge Lake sportive rhythmic

gymnastics team. They are going to be performing here in Victoria

tomorrow. I know the House will be happy to give them a very warm

welcome.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, today being a beautiful sunny day, a

number of my constituents decided to travel the Malahat and to come

down here. In your gallery, sit, I would like to introduce to you the

very many that have come. There is a whole list here, but knowing how

busy we are, I'll refrain from doing that. I would like to introduce

the president of one of the associations in our area, the women's

forum: Shirley Atkinson; the secretary, Jean Kinney; and the treasurer,

Flo Cockburn. From the Chemainus-Crofton auxiliary, because we have

such a vibrant association there, we have a number of them: Mrs. Helen

Aagard, the president; Pam Dyke, our vice-president; Jean Fyffe, the

treasurer; Dot Matton, our secretary; and, of course — I'm sure you

would give me just a couple more seconds — I'd be remiss in not

mentioning my mother-in-law, Mrs. Tanya Visscher, and my wife, Anneke

Bruce. Would you please bid them a warm welcome.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented the first report of the Special Committee of Selection. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Statements

SMALL RURAL COMMUNITIES

MR. DE JONG: My private member's statement this morning is

entitled: "Can the small rural communities survive economically and

retain their identity in the face of rigid agricultural land reserve

policies and privatization initiatives?" The reason I have put this

with a question mark is because it is a real question. However, I also

believe there are some answers that can be found to overcome what has

happened and is currently happening.

The strength of many small rural communities has been, and still is,

the people who make up such a community, both young and older ones:

it's not the availability of modern services such as sanitary sewers,

water, cablevision or the like. The focal points of the small rural

communities for many years have been the local school, the general

store often combined with the post office, and a coffee bar which

formed a place of communication, a place where people would meet and

discuss their daily affairs but also a place where the joys of the

individual were shared — in fact, doubled — and their griefs or sorrows

were shared with the rest of the community. Benefit dances and socials

were organized as needed for those struck by disaster or whatever. The

small rural community has, without any government initiative or

program, been able to prove to today's society that where there is a

will and a love for each other, there is a way to get things done.

Basically, my concerns are why these communities are fading away or

vanishing — as we have seen in the prairie provinces all too often. But

it is also happening here; let's not forget that.

Many small community schools have been closed or are about to close,

and surely it's because of a lack of or a declining population. What

has brought this about, though, is competition in the agricultural

industry, smaller farms being combined to larger farms in order to be

effective and efficient, and more mechanization, which means fewer

people.

Most of these small communities were established on the basis of the

number of people it would take to work the land. All of these trends

are changing. Services, such as general stores and local service

stations within these small communities, have a hard time staying in

business. In some respects, they are almost at the point where if

another nail is put in their coffin they will no longer exist.

They have provided a real service to rural communities through the

years. I think that that service should be continued if at all

possible. What's happening out there with the privatization program —

and I'm mainly talking about the federal privatization of post offices

— is that there is a threat that many of these post offices will be

phased out and the identity of the community will be lost. At the same

time, there is a policy in place for 22 percent of the stamps to be the

guiding factor for the profit of any post office in Canada. This does

not make sense. It may make a lot of sense in the larger communities,

but it certainly doesn't in small communities where the sale of stamps

is rather minute in comparison to the overall service provided.

[10:15]

Then we have our lottery machines — another vital part of today's country

store. The policies of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), whose jurisdiction

the lottery machines are under, state that $4,000 worth of lottery sales have

[ Page 3512 ]

to be accomplished each month in order to retain

the machine. I must give the Provincial Secretary a pat on the back:

when one of the machines in the Bradner community was to be removed, a

day later the machine was returned, I guess due to my efforts and the

community's efforts, which put some pressure on him. But at the same

time, the policy has not changed. I believe it's time that we had a

look at those policies within the organization, so that the smaller

communities can indeed also be serviced with the various privileges

that are afforded to the larger metropolitan areas.

There are many farming people in the rural community who wish to

retire in their community. If you take communities such as Bradner,

Mount Lehman and others, which are surrounded by agricultural land, it

does not allow for expansion. But I believe that all of these factors

combined would make the small community more viable again, if in fact

we would be conscious of the needs of the small community and the

people of the community. The people have no desire to retire in the

large metropolitan areas. They wish to remain there, because they've

always lived there. I think they could also be an inspiration and could

encourage many of the young people to continue those strong community

ties that they developed earlier.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with a great deal of what

the member has said; I thought his approach was conscientious and very

thoughtful. I think that a lot of us sort of yearn nostalgically for

the return of the general store and the cracker-barrel and the hot

stove and all those nice things you see in the Kraft cheese ads. The

fact is that we are probably never going back.

I was a little bit interested to know right at the end how we could

preserve a rural community by subdividing it so people could retire,

because it seems to me that what you do is take a rural community such

as Clearbrook and urbanize it —because that was once a rural community

too. So it seems very difficult to have your cake and eat it as well.

You'll probably find that the depopulation of the rural areas is

caused by a number of things: mechanization, better transportation, and

the fact that fewer people are engaged in agriculture. All those things

contribute to depopulation. I think it's regrettable, because many of

these small towns are monuments to human endeavour. Yes, if you lose

your post office and your school, you lose your community. If you

depopulate, especially with young people, there aren't many children

going to school, because people.... The second member for Central

Fraser Valley and I, at our age, don't contribute many children to the

school any more — regrettably, maybe, in his case. That didn't include

you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) is here. The

reason for the decline of the rural community is farm income. If you

can't make any money farming, of course you're going to depopulate the

place. That's been true all over North America. Very few of us can go

back more than three generations without having an agricultural or farm

background, but we're all out of it because there isn't enough income

in farming any more. It's never been worse in British Columbia. Farm

income is just awful. I've never seen the pessimism. So that's at the

root of your rural community.

Dividing it up and destroying the Land Commission. Talk about rigid

controls. Seventy percent of all the applications to ELUC were passed.

We're dividing up the rural community at a very rapid rate. I can name

you Terra Nova, East Richmond golf course, Kapchinsky out near Kelowna

and Fantasy Gardens. Here are all your rural communities: black topping

the rural community.

The lack of farm income is really at the root of the depopulation of

the rural area. Certainly we've got to have policies that will

encourage young people to go into farming, but why freeze people into a

lifetime of peonage on the land, tied to the land? That's the problem.

Once we solve the farm income problem, 1 think we'll see less of an

exodus from the rural communities.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd just like to respond also that the rural

community situation, as has been pointed out by the hon. second member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), is certainly changing. We all

regard that as progress. Whether or not the rural community changes

from a community general store is a decision of the business itself in

that community. It's the ability of that business to survive that those

decisions are made on.

As for the expansion of an area or a town in a community, if you're

sticking solely to the Fraser Valley, the member makes some very valid

points, but beyond that many communities and towns within this province

virtually depend solely on agriculture for the economy of that

particular sector. For the hon. member opposite, the amount of income

in agriculture in this province has been climbing steadily. Overall,

farm income has climbed. The industry is growing.

It's important to recognize that it does play an important role. We

recognize there are depressed pricing areas, and that's part of the

economic times and part of the subsidy programs that exist around the

world that are causing distortions in the natural marketplace. The very

important thing to recognize is that in developing plans for their

particular communities, whether they have a buffer between agriculture

or an expanded area that they're going to develop into residential,

commercial, industrial or whatever.... It's up to the communities to

make those decisions in their planning process.

I believe that the agricultural community will always play an

important role in the development of any townsite or any particular

area that it has an active role to play in.

MR. DE JONG: Just to respond to some of the comments made,

I'm probably one of the strongest supporters of the agricultural land

reserve. It has done well for the agricultural community. But at the

same time I believe very strongly that the small communities within the

agricultural areas should not be denied the right to exist, because

they have provided a service to the agricultural community, and they

should be allowed to continue to do so. They need a little boost at

this point. I'm not suggesting that we have wholesale subdivision of

farmland, but certainly with proper planning and with the minimum type

of services available, there can be some expansion to those small rural

communities so they become more vital and the schools could remain and,

also, the local shops could be of continual service to those

communities.

I would hope that through our parliamentary secretarial process,

with the eight regions now in the province, which is working very well,

those parliamentary secretaries would take a real look at this and see

whether, with the local officials, something could be accomplished to

avoid a further deterioration of the small communities.

[ Page

3513 ]

GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO AGRICULTURE

MR. ROSE: This seems to be my day, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad the

minister's here. I always enjoy it when he drops in on a Friday when

I'm on my feet — on my hind legs.

He talks about subsidies. We've got a world problem with subsidies.

I don't think there's any place in the world where agriculture isn't

subsidized. We spend about $5 billion on agriculture each year in

Canada, and we receive in farm income about $4 billion, so about 20

percent of it is subsidized, unfortunately. That's the way it is. But

it's even higher in some other areas such as the United States and also

Europe, as the minister well knows, and for us to try and compete in

that marketplace, to say a free market system is being distorted....

Everything we've done to save agriculture is to distort the free market

system. We'd have no agriculture at all. Marketing boards distort the

free market system. So does the FCC; so do credit unions; so do co-ops;

so do all these other things. Of course we want it distorted, because

it's too brutal out there without it.

What I want to talk about this morning is not that at all. He provoked me; that's what happened.

Agriculture is still the third-largest industry in British Columbia.

We acknowledge that, and it's very important, because unless we can

produce our own food we're vulnerable. That's what the Europeans know.

They want to continue to produce their own food even though it costs

them twice what they get for the food they produce. And that's roughly

it in Europe. I don't think our people can compete with that, in terms

of subsidies. That's one of our problems.

What is happening here is a real pessimism among farmers. I was at

the fruit growers' convention, I was at the federation convention, and

they're very pessimistic. Not only do they have no income; they've got

the double whammy of free trade and no markets. They get a good crop,

and they've got no markets.

Here's what a friend of.... Where is he? Oh, he's not here. One of the constituents of the member from Kelowna says:

"Fruit growers are quite different from their compatriots

on the Prairies. Here, they have just worked harder and harder, going deeper

into debt" — these are British Columbians — "until the bank refused

to lend any more money. Now they are losing everything. They keep everything

to themselves, ashamed that they are poor farmers not making a living because

they are doing something wrong. Nobody knows who was in trouble until they're

gone. In the Prairies, farmers in trouble went public; neighbours helped neighbours;

the federal government put in a few bullion, and it looks like farming may turn

around out there. And to make matters worse, they remained Socred — to be shafted

by their own people.... "

As far as the farmers are concerned, they've got the vote all locked up

there. The rural communities are, by and large, represented by Social Credit

members. At the same time, we've got the smallest budget we've ever

had in agriculture, in the ministry. It's gone down one-quarter since this

Social Credit government took over. So you've got their votes all locked

up, and they're starving to death. There's no question about that.

Here's what we have: about 2 percent of every provincial dollar on agriculture

under the NDP; now it's less than one. You've got a $58 million budget

last year — I don't know what it's going to be this year — and it's

gone downhill terrifically. If you just kept up to inflation since the Bennett

government took over, it would be $118 million. You've gone from over 700

people employed in the ministry to around 400. There's a guy up in....

AN HON. MEMBER: Efficient.

MR. ROSE: They're efficient, all right. I'll tell you how

efficient. Up in Smithers, the one district that goes from Vanderhoof

right up to Atlin. One DA! His secretary took early retirement the

other day, around Christmastime. That man, that DA up there, is now

doing his own office work. He's so efficient that if he doesn't get

some help pretty soon, he's going to retire. There, he's gone.

This is what we've got here in terms of support for farming. The

farm income assurance fund has been cut. The loose-cannon leadership of

the Premier is threatening to take.... The only people really making

any money in farming — you might mention a few cattlemen; one year in

five they've made money — are the blueberry, raspberry and mushroom

people. They're making a little money, but everybody else, unless

they're on a marketing board, is in trouble.

We're told by the Premier that we're going to get out of all the

marketing boards. I don't know if he has changed his mind there, but he

threatened to get out of all the marketing plans — the only industries

making any money.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What do you mean, it's not true? Of course he did.

He said: "If you don't increase the milk quota, I'm going to pull out

of all the marketing boards." All those chicken pluckers out in the

Fraser Valley, all those turkey growers and milk producers are worried.

There he is, that free-enterpriser — over there, the second member —

who belongs to the Fraser Valley Milk Producers, a monopoly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against marketing boards?

MR. ROSE: I support them wholeheartedly.

I've got enough damaging evidence here to go on for hours and hours.

The fact is that you've only got half the staff in your ministry, from

about 1980 to now — fewer than half — as support for agriculture.

You've got people leaving and not being replaced, and they are very

good people. I was up at a dairy seminar in Nanaimo last week and was

really impressed by ministry staff. There were economists and others

involved in the dairy industry, and they were most impressive people.

They can't keep up that kind of a load forever, and you're not doing

enough for them.

What I'm saying is that the minister has a difficult task. I know

he'd like to increase support for agriculture; I know he wants to

preserve the land. But the fact is that he is not able at this moment

to withstand the pressure he's under, because the Premier basically

doesn't like marketing boards. He is opposed to them. He wants the free

market system to work in agriculture.

The free market system won't work in agriculture. It never has and

it never will. It can't — not in face of all the other problems.

[10:30]

[ Page 3514 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. member, who made some comments

about the budget, I'd like to first inform him on the latter comment

about the Premier's support for supply management, if you like. You may

wish to call them marketing boards, but I can unequivocally say that

the Premier supports 100 percent the supply management process.

I'd like this straightened out. What the Premier said in giving

notice about whether we opt out of the federal supply management system

was that we weren't being treated fairly from a national allocation

process. That's what the Premier was contesting, and he is supporting

in every way my effort and this government's effort to get a greater

share for this province, which we rightfully should have.

That's basically what we're fighting for, and if that doesn't help

the farming community, I don't know what will. If we get a fair share,

we could probably put another 500 or 600 farmers into business

producing milk in this province. That's what we are determined to fight

for: what is really fair for British Columbia. It gives opportunities.

We just talked a little while ago about opportunities for communities.

Would that not enhance that opportunity?

I'd also like to say that there was a comment made about an employee

in Smithers. I'd like to inform the hon. member that that position has

been advertised, and the employee up there who was worried about

whether we would fill that position can rest assured that it is being

looked after.

The comments on the fruit growers' convention are fair enough; I

think the hon. member did recognize that there was some concern out

there. But no matter what meeting you or I go to, you're going to hear

the comment come back that we're worried about budgets, about what's

happening to agriculture.

The comment was made about the distorting subsidies. Granted, there

are far larger subsidies in other countries than there are in Canada.

But I'm not convinced that that's the right way to go. I believe the

world has to recognize that there is only one person paying for those

subsidies, and that's the taxpayers of the world. I think that at some

point they're going to recognize that they can't continue, for example,

in Europe, to pay out $100 billion to continue the oversupply of

foodstuffs — and that's exactly what's happening.

Canadian producers — those in supply management —are recognized as

having a very good system. Call them marketing boards if you like, but

I don't know of a good business, quite frankly, that doesn't manage the

supply of their commodity very, very well. Too much of a commodity is a

cost of overhead or a cost of over-capitalization, and somebody has to

bear that cost. So it's important to be very prudent in how you manage

supply. I believe that that's a key area we have to address, and I

think Canada is well accepted as having done a very good job in those

commodities.

The other thing you talked about was recognizing that the budget had

dropped. You talked about the employees dropping by half. I'd like to

tell you that I still have 491 positions out of the 708, so it's not a

50 percent drop. It is well recognized that the employees have had to

dig in their heels and become more and more involved in the day-to-day

process of what decisions are being made, but I don't believe, from the

reports I'm getting, that there is any great suffering that I'm hearing

about. Everybody says the job is getting done.

The other thing — the budget issue of dropping down. I'd like to

inform the hon. member that it's very important that, in responding to

the needs of the industry, we identify where that response has to go

to. It's not necessarily because the program is there and is ongoing.

We have to identify the need area. We did it last year in the grain

sector, where there was a particular hurt. I think it was important

that we recognized it then, and we got a program in place to help that

particular sector. We are committed to help where that need is

justified.

I realize that the programs we have in the ministry are valued

programs. We've talked before about the partial interest reimbursement

program. That program has to target the particular need where it is

required — not just because it exists, that it's accessible to

everybody. It has to identify a need. That's easily justifiable, in my

judgment, as to how you defend it from a public purse point of view.

I'd like to say also that it's very important to recognize, as I'm

sure the member knows, that I'm committed to do what I can to make sure

agriculture in this province thrives and that we have a viable industry

down the road. Because it is a source of food for the many people who

live in this province. I'm not about to let that roll over and go on

the wayside.

MR. ROSE: I'm really pleased to hear that the Minister of

Agriculture supports agriculture, but I think the facts that I

presented are incontestable. They may be contemptible, but they're

incontestable.

I was interested to know, since the minister mentioned the supply

management, or the MSQ if we can deal in jargon for a little while,

that the national marketing committee was out here recently. Not one

member of the government even went to see them. There was no

presentation by the government; it was left up to the processors. You

didn't go and visit them. You didn't give a brief as they did in New

Brunswick or Ontario. You didn't go near them. My information from a

processor is that the whole argument was left up to the processors, and

the government sat idly by. Now if the charge is wrong, then he's

wrong. That's my information, because he took the trouble to phone me

about it. He was very serious about it.

The Minister of Education just decided to flunk me. He knows all about flunking.

Anyway, I would just like to tell the minister: sure, 3.7 percent isn't

very large in the MSQ, but there is a history to that, and the minister knows

it as well as I do. His own government signed for that, and it goes until '89.

He's serving notice about getting more, but the history is that manufactured

milk wasn't worth anything a few years ago. We even opted out of the national

plan, as the Premier threatened to do with turkeys, chickens, eggs and a number

of other commodities, and scared the living daylights out of them. That is a

fact, and it's not good enough.

The fact is, we have not provided the service to our farmers that we should.

Another thing that they're concerned about.... I don't like to say

this, because it's a bit embarrassing to the minister, and I've tried

my best not to embarrass the minister, because he's the only one

standing between the Premier and the farmers. I pay him that

compliment. But the question was raised up there at Vernon: "Will the

real Minister of Agriculture please stand up." It was raised by two

people: a young man and Mr. Claridge. That's pretty serious. They are

concerned. The minister assured all the people that he was indeed the

Minister of Agriculture, but sometimes things happen while he's away

that he doesn't even know about until he comes home. And that's a

serious thing.

[ Page 3515 ]

1 want to commend the minister to get down there and do his best,

get his budget raised, fight with the rest of the cabinet, get a little

money for agriculture. We even talk about the service to the

bee-keepers being privatized — inspections. They've got all kinds of

problems with unpronounceable things, like tracheal mites and all that

stuff that I don't understand very well. But they are concerned that

they are not getting the service, they are not getting the income on

the farms, and I don't think they are getting from the ministry the

support that they deserve.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT

MR. BRUCE: I'd like to try another subject here for the

opposition House Leader and talk a little about heritage and tourism

and economic development, what heritage can mean to our province, what

it can mean to the development of the tourist industry, and what it

means to the total province in respect to economic development.

The Cowichan-Chemainus Valleys have a couple of very excellent

examples of what heritage development can mean to tourism development

and to the well-being of a community's economy.

The Cowichan Indian band, one of the largest Indian bands in the

province, has undertaken a very aggressive program. They're looking to

develop an Indian heritage village on the banks of the Cowichan River.

This 12-acre site will have a number of things there in which people

traveling to our area will be able to take part and understand more

fully the Indian heritage culture that we have, this very vibrant

culture in this province; and by so doing, they will be able to help

the economy of the Cowichan Indian band and the economy of the entire

Cowichan-Chemainus Valleys.

The Cowichan Indian band have been actively at work in bringing this

proposal together, which is no small undertaking. First and foremost we

were able to secure the Expo longhouse from Folk Life; and that,

combined with a $100,0000 grant from the ministry responsible for

Indian affairs in this province, has enabled the Cowichan Indian band

to go ahead and raise this particular building. But it's only one.

There will be a number of others where you will be able to see the

world-renowned Cowichan Indian sweaters being knitted and put together

in place; the carving. You'll be able to see what goes on on the banks

of the Cowichan River from the fishing point of view. All in all, when

it's finally finished it will be a tremendous asset to the community of

the Cowichan Valley.

This is our heritage. It's very much an integral part of the

province of British Columbia. With this, there will be jobs for many of

those within the Cowichan Indian band, there will be jobs for many

within the community of Cowichan-Malahat; and there will also be social

benefits from the enhancement of the Indian culture and a greater

understanding between the non-Indian community and the Indian community

itself.

The city of Duncan has actively undertaken a cultural heritage

tourism economic development program — if you like — through the

development of a totem pole project, Throughout the city now you can

see a number of different totem poles that have been carved by carvers

in our area. They are placed throughout the community, each one telling

a specific story. Each totem pole is a part of the history of the

Cowichan Indian band and other Indian bands throughout the province.

And, of course, we have our hockey heritage, of which we're all very

proud. Only today the world's largest hockey stick, that great, huge

stick that was on the Expo site, will be raised beside the Cowichan

Community Centre. Some time down the road, I know you will all be

wanting to come up and take

part in the tremendous festivities when we

unveil the largest hockey stick in the world on the site of the

Cowichan Community Centre.

To further add to our heritage, up the road a little farther is, of

course, that very vibrant and alive community of Chemainus. We took our

forestry heritage and we put it on the walls. We put it on the

buildings of our community, and we're telling the world what British

Columbia is all about. We're telling the world how important the

forestry sector is to our economy; and with that, we're enhancing our

own culture, our own heritage.

Would you believe that today over 40 small new businesses have come

through that down-cycle. and are there alive and vibrant in the

community of Chemainus? Better than that, over 350,000 people have come

into that little community, which in the past maybe only saw 5,000 or

10,000. This year. more than likely we'll see more than half a million,

all because we've taken our heritage, our culture, and we've developed

it, we've enhanced it. and as a community we feel better for it. It's

important.

[10:45]

MR. MOWAT: What about the grocery, stores?

MR. BRUCE: Well, there are grocery stores too — and that's part of our heritage and our culture.

It's important that we understand that our heritage can do much in

enhancing our way of life throughout the province. What has happened in

the community of Cowichan-Malahat can happen throughout the rest of

British Columbia. We all have examples of our own heritage. of our own

particular community's heritage, which we can use to improve the

economic and social life of each community.

In Chemainus itself, the example there where we took those pictures

of the forestry sector and painted them on the walls, we took that

right out of a book that had been written by a local resident about the

history of our community. We used that as the basis to build an

economy, a small economy initially but one that, as I give you those

examples, you can surely see will expand and has become an example for

much of the province.

When you take what the Cowichan Indian band is doing and you take

what the city of Duncan is doing, each taking an integral part of our

heritage and using it for display purposes certainly, for economic

development purposes certainly, but importantly for cultural and social

enhancement, it does bode well for the community as a whole. Each one

of these components has had assistance through the province of British

Columbia, which indicates that this government recognizes the value of

our heritage and the contribution that it can make for economic

development and social benefits.

The village of Chemainus took advantage of that extremely important

program, the downtown revitalization program, and so did the city of

Duncan. The First Citizens' Fund has greatly helped the Cowichan Indian

band establish on site the first beginnings of this wonderful heritage

village. The province has played an integral

part in bringing this

about, and it's important that we understand that there is more to be

[ Page 3516 ]

done. It's important we understand how valuable our heritage is in shaping our future and developing our economies.

In time you will see other developments taking place in the

Cowichan-Malahat area that work with, and enjoy the benefit of,

heritage development, bringing alongside tourism development. I will be

more than happy to share with you at a later date some of those

exciting events that will be taking place.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards), the critic normally for tourism and cultural affairs, isn't

here, and I will therefore offer a few comments in response to my

friend from Cowichan-Malahat.

You know, I want to be as gracious and kind and understanding as I

can when I listen to comments such as those we have just heard, but I

get the distinct impression that somehow we're in the wrong arena. I

got the sense as I listened that I was attending a local chamber of

commerce meeting in any small town throughout the province and

listening to what is usually somewhat euphemistically referred to as

"boosterism," namely saying what a wonderful job we are doing and what

great things are going on in my town. That is an entirely legitimate

approach for municipal politicians, and I'm glad that they undertake

that approach. But again, I wonder why this chamber. I wonder if it is

the case that what we're really hearing here is a "haven't we done

great" kind of line, with a view to saying that if we can get everybody

thinking about what's happening at the local level, then maybe we won't

look at the crisis and the predicament that's happening at the

provincial level.

MR. MOWAT: Tell us about Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: Nanaimo, by the way, can make claim to most of

the things that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has said. We too have

bought into heritage. We too have an Indian band that is doing some

wonderful and marvelous things by way of their own initiative. We too

have recognized that the local economy has an important role to play.

But let us differentiate between myself and my friend from

Cowichan-Malahat insofar as I would argue that I don't have any

illusions about the limitations of what the local economy can do.

I have some understanding, rather, about the nature of the service

sector-based economy. I know from a little bit of reading, and even a

little bit of study in the area, that we're talking about a

pre-eminently and predominantly low-wage economy. We're talking also,

if we know our history a little bit, about the little town that did,

remember — and I admire the people for the marvelous effort they made,

but recall that they did what they did because they were

de-industrialized in the name of technological innovation. A mill that

used to employ some 600 people on a shift regularly was reduced —and

the member can correct me if my figures are wrong — by a factor of

about four down to somewhere between 100 and 150. It literally kicked

the economic pins out from under. The wage packet was reduced in that

community by about 75 percent, I think we can estimate. The town

therefore had to — if I can use the phrase — get its act together and

did so very well. The point is that there is depopulation in that area.

The little town that did survive is doing well, but it's a smaller town

than it used to be.

The point I want to make in the very brief time I have is: let us

not confuse what happens at the local level. Let's not confuse heritage

and the service sector, however important they may be, with a

substitute for real significant economic development strategies in this

province.

Also, let me remind the member and his colleagues opposite that what

we saw in Chemainus and in a number of other communities throughout the

province that are trying to assemble the same kind of package was not

free enterprise triumphant, friends, but rather a combination between

public and private, because without federal dollars, the Indian bands

would not have been able to do anything. Moreover, without provincial

moneys coming into those communities they would not have survived.

So for these ideologues who want to talk about letting the

marketplace decide and determine, let me suggest to the members

opposite that the little town that done 'er, or the little town that

did — or whatever the current terminology is — is the paradigm case for

the mixed economy, and the need for government intervention in the

economy, rather than a free market economy operating by its own devices.

MR. BRUCE: I'm a little at a loss listening to my colleague

on this topic of heritage, tourism and economic development. I'd like

to tell you that I like my small town. I like where I live, and I'd

like to tell you what's going on there. I'll tell you what makes this

province great: it is the small towns in this province. It's not big

government; it's not big industry. It's the small towns; it's the

vibrance of the people in those towns that make this country.

To suggest that it is low wages.... We have seen individuals come

into that town who have lived in that town, and others who have moved

there and started their own business and doing very well, thank you

very much, because they decided to make that difference — not because

some government came and did it, not because some big industry came and

did it, but because they decided to do it themselves. That's what this

province is all about.

Let me tell you, we are not finished with what's going to happen in

that community. We are going to continue to use our heritage to expand

our economic base, and we should listen up to what we're talking about

here. We're talking about our heritage and our culture.

We're just about to put together another really exciting

development. Sure, it's okay; you can criticize me all you want if you

like. You can criticize the people of Cowichan Malahat if you wish — if

that's what you choose to do. But let it be understood that the people

of Cowichan-Malahat will continue to move ahead. The reason they will

move ahead is they have initiative; they've got guts; they're prepared

to move ahead on their own initiative. What we have happening there

when we talk about these very large industries.... Certainly the

Cowichan Valley is the cradle of the forestry sector. It's where it all

began. It's the home of the IWA. It's the home of H.R. MacMillan. It's

where it all began.

What are we going to do again with our heritage? We're going to

develop an eco-museum. This eco-museum will tell the entire story of

the forestry sector. Those of you who really want to understand what

forestry is all about — the past, the present and the future — you can

come by. I'll give you a personal tour, and you can understand for the

first time what forestry means to the province and what it means to

this country of Canada. What we'll be doing with that is again

expanding the economy of the Cowichan Valley and of the Chemainus

community in Mill Bay and Lake Cowichan. You'll be able to come into

that community and see all the

[ Page 3517 ]

different parts of what made the forestry sector, and what's going to make the forestry sector.

Who's doing it? Again, the people of Cowichan-Malahat, the Ministry

of Tourism, Recreation and Culture of this provincial government and

Heritage Canada — all three coming together and working together with

our heritage and expanding upon the future for the people of

Cowichan-Malahat and indeed the province of British Columbia. These are

exciting times, and don't forget to come up there to Chemainus and have

an ice cream cone. They're the best you'll find anywhere in the

province of British Columbia.

FOSTER CARE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this is about foster care.

The provincial government has launched a public media campaign to

increase the number of homes available for foster care for the children

of British Columbia. The Minister of Social Services and Housing has

taken a high profile role in this campaign, and his media background

serves him well. I'm sure everybody here has seen him in the ads on

television promoting this campaign.

The question I want to raise is: why is this program now necessary?

Clearly the minister is personally intervening in a crisis which has

been caused by two Social Credit regimes. I am not criticizing the

minister for intervening in this crisis, because when a crisis occurs

it's important to intervene, but I am making the point that the crisis

has been created by inappropriate policies coming forward from this

government and the previous regime.

In order to clarify this point and make it very clear, I am going to

be referring to some research data soon to be published in the SPARC

report, the community affairs magazine of the Social Planning and

Research Council of B.C. The research I am referring to reviews

ministry data, so we're using the ministry's own figures here, going

back to 1982-83 fiscal year, and the data gives us strong indication

that unemployment and poverty cause enormous stress, thus increasing

family breakdown and thus increasing the incidence of such unfortunate

occurrences as the apprehension of children. When support to families

decreases, the incidence of child apprehension increases.

This data clearly points out that standards of training, support and

remuneration must be established that are appropriate to a professional

service for the provision of children's resources; that families with

special needs children, whether natural, foster or adoptive, require

special needs services; that native fostering and adoption is a special

area.

[11:00]

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that some significant progress has been

made here, but we still need to recognize that more than half of our

native population is in urban centres, and therefore the province

should be actively working with urban native organizations to address

this issue where urban native people are involved. Secondly, the policy

of notification of bands when a native adoption is to take place should

be entrenched in the Adoption Act, as I requested one year ago, and as

is the case in the Family and Child Service Act.

So again, Mr. Speaker, while the agreements which have been made

with various tribal councils are a policy step in the right direction,

I really believe that this needs to be entrenched in legislation,

because it could be changed at any time.

The analysis of statistics I am going to relate at this time shows

beyond a shadow of a doubt that services and support to families

drastically declined while apprehensions increased. I would ask the

minister, when he responds to my comments, to try to respond to the

statistics as given and to try to avoid rhetoric.

Here are some of the stats: in 1981 there were 837,380 children in

B.C.; in 1986 there were 800,173 children, a decline of 4 percent.

Projections are that by 1991 there will be 831,261 children, an

increase of almost 4 percent.

From 1981 to 1986 there was a major increase in unemployment, hence

in poverty. In 1981 there were 6.7 percent unemployed; in 1987, 12.2

percent unemployed. In 1982 there were 57,258 children on GAIN in 1987

there were 83,671 children on GAIN. Mr. Speaker, the statistics of the

government indicate that family support services have declined. In 1982

the total amount going into family support services was $17,837,197; in

1986 the total amount was $10,688,141, a decline of 40 percent. This

reflects the loss of the family support workers, but it also reflects

other alterations in government policy: we're moving towards the crisis

intervention approach.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister — because I've heard his comments

on crisis intervention before — that we are not opposed to crisis

intervention; crisis intervention will always be necessary. But we are

opposed to policies that do not do everything they can to minimize the

incidence of crisis intervention being necessary

In 1982 — and these are the telling figures — the number of child

apprehensions was 2,454; in 1986 the number of child apprehensions

stood at 3,192, an increase of 30 percent during those two Social

Credit regimes. Mr. Speaker, I ask why that has been the case. It has

been the case because this government has failed to address issues of

poverty and unemployment, and has decided to move toward an approach

that results in apprehension instead of support to the families, when

that support would be most effective.

Mr. Speaker, in 1982-83 there were 306 admissions for physical abuse into the child care system.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to respond to the member. I'm

a little disappointed that under the rules of private members'

statements I wasn't allowed to respond to the second member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick), the twentieth century leader of the Luddites. I would

dearly love to have responded to that very positive message given us by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). Perhaps at another time we

could go into the value of tourism and heritage. Our heritage is not

very old in this country and this province, but it is becoming

increasingly more important, as I'm sure most of us realize.

Let me just talk for a moment now about the foster parent program

and some of the points that my critic raised. First of all, he attempts

to lay the blame for the shortage of foster parents on this government.

Let me tell you that it's a crisis — if it is a crisis; it's

approaching that — in the western world, especially in North America.

The number of people coming forward to foster is on the decline, so

much so that since we started our program to attract new foster

parents, we have had letters and phone calls from other jurisdictions

asking us to share with them our plan and what we're doing, because

[ Page 3518 ]

they're facing the same problem. I'm speaking of

jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia, Ontario, Washington, Oregon and a

couple of eastern states that have heard what we're doing. I'll get to

some of the early results of that program in a moment.

It is a phenomenon that is.... There are many social reasons for it.

One is that people are getting married later in life now and having

their own children later in life. At a period when they would normally

be becoming foster parents, they're still raising their own children.

This is one of the reasons why the number of foster parents is going

down. There are other reasons, and I could give the member a report on

the subject. But it's certainly not the fault of any one government in

the western world; it's just a phenomenon that's happening.

So about three weeks ago we launched a program to do something about

it, because fostering is still the most cost-effective way of dealing

with children who are without a home for whatever reason, and it is the

best way. It places children in a family setting that is as close to

what we might call a normal setting as we can possibly get. When a

child or children have to be taken out of their home for whatever

reasons — it could be death, child abuse, a number of reasons — the

best situation to put them into is a situation most closely resembling

a normal family scene. That's why fostering is still by far the most

effective way to deal with these children.

It also the most cost-effective, compared to group homes, transition

homes or any other type of group setting. The cost is about one-fifth

to one-tenth of what it is in group centres.

Foster parents are a special breed of people. It takes very special

people to take other children into their homes. With some problem

children, it sometimes is disruptive to the home, especially at first.

It's difficult to be wakened at 2 o'clock in the morning, which quite

often happens, as the member said. Crisis intervention is still quite

necessary; it's a fact of life. Sometimes these people are wakened at

two in the morning with a rap on the door by a social worker

accompanied by a policeman, saying: "Will you take these children into

your home?" So they are special people. Because of that, we recruited

them to work on our program, and they helped us put the recruitment

program together.

My time is drawing to a close. I just want to leave with this House

that in the first three weeks of the program we have received 926 calls

of legitimate interest in becoming foster parents. I'm pleased to say

too that they come from all areas of the province, from the lower

mainland, the interior, the Island, the north. We're very pleased that

these people are genuinely concerned, and we are sending them out the

packages of information. I think that very shortly, because of the

success of this campaign, this crisis, if you call it that.... I think

that's a little too strong a word. This shortage of foster parents will

soon come to an end, and we will have the number of foster homes that

we like to have, so we can take each child and have a choice of where

we put that child, into a setting that most closely fits the need.

MR. CASHORE: The most significant factor requiring an

increase in the need for foster homes is the loss of family support by

this government, the loss of services. This is clearly demonstrated in

these statistics.

In 1982-83 there were 306 physical abuse admissions, and in 1986-87

there were 523. That's a 70 percent increase, and no amount of

reference to what's happening in other parts of North America can

account for a 70 percent increase. That's incredible.

The dollars spent on family support in 1982-83 were close to $18

million. In 1986-87 it was less than $11 million, a decline of 40

percent. There is a relationship between the decline in government

services to families that is resulting in those families breaking down

and a greater need for foster care,

Nobody wants to in any way downgrade the excellent response that's

coming from this program. I'm pleased to hear there have been 700 phone

calls. But the need for those phone calls or those responses has been

exacerbated by the inappropriate policies of this government. A large

transfer of resources from supporting families in their own homes

toward apprehending children and caring for them in increasingly

expensive resources is a result of this government's policy.

With the short time that I have left, I'd like to point out that

recently there was an announcement by government that the funds for

fostered children had been increased. For instance, for a child between

the ages of 14 and 19 the rate would go from $319 to $361 for a foster

parent. That's coming into a much more appropriate range than it was

before. But having said that, a mother on welfare would not be

receiving $361 for a teen-age child. For the first teen-age child she

would receive approximately $140, and after that it would range between

$61 and $65. For instance, in a foster home for three teenagers between

14 and 19 and two between 12 and 13, the foster home would receive

$1,734, while in the GAIN home, that parent would receive $314 for the

same number of teenagers. If the shelter portion was included it would

still only be $731, or $1,000 less than the equivalent foster home

would be receiving.

If we do not give the kind of support.... We're not talking about

teenagers wanting Calvin Klein jeans here. We're talking about families

that need to have food on the table.

Nobody is opposed to recruiting foster homes, but we must be

supporting families who are in poverty so that this situation is not

exacerbated, as it has been for the last eight years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before moving to the Address in Reply, I

am going to, by leave, make a motion, and I will briefly explain what

the motion is all about. Earlier this morning, sir, you will note that

the Committee of Selection reported and had their report approved by

this Legislative Assembly. Members will also be aware that one of the

committees that was in place during the first session of the

thirtyfourth parliament is desirous to begin working again immediately,

if not sooner.

Therefore I am going to ask leave to move that this House authorize

the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to examine and

inquire into and make recommendations with respect to provisions of

timber-harvesting contracts between tree-farm licensees or forest

licensees and contractors as provided in the Forest Act, and in

particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to

consider.... And then it lists the duties that the committee is asked

to inquire into. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are the same

as the motion that existed in the first session of the thirty-fourth

parliament. So I would ask, by leave, to move that this select standing

committee be agreed to continue its duties.

[ Page

3519 ]

[11:15]

Leave granted.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. There could be, but that's all I have right now.

MR. ROSE: I have no difficulty in giving leave for this, but

I would like, on a point of House business, to ask the hon. House

Leader of the government, the Minister of Environment.... He mentioned

the other day — I think it was yesterday, or was it this morning? —

when we had this selection committee that he hoped there would be no

further changes. I would just like to remind him of a little agreement

we had on some of these traveling committees, that, depending upon

their subject, would permit us to change our members for those

purposes. I believe it was the one on municipal affairs, and we were

going to deal with taxation on the one hand and municipal affairs on

the other. I think we had an agreement earlier that this would be

permitted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to that agreement given

previously, in the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament, as a

matter of fact, that was agreed to because, I think, they did change

membership — it was the Finance Committee — and they will certainly be

allowed to do so again in their resurrection in this second section. I

have no problem with that, as well.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Address in Reply, Mr. Speaker.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I adjourned on behalf of the second member

for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith). However, the speaking list now indicates

that the second member for Vancouver East will be beginning our debate.

MR. CLARK: The last time I rose to speak on the throne

speech, I had tremendous support from my colleagues, and I notice that

again I have a similar kind of support.

MS. MARZARI: It's quality that counts.

MR. CLARK: The second member for Point Grey says that it's quality that counts.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to take this opportunity, in response to the throne speech,

to review the first legislative year that we've seen of the Vander Zalm

government and to try to look at the vision that he and the government

have for British Columbia. We know that it is a radical vision and an

ideological vision. It's not very difficult sometimes to make jokes

about the Premier's off-the-top-of-his-head remarks, but I don't

believe that his vision for British Columbia is as unsophisticated as

many people think. I think, in fact, that it's quite sophisticated.

1 want to talk mostly about the economic side of where the

government is taking British Columbia, but the vision on the social

side is equally radical. We see yesterday, again, the Premier saying

that 10,000 jobs will be eliminated in the public service. Again we see

a move backwards, in terms of increasing reliance on charities and the

like to provide public services. We see these kinds of phony morality

plays consistently, with respect to questions of choice on abortion or

when it comes to feeding hungry kids in Vancouver — we can't do that

because it will destroy the family and the morality, this kind of

selective morality that the government has. So we've seen on the social

side a significant move and, I think, a radical vision for British

Columbia.

On the economic side there clearly is, again, a truly radical

vision, and what I'd like to do now is trace the five major thrusts of

economic policy that I've seen in British Columbia since the Vander

Zalm government has been elected. The first thing is a belief in

foreign ownership as the way to develop British Columbia. What's the

first thing that Bill Vander Zalm did when he got elected?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't use his name.

MR. CLARK: Oh, sorry. Sometimes I have trouble with that.

What's the first thing the Premier did when he got elected? He met

with Glenn Babb, the South African Ambassador. Remember that? That was

the very first thing he did. I see the first member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) clapping. Of course. That's the vision for

British Columbia.

He turned down a meeting with Sylvia Russell from the Vancouver Food

Bank, because he was too busy. He was busy meeting with Glenn Babb and

asking for South African investment in British Columbia.

notwithstanding the fact that every other civilized country in the

western world has been rejecting that kind of investment. This

government went out of its way to meet with the South African

Ambassador and beg that kind of investment for British Columbia.

Shortly after that, there was the takeover of the Bank of British

Columbia by the Hongkong Bank, even though we had a local institution

like Vancouver City Savings Credit Union bidding on that bank. Even

though we had that, we saw the government intervene directly to ensure

that we had a foreign owner take over the Bank of British Columbia. We

saw the Premier of the province state very clearly that he was sending

a message to the foreign community that we want it to invest in British

Columbia.

Shortly after that, we saw the sale of West Kootenay Power and Light

to an American-based company from Missouri, UtiliCorp United, even

though in most states in the United States it is illegal to have a

foreign or out-of-state hydroelectric utility purchase hydroelectric

utilities in that state. It is illegal in most states, and in most

places in Canada it wouldn't be allowed, but we saw for the first time

in history a hydroelectric utility, a monopoly resource, a strategic

sector of the economy in the Kootenays and the Okanagan, taken over by

an American company. This government, before the Utilities Commission

ruled, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Premier, said

that they supported this American takeover, because they wanted to send

a message to the United States that we're open for business.

We've also seen several trips to Europe and Asia, where they're

saying: "We're open for business in British Columbia." That's a

distinct difference and departure from what

[ Page 3520 ]

we've seen under W.A.C. Bennett, Dave Barrett and

even Bill Bennett in terms of the major thrust. One of the major

economic initiatives of this government is to promote foreign ownership.

Then we saw another major thrust, and it was in the budget. What did

the first budget do — this government that pleads poverty all the time,

that they can't afford to feed hungry children or to improve social

service, that they have to cut back? What did the budget say? The

budget pointed out the kind of hypocrisy with that pleading of poverty

that we see on the other side. We saw in the budget a continuation of

the Bill Bennett strategy of reducing taxes on corporations. We now

have in British Columbia $600 million in tax cuts to corporations. If

we had the taxes that Bill Bennett had three years ago, we would have

$600 million more in the coffers of British Columbia. That doesn't mean

raising taxes on corporations; it simply means restoring the taxes we

had under Bill Bennett.

What did the budget do? This budget under this Premier cut corporate

taxes. First Bennett cut them from 16 to 15 percent, and then this

government cut them to 14 percent. What else did they do? They cut the

wealth surtax, the 10 percent surtax on wealthy British Columbians,

which cost the taxpayers $35 million this year because of that loss of

tax revenue. The government bragged about the fact that we now have the

second lowest rate of taxation on rich people in Canada and one of the

lowest rates in North America.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. CLARK: "That's right, " the House Leader says. They're bragging about it; they agree. This is part of the strategy.

What did the same budget do? The same budget that cut taxes on large

businesses raised taxes on small businesses by 38 percent. The same

budget that cut taxes for the wealthy raised taxes on average $600 for

average British Columbians. What else did it do? It charged a

five-dollar fee for Pharmacare, because we can't afford it; we don't

have any money. That's going to raise $21 million for British Columbia

off the backs of senior citizens at the same time that they're cutting

taxes for wealthy people, which is going to cost us $35 million.

Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely clear that that was one of the most

regressive budgets in the history of British Columbia —a shifting of

the tax burden away from corporations and the wealthy onto everybody

else. It's absolutely clear. They can't plead poverty with those kinds

of numbers. If we went further, if we had Ronald Reagan's tax reform on

corporate profits, we would have another $200 million, hardly some

left-wing plot, hardly some radical change to increase taxes. If we

returned the taxes we had under Bill Bennett three years ago, and had

Ronald Reagan's tax reform, we'd have $800 million more for British

Columbia. That means no deficit, and no taxes on seniors and those

kinds of things. A very significant and radical budget.

What was the main legislation we've dealt with since the current administration got elected? Bills 19 and Bill 20.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Lots of cheers from the back bench.

I think Bill 20 was really a personal attack on teachers in this

province by a Premier who used to be the Minister of Education and

simply doesn't like them. But Bill 19 fits the agenda because.... We

saw the real purpose of Bill 19, which is the de-unionization of

British Columbia and the reduction of wages and working conditions in

British Columbia. If you look at Bill 19, it has significant economic

implications as well. There were over 90 changes to the old Labour

Code, and one of those changes, which didn't get much attention, was a

change that retroactively eliminated the right of unions to negotiate

with their employer agreements which restricted the purchase of goods

to union companies.

For example, since 1907 the plumbers' and pipefitters' union has had

a clause in their collective agreement — which is now illegal, by this

government — which said that plumbers would only erect steel that was

fabricated by the plumbers' union members.

The last pulp mill to be built in British Columbia was the

Skookumchuck pulp mill, and anybody who's looked at a pulp mill knows

there's a lot of pipe in pulp mills. That company wanted to bring that

pipe in from Taiwan and Japan, but they couldn't do it because of the

union collective agreement which said they had to buy British Columbia

union made products.

That's now illegal. We are in the midst of the biggest pulp mill

expansion in the history of British Columbia, and all of that pipe

could very easily now come from Taiwan, Korea, Japan and those

countries that have lower wages and lower working conditions.

So the fact of the matter is that there is nothing prohibiting those

companies from doing that, and that is a direct loss to the economy of

British Columbia if they do that. So it's absolutely clear that Bill 19

was a radical piece of legislation designed to have radical

consequences for the economy.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is the fourth major thrust of this government

and this initiative? I think it is — and I want to be careful how I

state this — a misunderstanding of the public interest and personal or

private interests, and I think we can look very clearly at a number of

things which demonstrate the misunderstanding, the failure to

comprehend the public interest and the confusion of their role as

individual businessmen and how they see the role of government in

British Columbia.

We saw that with the Coquihalla, where a $500 million overrun in the

budget was hidden systematically by the previous and present

administration. We've seen the current Premier introduce in this House

public accounts which showed the Coquihalla was $11 million under

budget, when they knew, or ought to have known, that the Coquihalla

Highway was hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.

So we've seen a kind of systematic misleading of the public on the

true costs of that project, and I think it begs the question as to how

truthful they have been on other projects in British Columbia.

I want to draw to the attention of the people and the members some

other things that have happened with respect to the agricultural land

reserve in British Columbia this last year since this government has

come into office.

Let's take the Premier's own property at Fantasy Gardens, which he

built and systematically broke dozens of bylaws in the town of Richmond

and then retroactively appealed and got them retracted. Then when he

was Premier, he applied to have his land removed from the land reserve.

A commission appointed by this government removed his land from the

land reserve, and he personally made over $4 million because of a

[ Page

3521 ]

decision made by a commission appointed by his government. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

[11:30]

If we look at the assessment in 1985, his property at Fantasy

Gardens was valued at $804,000; but one year later, while he was

Premier and after his land was removed from the land reserve, the

assessed value was $4,900,000. Commercial land is worth more than

agricultural land. There's a tremendous incentive to have land removed

from the land reserve. This Premier has made a virtue out of thwarting

the spirit of the land reserve. He has made a virtue out of flagrantly

violating the bylaws of Richmond, and he has made, in the process,

millions of dollars through decisions made by people appointed by this

government. It is nothing short of scandalous. But worse than that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it outside.

MR. CLARK: I'll say it outside. I'll be happy to say it outside, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, Terra Nova land in Richmond. One individual who lent

his helicopter to the Premier during his leadership campaign owns 50

percent of Terra Nova land. That land was turned down by the Land

Commission when they applied to have it removed from the land reserve.

What did he do — Mr. Ilich? He applied to cabinet to have the Land

Commission overturned. And cabinet, with the Premier in it, voted to

overturn the Land Commission and remove that land from the land

reserve. That act earned for that one person over $20 million.

The Land Commission in this province is very clearly dead because of

the example of the Premier, and because of the headlong rush of

developers who own land on the fringes of urban areas in agricultural

land who want to get their land removed from the land reserve. It's now

open season. You can't blame people who own that agricultural land. The

windfall profit is enormous.

When the Land Commission turns it down, then very clearly those

people who have some expertise in agricultural production should be

listened to at least somewhat carefully. But the cabinet made a

political decision to help their friend, a political supporter in

Richmond and a political supporter of the Premier, to make $20 million.

The potential for kickbacks is absolutely enormous and I think calls

into question the decision-making we've seen from this government over

their first year in office.

Then the latest initiative, privatization. If we see the

continuation of this kind of public morality when it comes to

privatization, then we haven't seen anything yet. Because in

privatization it means selling some public assets to friends of the

government at less than those public assets are worth.

MR. MOWAY Will you say it outside the House?

MR. CLARK: I'll say it outside the House, Mr. Member for Little Mountain. I'd be happy to.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what privatization means in British

Columbia. I had someone who was driving on a highway the other day and was stopped

by a flag person, a young woman. He asked her: "How much are you making?"

She said: "$4.50 an hour." He said: "I thought you made more

than that." She said: "Well, I used to make $12 an hour when I was

a member of the BCGEU. But a contractor came along and said to the government:

'We'll do it for $11.50 an hour. We'll save you 50 cents per hour.'"

So the contractor gets the job for $11.50 per hour, the government brags about

saving 50 cents an hour, but the contractor turns around and pays his employees

only $4.50 an hour. So $7 an hour now goes into the pockets of a private

contractor.

That's what they mean by privatization. It has nothing to do with

economics or with saving taxpayers' money. It has everything to do with

ideology, and everything to do with helping their friends make money at

the public trough. What we're seeing is a kind of greed, if I could be

so blunt, from people on that side of the House and from their friends

in the business community. That's what it's all about. It has nothing

to do with economics or with efficiency. It has everything to do with

ideology and with their version of morality, which, I submit to you, is

very clearly one that is clouded by a misunderstanding of the

difference between acting in the public interest and acting in their

own personal interest or the private interest of their friends in the

business community.

We've seen this Premier shill his Fantasy Gardens everywhere in

British Columbia. Everywhere he goes he promotes that tourist

attraction, as he calls it. Everywhere he goes he promotes it.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: He owns 30 percent of it. Decisions made by the

government he has benefited personally by. and everywhere he goes he

promotes it. They don't understand and he doesn't understand the

difference between his role as advocate of the public interest

representing all British Columbians and his role as a businessman in

the private sector. If he wants to do that, he should go into the

private sector again and not take time up in this chamber or with the

people of British Columbia.

It's clear the direction they’re taking us; when you look at it,

it's absolutely clear. What is it? Promotion of foreign ownership,

lower wages to compete and attract investment from foreign countries: a

shifting of the tax burden away from corporations and wealthy

individuals, again to attract investment from Asia, from Korea, from

Taiwan and those countries that are models for this government to

follow — attract wealthy immigration and cut taxes on the rich so we

can attract these people. That's the direction. If there is a common

thread, it's the de-unionization of British Columbia and the reduction

of wages and working conditions for British Columbians. It's absolutely

clear.

When you combine that with a move to privatization in order to break

public sector unions and to help their friends make money at public

expense, it's absolutely clear that on the economic side — let alone

the social side — they have a vision for British Columbia. I think it's

a vision that is not shared by British Columbians. I think, quite

frankly, that it is a frightening vision — one of a union-free British

Columbia and a haven for Asian investment; one where the vast majority

of British Columbians are essentially impoverished, and the wealth will

be concentrated in the hands of a few foreign landowners.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I'm not in favour of investment that takes away from British Columbians and doesn't create jobs. The

[ Page 3522 ]

takeover.... The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) is heckling me, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. There's a little bit of heckling going on in here. Let the member continue, please.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that, because I am

not in favour of the Hongkong Bank taking over the Bank of British

Columbia. How many jobs did that create? Not one. How many jobs did

that foreign company, the American company that took over West Kootenay

Power, create? Not one. They are taking over going concerns in British

Columbia. They're not adding anything to British Columbia; they're not

creating jobs. It's part of an agenda by this government; it's part of

their agenda for the economics of British Columbia, and it ties in

nicely with the completely different thrusts they have made over the

last year. When you look at them together, the direction they are

taking is absolutely clear, and I think it's quite frightening. It is

not a vision shared by British Columbians, in my view.

There are fundamental differences between the vision on this side

and the vision on that side. The member for Little Mountain is correct:

we don't agree. And we don't agree with the direction they are taking

British Columbians. We don't believe in relying on foreign ownership to

develop British Columbia. We believe in what Quebeckers call "maitre

chez nous," which means "masters in our own house." That means not

becoming tenants in our own land and not allowing that kind of flood of

foreign capital in here to take over the land and property of British

Columbia, but relying on British Columbians to develop British Columbia

and using our wealth in pension funds and others to develop British

Columbia for British Columbians by British Columbians — not relying on

this kind of phony foreign investment and begging around the world from

South Africa, Asia, Taiwan and those places to develop British

Columbia. We certainly don't need that, and we don't support it.

We don't believe in cutting taxes for the rich; we don't believe in

cutting taxes for corporations. We believe in them paying their fair

share of taxes. We don't believe that tellers who work for banks should

pay more taxes than the banks themselves, which has been the case in

British Columbia. This government cut the taxes on the banks in the

last budget. We don't believe in a young person pumping gas for Shell

Oil paying more tax than Shell Oil itself. It is scandalous, and this

government is moving us further in that direction and widening the gap

between rich and poor. It's absolutely clear, the kind of direction

we've seen.

We believe in people paying their fair share of taxes, and if we had

that in British Columbia, we certainly wouldn't need these chippy taxes

on seniors. We certainly wouldn't even have a deficit, and we could

fund social services, health care and education to the level

appropriate for this kind of rich society in this rich province.

We don't believe in breaking trade unions or in forcing them, through the heavy hand of the state, to accept lower wages.

MR. R. FRASER: We don't either.

MR. CLARK: You do so, Mr. Member. That's the whole thrust of

this administration. It's absolutely clear. We believe in the

fundamental right of working people to organize collectively and to get

a fair share for the fruits of their labour. The member for Vancouver

South believes that he should be over here and not over there, then.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in public services in the hands of the

public sector and not in the hands of private buccaneering contractors

who are friends of the government and are going to make money off this

venture. We don't believe in privatizing highway maintenance in this

province. We don't believe that we should let private contractors make

money when safety and lives are in jeopardy. We have a good system of

public services. We have a good system of highway maintenance, and we

don't think it should be privatized.

In the coming year we will have a chance to see what direction

they're taking us even further down this slope in economics. I'm

absolutely convinced that, if you look at their vision, and it's clear,

and the public sees that vision of where this government is taking us,

it's a radical and ideological vision which is not shared by British

Columbians. I'm convinced that, on economic grounds at least, the

people will not accept it. On social grounds the people will not accept

this forcing of their phony morality on British Columbians.

I'm absolutely clear that the throne speech that we've just seen and

that I'm speaking on is a continuation of the radical vision of this

administration. It is a continuation of the kinds of crazy schemes to

help their friends, the kind of blind faith in their ideology, which is

not shared by British Columbians. We will have a chance over the next

year to point out to people the direction we're being taken. I'm

convinced that they will defeat the government. The voters of British

Columbia will reject this kind of radical vision for British Columbia.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, before I get to the comments I'd

intended to make on the throne speech, I want to, in all seriousness,

dissociate all members on this side of the House from the very

unfortunate, pejorative comments about Asian investment made by the

second member for Vancouver East, who quite obviously is learning his

lessons well, in terms of the excellence in muckraking achieved by his

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

Once again, it is indeed my honour to stand in my place as a member

of an institution more under strain today than at any time during my

short life. I do so with humility in the knowledge that I carry the

trust of those who sent me here to use my best judgment when conducting

the people's business.

To our Speaker, we thank you again for serving our traditions and our institution as well as you do.

The institution I refer to as being under strain is the one we call

a pluralistic democracy. All over this globe, the notion of democracy

and pluralism is being undermined by the forces of narrow,

single-purpose elites, be they military, monetary, theistic or

ideological. We are in a period of some epic change, so it is important

for us to reflect for a moment, to consider our good fortune at serving

both pluralism and democracy in this magnificent Canada.

We are not immune to the forces tugging at democracy and pluralism,

but we are blessed with a system that allows for solid leadership

without a diminution of democracy. That system is found not in the

written part of our constitution but rather within the conventions of

our constitution. It is important for all of us to debate, discuss and

demand that the

[ Page

3523 ]

conventions embodied by you, Mr. Speaker, and

through you to His Honour the representative of Her Majesty, be adhered

to, especially during times of great change.

[11:45]

Let us be mindful that within the seeming minutiae of our

constitutional conventions is reposed the freedom we express every time

one of us stands in this place. Perhaps the greatest challenge that our

constitution faces, especially including the conventions of that

constitution, is the increasing realization that the Charter of 1981

did impose a republican system of ultimate law upon a parliamentary

system of government. So we now are in the vanguard of those

legislators who must grapple with the complexity of bringing

legislation into an institution whose own Bill 1 claims a supremacy

that may over time cease to exist, as the judiciary asserts its place

more and more as the body where ultimate decisions about both social

policy and collective rights will be made.

I do not pass value judgment about that phenomenon, but I do say

that we must each understand that the Charter has changed the way we

can do business, and it will mean necessarily that both individual

members as well as those in the executive council will have to approach

public policy decisions from a changed perspective, a perspective that

will demand more listening, more hearing, more understanding and more

respect for the multiplicity of legitimate, determined and honourably

held beliefs and opinions that permeate this society.

Mr. Speaker, in a public policy sense, both with respect to the

development and implementation, subtlety of purpose is becoming a

premium value. Our Canadian constitutional conventions have been the

embodiment of the way we have successfully met the challenge of

governing this complex, diverse, immense society through much change

and over a long period of time.

So as I stand here today, I want to remind myself — and anyone who

cares to hear, for that matter — that we are a privileged lot whose

continuing good fortune will be held more in the hands of our history

than in the presumed agility of our minds. Let us pray that we not

forget from whence we came, lest we fail to see where otherwise we may

be going.

As I set out why I've decided to support the throne speech, I want

to refer to some of its specifics and relate them in part to needs and

goals of the Kamloops constituency.

Let me begin by referring to the comments about our relative place

in Confederation. Mr. Speaker, the historic fact is that this province

has always sought ways to enhance our contribution to Canada. We

recognize that because we are a growth economy and an evolving economy,

investment by Canada in this province — economically, socially,

jurisdictionally — will provide an even greater return to Canada. Our

plea is never to get out; we want to get in. The people of this

province stand for Canada. We know we can achieve and contribute more,

and our task, as always, is to find the best way for us as Canadians to

do just that.

Mr. Speaker, each person representing Canadians — in this

Legislature, or in Ottawa from British Columbia — has a responsibility

to ensure that Canada's investment in B.C. is fair, and that it meets

our needs and gives us the chance to contribute all that we should to

the growth, development and excellence of this great nation.

So it is with some annoyance that I recently listened to the NDP federal House

Leader, Mr. Riis, bluster away at my criticisms of his failure to fully and

effectively represent Kamloops' needs in Ottawa. Given the source, in what

surely was the all-time specious attack by that MP, he claimed that my comments

were partisan when I pointed out his failure to secure job creation funding

for a major resort development at Blue River. For seven years he failed. He

talked about development; he regurgitated unemployment statistics; he had all

the correct one-liners for the 30-second clips, But he didn't get the job

done in Ottawa for Canadians living in Blue River. That task Mr. Riis left to

Frank Oberle, the MP from Prince George-Peace River, who mercifully has taken

over our area under his federal wing.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that in relation to Canada, every single

one of us who are elected to serve Canadians living in British Columbia

must do our part to give this province its chance to play its rightful

role in Canada. Finding the appropriate process to systematically

advance our needs to a successful conclusion is the task to which

everyone in this House ought to contribute. It is good news for all in

this House that the government fully supports the free trade agreement

with the U.S. and will enact trade opportunities legislation.

Just two weeks ago, I hosted a highly successful trade opportunities

forum in Kamloops. That forum demonstrated many things, but two stand

out in particular. First, the people want more and better information

about the deal. Second, mainstream British Columbia has the confidence

in itself to meet the challenge of growth and opportunity flowing from

liberalized trade with the U.S. Explaining the free trade deal is too

important a matter to be left with politicians alone. I recommend

strongly that the kind of forum held in Kamloops be convened throughout

the province. We videotaped the Kamloops forum, and we'd be happy to

help any member so interested to get access to that cablevision

production.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment to pursue innovative health care

approaches is most encouraging, particularly respecting alternative

care practitioners. I suggest that insuring hospital privileges for

chiropractors would be an appropriate starting point. Speaking of

alternative care methods, I want to tell all those British Columbians

who, like me, suffer from insomnia that there now is a cure on the

horizon, the evidence of which can be found when listening to

yesterday's speech by the Leader of the Opposition.

Restructuring the ERDA poses a major challenge. That agreement has

served well because it was tailored to the economic conditions

appropriate at the time of its negotiation. Those conditions have

changed. Accordingly, it is appropriate to seek change as the present

ERDA comes to a close. But I must issue a caution respecting equity

investments by government. When contemplating new programs, I always

ask myself if I'd be comfortable having the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) doing the administration. When it comes to equity

investments by government, I cannot think of any situations which would

give me comfort using that test.

This government is blessed with a capable, strong Forests minister.

I'm sure all the big city newspaper intellectuals who predicted his

early demise are now swallowing some well-worn passages from Mark

Twain. Legislation to mandate harvested area reforestation is welcomed

because it will ensure less administrative flexibility in that

important area of management. In Kamloops constituency, examples abound

that demonstrate both the best and the poorest shows of forest

management in the province.

Better utilization of our fibre base is an objective that we must pursue if we are to meet the challenge in communities

[ Page 3524 ]

like Barriere, Savona, Vavenby and Clearwater.

While primacy will always rest with the private sector respecting new

investment for improved utilization, it may be that a little

well-targeted administrative guidance now might be timely.

Certainly we must find a more effective way to ensure that the chip

price paid independent producers bears some relation to the price for

pulp obtained by the integrated sector. One area worthy of pursuit is

to create a more appropriate incentive to diminish the number of round

logs now going through the chipper. It may be that with improved

recovery technology there are no longer very many so called pulp logs

anywhere in B.C.

We applaud the work of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Davis) to

review the industry's tax structure with a view, no doubt, to ensuring

that industry rate remains competitive through a regime of profit-based

taxes. In Kamloops constituency we are enjoying the fruits of expanded

mineral exploration, new capital investment in existing mines and the

likelihood of having one, if not two, new properties brought into

production during the next 18 months.

In agriculture we are enjoying an extended period of good prices for

our beef. Together with Mayor Dormer of Kamloops, I am doing my part to

pursue the very real possibilities associated with locating a new

meat-processing facility in our area. Preparing a long-term strategy to

develop new products and new markets will disclose, I am sure, the

enormous possibilities underlying our agriculture sector. If we develop

those niche markets, as I know we will, our agriculture sector's

contribution to this economy will grow dramatically, and it cannot be

stressed too often that communities who enjoy a strong agriculture base

usually also enjoy a stable employment climate. Kamloops constituency

strongly supports the marketing and development initiatives now

underway by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage).

A great challenge of our times is in the area of waste management.

It is important, therefore, to note a renewed commitment to encourage

reuse and recycling of municipal wastes. Our landfills are becoming

major problems, and there is no doubt that recycling reduces the

landfill needs significantly. It is a subject which has little

political glitter but much importance for local taxpayers.

In Kamloops we are acutely aware of the need for real

diversification of our economy. Unemployment simply is far too high.

Our manufacturers' association has pioneered many community-based ways

to help local manufacturers. They appreciate the support of this

government and they look forward to their continuing good relationship

with the Ministry of Economic Development. The Economic Development

ministry has responded quickly and effectively to the needs of groups

seeking its help. In Clearwater the efforts of Paul Caissie, our

regional district representative, to obtain specific help for the

area's efforts in targeting potential investors have been met with the

offer of assistance through existing programs, and for that the local

area extends its appreciation.

[12:00]

That ministry has also given timely assistance in the pursuit of an important

computer terminal manufacturer who is looking to Kamloops because we have the

lottery centre and because we are located central to their western North American

market. Free trade will help our lottery technology potential to flourish because

tariffs in that area now are high, but they get reduced to zero during year

one of the agreement. We are pleased, therefore, that the Economic Development

ministry is taking a lead role in pursuing trade opportunities in this area.

Transportation is a major employer in Kamloops. Our tourism, retail

and distribution sectors each depend upon good transportation routes.

We are a regional service centre for health, education, land title,

mine recording and the outstanding people services provided by my

colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond). During the past year we've made strides in developing new

air services. For that, I thank the Tourism minister for his innovative

assistance.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We have, however, a number of transportation needs. Two of them are

relatively immediate. First, the road to Helmcken Falls in Wells Gray

Park must be paved in time to benefit from the potential associated

with celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray Park in 1989.

Local groups are doing much to market the park and use it as a tool to

develop the area. The Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Parks are

each being very helpful. However, if we are to reap the rewards, we

need help from the Ministry of Highways.

Second is the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops. Recent news

reports stated that senior Highways bureaucrats had announced that the

road isn't on anyone's priority list. That may be true for senior

Highways bureaucrats, but it is not true for the people. In Kamloops,

in Monte Creek, in Barnhart Vale and in Dallas the people clearly say

that road is a priority. It is a priority because right now it is a

dangerous, unsafe road during peak traffic periods. In addition,

improving that road will enhance development of the Shuswap Lake

recreation area and thereby create jobs.

We are pleased with the work of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) in securing more and better-targeted support for children in

our public school system. We have a good public school system. All

objective measuring tools point that way. Literacy is the most

significant test of performance, and B.C.'s education system is number

one in Canada, number one in North America and number one in the free

world. That is a fact of which we are proud, and we congratulate those

who make our system tick for achieving that level of excellence. When

the NDP condemns our public school system, they are wrong. It is a good

system with good teachers who do a good job on behalf of our children.

We in Kamloops have a fine college, and we're pleased to note it is

establishing links with UBC in a wide range of disciplines. I support

Cariboo College and will be working with them as they evolve from those

links into an important degree-granting institution.

In Kamloops we've enjoyed a year of improved industrial relations,

and we've seen more cooperation between all sectors of society in

seeking joint solutions to common problems. I am pleased to note that

last year I was able to bring together a formerly non-union builder and

the local labour council president and help them embark upon a

joint-venture housing project which put people to work using the

carpenters' pension fund as a source of capital.

I look forward to the Meech Lake accord debate in this House. But in

the interim I urge my colleagues here to convene public meetings prior

to that debate, so that the people can inform them of their views about

that historic agreement. Two weeks ago I reported to this House on the

results of such a public hearing that I convened and chaired in

[ Page

3525 ]

Kamloops. At that time, I tabled briefs from

several groups who had put much effort into their presentations. Those

people were doubtless shocked to learn of the derision, the arrogant

putdowns and the contempt displayed to them by that brace of has-beens

seated to my right, led by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams). Their comments were unseemly attacks on the work of the

Women's Resource Centre, the multicultural association and the Kamloops

Indian Band.

They were, therefore, the finest demonstration of all as to why it

is that the socialists have lost elections in this province beginning

in 1933, carrying on in 1937, 1941, 1945 and 1949, beginning in 1952

for seven consecutive elections including 1969, and then darkness, when

in 1972 the people touched the hot stove of socialism, only to quickly

pull back their hand at the first chance in 1975. Since 1975, they've

rejected socialism three more times, and the people will continue well

into the future to reject those folks who sit to my right, because they

prefer to embrace strong leadership, sound policies and challenging the

future. I make mention of that because in this House there has grown a

myth that it was Patrick McGeer who reminded us of the folly of

socialism all these years. That myth must be exploded today. In fact,

it was W.A. C. Bennett who made that speech over and over again in this

House, and Patrick McGeer picked it up from him.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to close by saying that after considering all of the many

wonderful things in this throne speech and after weighing them

carefully, I have decided to stand and vote in favour of this throne

speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: We are honoured today in the gallery to have 13

young ladies from the 29th North Vancouver Girl Guides organization.

They've gotten up early, I think, this morning to attend these chambers

and listen to this debate, and they are under the guidance of Mrs. J.

Silcock. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and to this

Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Yale-Lillooet would also like to make an introduction, hon. members.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: On behalf of the Speaker, it's my pleasure today

to introduce to the House a sister-in-law and a nephew. Mrs. B. Gough,

who is from Denver, and her son, Brent Gough from Palm Springs, are

here in the gallery. Would you please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I couldn't help but notice, when the second member for

Kamloops finished speaking, that with a sigh of relief he turned about in his

place and took his speech and ripped it up and threw it into the basket. I just

wanted to commend him on his insight in being able to pick up the sense of the

House in response to that speech. I think that speaks well of his perception,

certainly.

As I stand to offer my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I

note that it was exactly one year and one day ago today that I last

spoke to a Speech from the Throne. I'm certainly not about to bring

back old memories for all those people opposite, but there is a grand

temptation confronting me to take an entirely different approach. The

last time I spoke in the throne speech I was, to put it mildly, quite

critical. Indeed, I think I castigated and chastised members opposite

for what I held to be the superficial quality of analysis presented in

the throne speech. I have to begin today by saying that if I were

credulous and capable only of superficial analysis, I would praise this

throne speech. I would, because I detect a remarkable and significant

departure from the last throne speech.

We all recall, I am sure, those ritual incantations we heard before about job

one of government being to get government out of the way of the private sector.

"The private sector" became the refrain throughout the whole thing;

we heard it again and again and again. I note, curiously enough, it's almost

conspicuous by its absence this time. Moreover, there is a recognition of the

limitation of that private sector activity, left to its own devices. Because

on page 3 of the throne speech, it says very clearly that development can sometimes

"bring pressures, problems and costs to threaten the quality of life we

enjoy." The government, in its attempted wisdom, its small step towards

wisdom, actually comes forward with a recognition that a plan and a developmental

approach to the economy is indeed in order.

I thought, given the record of this government, especially what we

heard in the last throne speech, that we had seen a conversion of the

first magnitude. This is an amazing leap forward, because the statement

here about a ten-year plan to look at the social and economic

well-being of the province comes decidedly close to the history of

social democratic governments throughout the world. I thought then —

just for a moment, I confess — that perhaps indeed the government had

taken some small step towards conversion, had come to its senses.

Regrettably that is not the case. Regrettably it is the case, rather,

that a close inspection and analysis of the throne speech document

demonstrates that quite the reverse is true.

It demonstrates that indeed the lessons have not been learned — the

lessons of the past year that my colleague from Vancouver East

elucidated with some passion. Those lessons have not been learned at

all. Rather, it seems the government is bent on proceeding along the

same path, despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to

demonstrate that there are roadblocks and obstructions along that

particular road.

For example, let me give an illustration, if I might, of the kind of

single-minded devotion to discredited thin as that this government does

indeed seem to be pursuing, to judge from the throne speech.

First, let me touch on confrontation. If one looks at the throne

speech, on pages 2 and 3, we have a reference to the fact that in the

next short while we are going to see a number of contracts come up for

renewal. That's quite a legitimate concern on the part of government,

but look at the words that are used to describe this.

[12:15]

What we hear, of course, is that "public and private sector

contracts affecting 55 percent of our unionized workforce are up for

renewal. The eyes of the world's business and investment community will

be upon us. My government...will meet the test. My government will play

its part. We will be

[ Page 3526 ]

fair but firm, serving the interests of all British

Columbians rather than special interests." As I read that, Mr. Speaker,

I say, well, on the face of it that sounds reasonable enough. Except

that then I remember the track record of this government: what it means

by "special interests" essentially is working men and women. Every

other time we've heard about special interests, as enunciated by that

government, it's meant workers. I think, well, maybe what we're really

getting here is notice being given to working people throughout the

province: "You folks had better settle for very little, and you'd

better settle quickly, or we're going to come down like gangbusters."

To be sure, 1 may be overly sensitive; I may indeed be too

apprehensive about this. Perhaps I've become jaded in my year in the

Legislature. But then I recall listening to the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen), the Premier's running mate, and what he had to

say about labour relations. You recall that we weren't exactly dealing

simply with the idiosyncratic comments of a back-bencher. Rather, this

individual was given the honour and the high profile position of moving

the Speech from the Throne. As I looked at his remarks and listened to

those remarks, I thought: well, perhaps he would give us a better idea

as to what the government's real agenda, real sensibilities, might be

insofar as industrial relations in the province.

I note three things in his remarks. One is that he makes quite a

point of reminding us that wage increases will be connected to

unemployment. Of course that's obvious. We know that we could employ

every man, woman and child in this province if we paid $1 an hour. It

would be a piece of cake; we could do that. The question is, would we

benefit, and pretty obviously we wouldn't. So he talks about wage

increases and the problem with wage increases.

He then goes on to talk specifically about public sector wage

increases and says the problem with the public sector is, of course,

you can't measure productivity. And I wonder, gee, is this perhaps the

agenda, that what we're really doing is we're giving notice, using the

second member for Richmond as the stalking-horse for government. Is he

in fact the one giving notice?

Then to corroborate and confirm that suspicion, Mr. Speaker, I look

a little further and I see that the member —this spokesperson for

government — also has to talk about the International Woodworkers of

America negotiation and to say, before we've seen anything by way of

positions or negotiations or anything going on, that they're asking for

too much money. I wonder, then, if this isn't in fact the real agenda

of government — to effectively tell organized labour: you guys, you

people better watch out because we're standing here and times are

tough, etc., etc.

If that treatment was equitable and across the board, I'm sure that

none of us on this side would be terribly upset. But when I notice in

the speech that it is only that sector of the economy that is singled

out, then I think I am right to be somewhat suspicious. In other words,

behind the very vague, the very obfuscatory and the platitudinous

comments of the throne speech, we find the much more specific and scary

comments of the second member for Richmond. That causes me to conclude

that, yes indeed, confrontation is alive and well in this province and

lurking on the horizon.

In case anybody opposite thinks that I am indeed being much too

selective and overstating the case, let's look at that other example of

confrontation. I am referring to the unprecedented assault on the

federal government and, I would argue, the unprecedented assault on

federalism itself, which I think is manifest in the throne speech.

When I listened to the throne speech being read, and when I examined

it myself on a couple of occasions, I thought instantly: what a

surprise this is! After all, this government claims to be

hand-in-glove, good friends with that Conservative government in

Ottawa. I thought: wait a minute. If these are the people — that is,

the Social Credit government we have today — who have been getting all

these great benefits, whom we elected, in part at least, because we

were told they would be a better representation and they had better

contacts in Ottawa; moreover, if we remember that the Premier of the

province has been busily negotiating with the federal government for

some time, and we are being told again and again what great success

we've had; if that's the case, why this attack on Ottawa?

I would delight to be a fly on the wall in the federal cabinet

offices. I would love to hear what the Prime Minister of Canada had to

say when he listened to or read the throne speech in British Columbia.

Apropos of that, I was reminded of that line from probably the least

effective President in United States history, Warren Gamaliel Harding.

I remember that once when Harding was confronted by yet another scandal

and was going down for the third time, he said: "You know, my enemies I

can handle, but it's my friends, my god-damned friends.... I hasten to

point out, Mr. Speaker, if I am pushing the boundaries of parliamentary

discourse, that that is a direct quotation from the ex-President of the

United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. Minister opposite, for saying: "Don't worry about it." I appreciate that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, I don't. I hear some slight eruptions from

the other side of the House. Sadly, however, they are barely

comprehensible, as is typical, so I shan't take time to respond.

The area I wanted to move to is this business of the frontal assault

on the federal government. As I suggested a moment ago, one has to

wonder why. Could it be that we are dealing with crass politics? Could

it be that this government, this rather sanctimonious, upright, pure

government — at least to judge from the basis of the speech made by the

second member for Kamloops a few moments ago — could be guilty of crass

politics? Could it be that they regard the fact that a federal election

is imminent as a means, then, to suggest: "Here's our shopping list"?

Could this be the case? I thought, no, this certainly couldn't.

But then I remembered my Machiavelli, and I couldn't resist checking

it out. I must confess, I had difficulty finding exactly the line I

wanted, but it is there. Machiavelli, remember, tells us of course —

and I know that all members opposite are certainly familiar with this

brilliant writer and analyst of politics and politicians — that what

governments always find to their advantage to do is create, in our

terms, diversions. To put it in very blunt, colloquial terms: if things

are pretty hot at the local level, then, for heaven's sake, find an

enemy somewhere else you can attack.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

[ Page

3527 ]

MR. LOVICK: Oh, Machiavelli said that. Yes, indeed. I have just put him into modern dress, in terms of language. All right?

Machiavelli tells the story about the Venetians and how they

maintained their hold on that republic. He talks about how the

Venetians found it in their interest to foster a feud between the

Guelphs and the Ghibellines — I'm not sure I can pronounce those

correctly, Mr. Speaker; I hope I'll be forgiven. It's just a short

passage, but it's marvelously apropos for the throne speech today and

the strategy obviously being pursued by this government. He says what

happened was that they fostered the factions of Guelph and Ghibelline

in the city subject to them — "them" being the Venetians — and, "though

they did not suffer blood to be shed, fomented their feuds" — here's

the passage, Mr. Speaker — "in order that the citizens having their

minds occupied with these disputes might not conspire against them."

What a marvelous description of the only plausible explanation for that

rather vacuous, vitriolic and quite silly attack on the federal

government that we saw in the throne speech.

However, I detect my comments may indeed be perceived to be more

facetious and perhaps, dare I say, almost ironic on occasion. But there

is a serious note here, and I want to shift gears a little bit and say

there's something ominous here too. There really is an ominous quality

about this portion of the throne speech because we not only have the

kind of ritualistic fed bashing that some of us have known about for

years that has indeed gone on in every province of the country, but

there's something a little bit more sinister. The something sinister is

a line in the speech that has been picked up by the Premier of the

province and trotted out at every radio station, it seems, certainly

that I've heard, and given to all the newspapers, and it talks about

the growing feeling of alienation in the west.

I know a little bit about that subject; in fact, I used to teach a

course in which we talked about western alienation — the historical

basis of it and the growth of it and all of that stuff. I thought to

myself: where did this come from? Where is this growing alienation? The

answer, sadly, is that it isn't around except by the most radical

outcast portion of the electorate. I am talking about the resident

rednecks, the remnants of the Western Canada Concept and other such

sundry insanities that are still kicking around. That's the problem.

Then I thought, is it the case then that in order to maintain this

rag-tag coalition, which is often referred to as a good definition of

Social Credit, the Premier then has to make appeal to those rather

scary elements? Is that why we talk about this growing feeling of

alienation? Is that why, in a more serious note for a moment, we have a

set of statements in the throne speech that quite frankly looks like a

declaration of war against Ottawa? A declaration of war against the

federal government; against the federal system itself. A declaration

that looks suspiciously to me like a separation manifesto.

We have a number of lines there that say we are going to take back control

and grab things. Maybe I could quote just a little bit so I can substantiate

my claim, rather than simply asking you to take my word for it. For example,

the provincial government, via the throne speech, informs us that they are going

to set out to identify shortcomings in the federal-provincial system. Now that's

rather interesting, isn't it? If you say you're going to identify shortcomings,

you beg the question of whether there are. Pretty clearly you start from the

assumption that there are. Therefore we're going to find them and prove

them. I would suggest that's a prescription for predictable confrontation.

Moreover, we're going to have a making public on a regular basis —

get this, Mr. Speaker — an evaluation of our status and treatment

within Confederation. I can see it now being published in the National Enquirer ,

as you come through the Overwaitea checkout. We're going to get weekly

bulletins from the provincial government, saying: "Boy, did we get had

this week!" What kind of mindset animates that kind of program, except

one that, as I say, has an agenda that challenges the nature of the

federal system. I'm worried. I think those are ominous signs.

[12:30]

Another ominous note on that theme, if I might for a moment, is the reference to trade zones. I often like to believe that...

AN HON. MEMBER: Special zones.

MR. LOVICK: Special zones, free trade zones — they go by a number of names, as we all know.

... we develop in a kind of cumulative way as a species, that we

learn from our mistakes and don't always have to repeat them. However.

to judge from this piece of the throne speech and others, the only

conclusion I can derive is that we haven't learned anything.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

For example, I remember about three or four years ago, when trade

zones were all the rage, we had a panel discussion in my constituency

in Nanaimo, attended by a number of economists — experts, people from

offshore as well as throughout Canada — and we established very clearly

that (1) trade zones didn't really amount to anything more than

industrial parks with fewer restrictions on zoning. That's all a trade

zone is. It's an industrial park where you simply remove the

restrictions that cost you money in business. You remove restrictions

such as environmental protection and union sector wage levels — cuts

like that. Somebody is shaking his head, but I want to tell him, on the

basis of a considerable amount of reading and evidence, that I can

corroborate that claim, substantiate that claim. What we're talking

about, as I say, is simply industrial parks without many restrictions

imposed.

Never has it been proven that the trade zone, the economic

development zone, the free trade zone, or whatever else you wish to

call it, is a great boost to any economy. The only examples we have of

so-called success are in those places we all aspire to recreate in

B.C., like Singapore and the Philippines. The ones we've heard of in

Texas and California simply have not worked.

So I am apprehensive. I am concerned when I hear that about trade

zones. Another problem with the trade zone business is that we

continue, it seems to me.... I say "we," meaning this government. It

continues to look for others to solve our problems. Of course we need

investment capital, of course we need trade: there's no doubt about

that. But we keep looking for the quick fix, for someone else to help

us.

I want to touch briefly now on the economic claims made by

government in this throne speech. Again, I have a sense of dej vu.

We've heard this before. Last time we were told, contrary to all the

evidence, that yes indeed, things were going along swimmingly, the

economy was prosperous, etc., and we'd been told prosperity had

arrived. Pretty obviously it hadn't. This time we get more of the same.

Indeed, to judge from the rhetoric, things have never been better.

[ Page

3528 ]

The throne speech paints, in short, a very rosy picture. but some

comments are due on that throne speech. We are prepared to grant,

because it is a fact, that we began to see the end of the recession in

1987. It is, however, not the case that that is a result of actions

taken by this government. We are also prepared to grant it is a fact

that our resource industries benefited from a cyclical upswing in world

markets. Again, however, that is not because of any action taken by

this government.

We benefited, of course, from new investment and some new jobs were

created. We don't know, by the way, what the average wage level in

those new jobs is — something to worry about — and we don't know

whether they are full-time or part-time workers, but we got some

benefit there, we're prepared to grant that. But to take from those few

facts the argument that we have arrived and prosperity is here is

simply ludicrous. It's a leap that even Debbie Brill couldn't duplicate.

Let me take a moment to remind the government of some other facts

which show that beneath that rosy picture are some rather ugly things.

Fact number one: unemployment in B.C. was 11.9 percent in February of

1988. That's a rise of over half a percent over the previous month.

That's 178,000 people that we know of who can't find work in this rosy

land of growth and prosperity. Among women, worth noting, the rate is

12.4 percent, and among youth the figure is an astounding 18.3 percent.

I say astounding because it is unimaginable to me that a government can

in any conscience stand up and say, "What a great job we're doing,"

given that evidence. I'm offended by that.

To be sure, our rate of unemployment is lower today than it was a

year ago, but it remains higher than any government should be willing

to tolerate. We have the fifth worst record in the country. Indeed,

only the Atlantic provinces are doing worse than we are, and I question

then: are we right in any way to be proud of that fact? I think not.

The other problem is: sure, there is growth occurring, but it is not

growth everywhere. It is not distributed everywhere. Rather, the people

who have suffered most from the recession are in those areas where the

growth has been least dramatic. Have the figures of unemployment

improved appreciably in the West Kootenays, in the northern interior,

or on Vancouver Island in my constituency? I'm afraid the answer to

that question is that they haven't — not significantly, I said, and I

can quote. I have the census data right here before me. I'm not making

it up, I hasten to point out.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have? Okay. I wanted to read

into the record a number of bits of statistical evidence, but clearly I

don't have time to do that. Instead I want, in the short time

remaining, to touch on some themes, if you will.

I want to draw attention to the fact that the economic policies that

the Premier seems to take some delight in are being rather viciously

attacked by his own best supporter