1987 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2609 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Miller –– 2610

Liquor policy review. Mr. Lovick –– 2610

Gambling operations in Victoria. Mr. Blencoe –– 2611

Proclamation of Ombudsman Act sections. Mr. Rose –– 2611

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2611

Presenting Petitions –– 2612

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 2612

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Williams

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier –– 2621

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Supply Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2625

Tabling Documents –– 2625

Supply Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 54). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2625

Mr. Stupich –– 2626

Supply Act (No. 3) 1987 (Bill 54). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) ––

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 2626

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today are three individuals,

and I want to introduce one of them, if the House would just give me a

second to explain what this is. A bravery award was granted by the

Royal Canadian Humane Association to four individuals who rescued 17

young people found floating in the water off Sidney when their boat

collapsed in May 1986.

These four individuals have been recognized for their heroism and

their perseverance in saving the lives of these 17 young people. I

would like to introduce Robert Coleman, who today received the award on

behalf of himself and his wife, Marlene. Would you join me in making

him welcome.

I might add that Mr. Coleman does this kind of thing for a living. He is a firefighter in Oak Bay.

MR. SIHOTA: I have one introduction and a couple of quick

announcements to make. First of all, in keeping with the comments made

by my good friend the first member for Victoria, I would also point out

to the members of the House that the other couple involved in this

heroic deed in rescuing these 17 individuals are also seated in the

members' gallery. I would ask the House to acknowledge warmly the

contributions and the presence today of James and Linda Sivertson.

Two other matters, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it's my view that with

all of us being in the greater Victoria area, sometimes we take for

granted the activities of the armed forces and the military base

located in Esquimalt. Since this is the last day of the session and

these people will have left by the time we reconvene, I want to bring

to the attention of the members of the House that retiring on July 30

and August 30, respectively, will be Rear-Admiral Yanow of the naval

base in Esquimalt and CFB commander Captain Larry Dzioba. I ask all

members of the House to join me in wishing them success in their future

endeavours.

And finally, all of us have appreciated the efforts of the Pages who

attend Shoreline community school — which is in the wonderful riding of

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and I would ask all members of the House to

express our gratitude for their services.

MS. CAMPBELL: Beginning this evening in Vancouver, our

province is hosting the semi-annual conference of Canadian and American

legislators. The agenda of the Vancouver meetings is devoted entirely

to the issue of free trade between our two great countries. Among the

very distinguished participants from the United States, and present in

our gallery today, is Ms. Jayne Plank, who is the director for

intergovernmental affairs of the Office of Legislative and

Intergovernmental Affairs of the Department of State in Washington,

D.C. Ms. Plank has a very distinguished and varied career in foreign

policy, business and local government. She was four times the mayor of

Kensington, Maryland, and a most delightful luncheon companion, I must

say. Would the House please join in making welcome Ms. Plank and the

other visitors from the United States for this very important

conference.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today we have four members of the Real

Women organization. They are Nancy Doell, Cheryl Penner, Vivienne Conway and

Bonnie Yoemans. Would the House make please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Julia Happer, who is my secretary from

the constituency office in Central Fraser Valley. Added to that are

Doug and Andrea Shillington, husband and daughter of my secretary here

in my office. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that my

choice of a real woman is the fierce feminist sitting on my extreme

right, who promised to harass me if I said anything out of order. She's

a nice girl. She's celebrating her birthday. She says this is her fifth

39th birthday. So would the House wish her well.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce somebody who has been very active in the

precincts for the last few months, but for the first time today he's

able to come to the House and watch the closing ceremonies: the

assistant to the Premier, Mr. Bill Kay.

MR. BLENCOE: I suspect it's a good thing we're adjourning today.

I have a special introduction to make, but before I do, I would like

to join with my two colleagues from greater Victoria in welcoming our

special guests today who did the rescue a few years ago, in particular

Bob Coleman. About a year ago, Bob and I were fishing on one of our

local lakes, and Bob was showing me how to trout-fish. Fortunately, Bob

didn't have to rescue us that day, but well done to the folks.

I would like to introduce my family, in the gallery across from me:

Victoria McPherson Blencoe, my wife, and my two boys, Jonathan Blencoe

and Christopher Blencoe. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to add my birthday congratulations to the member opposite.

I have two introductions this afternoon. The first is a lady who

used to live in the Comox Valley and now resides in Sidney with her

husband and family. I'd like you to make welcome Diana Abel. My second

introduction is a man whom I have a great deal of respect for. He's a

fine educator in the province, a past executive director of the Society

of Christian Schools in B.C. and currently dean of education at Trinity

Western University: Dr. Harro Van Brummelen. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would like to ask you and the House to

join me in welcoming to the galleries today Heather Toews, who has been

a valuable member of my ministry staff, and her fianc Dan Scott of

Fort Smith, Arkansas. Heather and Dan will be married this Saturday,

July 18, and will be making their home in Arkansas. With Heather and

Dan are their groomsmen Dwayne Shock and Kenneth Villines, also of Fort

Smith, Arkansas, and with them is David Moore of Oregon City. Please

give them a welcome and a most hearty departure approval.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the real man on my

left for announcing my forty-fourth birthday today. But really I stand

to introduce to the House people I have known and loved for 30 of my 44

years, people I basically grew up with, people who are a part of my

family — and I'm glad to say they've included me as part of their

family for

[ Page 2610 ]

many, many years now — people I love. May I

introduce my former mother-in-law, Maria Marzari, brother-in-law Lou

Marzari, and sister-in-law Janice Marzari, here from Toronto, retiring

here very slowly, Mr. Speaker, in your constituency — an example of the

reverse capital drain here to B.C. from Toronto.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the

president of the Burnaby–Willingdon constituency association, and I

don't know if it's his daughter or his wife, Doris. I'd like to bid

them welcome. And, Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that there is

anyone in the gallery who has not yet been introduced, let's bid them

welcome.

Oral Questions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Bearing in mind the provisions of the

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, which authorized $375

million for the construction of phase 1 and 2 of that highway, would

the minister advise the House what the final projected costs are for

the completion of phases 1 and 2 of the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The cost of Coquihalla 1 was slightly in excess of $40 million. I do not have the precise figures for Coquihalla 2.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, you're somewhat over the

authorization already on phase 1. Isn't it true that the final costs of

this highway are likely to come in around $600 million, leaving an

overrun in excess of $200 million — the $6 million-a-mile highway?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the member would like to read the Vaughn Palmer column in the Vancouver Sun , all the figures are in today's paper.

MR. MILLER: If that's an admission from the minister that Mr. Palmer knows more than he does, it's not one that I would be eager to make.

Supplementary to the Premier. Mr. Premier, this is a major scandal,

in our opinion, and raises some serious questions about the political

decisions made with respect to that highway and the decisions, the

financial ability, the engineering ability — the Ministry of Highways,

in terms of the kind of work that they did, shovelling money off the

back of a truck. What does the Premier intend to do about this?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have all the

details of the works approved and proceeded with and all the figures

that finally came about for the work that took place before we took

office. I can really comment only on the approvals granted since then,

and I can assure the hon. member and the House that we're doing

extremely well. We're making good progress, the figures are coming in

just right, and the people of the Okanagan and all of British Columbia

are extremely proud of that project.

MR. MILLER: Again, to the Premier. In terms of financial accountability,

we're talking about a sum of money that could have been used to provide

a considerable number of jobs and complete some other highways in this province.

It's a major scandal. Will the Premier order an investigation as to why

this project is coming in so significantly over budget and reveal the results

of that investigation — to tell the public and the opposition why that project

is going to cost some $200 million more? It's not a trifling matter, Mr.

Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all the information is

available. Certainly, if more details are required, they will be

available in due course, and the hon. member, like all members, will

have the advantage of that.

LIQUOR POLICY REVIEW

MR. LOVICK: I would like to direct a question to the chairman

of the liquor policy review committee, a parliamentary secretary. The

question I would ask the parliamentary secretary is whether he has

indeed decided to make the recommendations of the liquor policy review

committee available to all the members of this House, rather than

simply to members of the government caucus.

MR. JANSEN: I would advise the members opposite, and indeed

all members, that the report will be released at the end of July. In

the meantime, I would suggest that you do not listen to speculation,

but wait until the results of the report are known.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, it seems that the parliamentary secretary

doesn't have an ability to listen to questions, so perhaps I'll try the

same question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Will the

minister advise this House whether he has decided to make the

recommendations of the policy review committee available to all members

of this House rather than to only the few on that side of the House?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly the results will be known. The

report will be released, but I would ask my co-chairer of this liquor

inquiry to respond also — the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the

hon. member who put the question seems to be confused about the role of

government and the role of opposition. As I understood the

parliamentary process, government was elected to set policy, and this

government, believing in having one of the strongest back benches in

the history of this province, felt it very important that the

recommendations prepared by the parliamentary secretary receive the

comment and reasoned opinion of all members on the government side.

As a consequence, the document that will finally be produced will be

shared with the public at the end of July, as announced by my

parliamentary secretary. It seems to me that's how the democratic

process is supposed to work, and this government intends to make sure

it does.

MR. LOVICK: Certainly one does not wish to banter, Mr.

Speaker, but as a former professor of Canadian government, let me

remind the hon. minister that cabinet is government, not back-benchers

and committees.

The question, then — perhaps I can render it in such a way that it

won't cause any confusion on the benches opposite — is whether the

minister or somebody over there will

[ Page

2611 ]

give this House assurances that we in this legislative chamber will see this same report that is given to the Socred caucus.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: When the government report is finally

complete, the members of the opposition will have access, as will every

British Columbian, and we will look forward to their comment.

MR. LOVICK: Given that answer, one wonders why it is, then,

the government is reluctant to share that document with us now. I guess

they feel that people on the government side need more time to read.

In any event, one more supplementary question. Will the minister

give this House the assurance that there will be no changes in current

liquor policy before the changes proposed by the liquor review board

have been debated and endorsed by this Legislature?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Insofar as the question deals with future government policy, the question is clearly out of order.

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. It

concerns the impact of the possible liberalization of liquor laws on

the health of British Columbians and the costs of dealing with health

problems related to alcohol abuse. Caseloads in alcohol and drug abuse

have increased fourfold in the last decade in this province. Does the

minister support any liberalization of liquor laws in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Personally, no.

GAMBLING OPERATIONS IN VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier. It concerns proliferation of gambling casinos and gaming in this great capital.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Shhh! It's the end of the session.

Mr. Premier, the chief of police and the Victoria police board have

very recently expressed a deep concern about the proliferation of

gambling and gambling casinos in this great capital of British

Columbia. Has the Premier taken note of those concerns? What steps has

he, as leader of his government, decided to take to ensure that

Victoria doesn't become the Reno capital of the north?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not received any request or any

expression of concern from the parties mentioned by the hon. member. If

he provides me with that information, or if they would like to make it

available to me, I will certainly see what the concerns are and the

context and the why of it.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping for a better answer than that. Supplementary

to the Premier, one that I'm sure he will be concerned about. Organized

crime is inherently linked with gambling. The police board have indicated this,

and the police chiefs in this area are very concerned about the proliferation

of organized crime in this great capital. How is the government controlling

the infiltration of crime with the growth of gambling that we see in this great

capital of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well again, if the authorities locally

have any real concern and have evidence to the effect that there is

such an increase in crime in Victoria, as mentioned by the member

representing Victoria, I would like to hear this firsthand. It's not

been given to me.

PROCLAMATION OF OMBUDSMAN ACT SECTIONS

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could ask a question to the Premier.

It concerns the Ombudsman Act. The ombudsman was before the committee

the other day, but this is not arising out of the committee; it is

separate from that particular issue. Certain sections of the act which

would give the officer power to deal with municipalities, regional

districts, the Islands Trust, public schools, colleges, universities,

hospitals and the professions have not been proclaimed. I wonder if the

Premier would care to give the House any indication of when these

sections will be proclaimed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I cannot give the House any information

on that. It is a matter of future policy and it'll be looked at in

time, but we've had no decisions to date.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has

repeatedly said he wants to pump a little sunshine into this place and

open government. I wonder if he can give us any reasons for delaying

the proclamation of these sections which give citizens some defence

against the arbitrary action of government bodies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've also said that we would work with

municipalities toward decentralization, that we would have good and

close cooperation with all local governments, and if there is a real

concern by local governments about making this provision available to

them, then obviously once more I'd like to hear from them on that

particular point. I don't want to impose upon municipalities a

structure or process without having an opportunity to discuss it with

them, and we've certainly invited them to participate and provide us

with any concerns or thoughts they have on matters of that nature.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Can

the minister confirm that attendance at the Provincial Museum has

dropped from approximately 9,000 a day to approximately 3,000 yesterday

after the imposition of user fees?

HON. MR. REID: I am pleased to answer that question. The

number of people who did attend the museum yesterday did drop

drastically because there were pickets in front of the sales booth for

tickets, but we did have a total income intake of $8,827 yesterday; and

as of 1 o'clock today, the income at the museum was $4,534. As for the

number at Cranbrook and Fort Steele, she might want to know that

yesterday the sale of passes and tickets in Fort Steele was at $2,068;

and as of 1 o'clock today, it's $1,743.

[ Page 2612 ]

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary question. Is the minister going

to begin counting the numbers at the Provincial Museum and the numbers

at Fort Steele in dollars instead of people?

[2:30]

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question from the member is

no, because the attendance at Fort Steele currently is running ahead of

last year already, even with the admission fees. The same thing applies

in Barkerville. Once the pickets are removed from the sales stalls in

Victoria.... Unfortunately, regardless of where they come from in North

America, tourists are prone to not wanting to cross picket lines,

regardless of what they are, so the discouragement for people attending

the museum is as a result of the pickets there. There are incredible

numbers of people who still want to see the museum and are happy to pay

the fee, but they are opposed to crossing picket lines.

Presenting Petitions

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition to

the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the

Legislature assembled. The petition of the injured workers' committee

of the province of British Columbia states:

"The existing system of compensation to injured workers

is totally inadequate and unfair. The concerns and needs of those dependent

on the WCB have been shuffled off and ignored for too long. In the best interest

of workers in the province of British Columbia, your petitioners respectfully

request that the hon. House establish an independent commission to examine and

implement changes to the current incompetent WCB system."

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled an answer to question 17 on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On vote 17: minister's office, $269,370.

MR. HARCOURT: We left this morning talking about the estimates of the

Ministry of Economic Development. I said at that time that we were going to

talk about the lack of an economic strategy in this province, and then we were

going to move to the whole issue of trade, and two areas in particular: the

free trade negotiations taking place with the United States and the opportunities

that the minister talked about in the Asian Pacific. To that end, on the question

of a proper and effective development strategy, the first member for Vancouver

East has a few words to say about that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister ever

really starts getting out into real British Columbia, in terms of the

opportunities in the regions and the small towns. Both of us come from

the big city of Vancouver and were born there, I think, and both of us

share a love for the place and enjoy it very much.

At the same time, as a student I got out into the hinterland of

British Columbia and worked for the Forest Service through the summers,

and I got to appreciate small-town British Columbia, which is to a

great extent what the province is all about. As the small towns of

British Columbia improve and grow and benefit, the city of Vancouver

automatically grows and benefits.

More and more one gets the feeling at the hands of this minister,

with the love-boat strategy which we got in the hurly-burly of the

election, that dealt essentially with things around the big city of

Vancouver.... She talks about the airport, the ports and the land

backing up the ports and infrastructure and so on, as if that's some

kind of great immediate opportunity that hasn't been realized. This

government has been sitting on thousands of acres of land around the

port of Vancouver and Roberts Bank throughout its tenure — for the last

dozen or more years — with very little happening.

I also want to thank the minister for the glitzy coloured portfolios

that she sent to us, each with a personal note. That's nice. The

photography is beautiful, and this is the Enterprise Centre. It says:

"The Enterprise Centre isn't all work and no play." No, they have some

of the biggest bars in the city there as well. But it doesn't say very

much. It has beautiful photographs, beautiful colour, and you talk

about all the technological glitz that's available at the centre.

I find myself thinking again about small-town British Columbia and

the limited attention small-town British Columbia gets at the hands of

this minister and this government. Under this government you're

creating regions of despair. Under this government you're creating

regions with limited futures. Where do the kids go in small-town

British Columbia? Where do the young people go in small-town British

Columbia?

I'm glad your deputy is helping you write a speech now, after that

pap we got this morning. But where do the kids go in small-town British

Columbia? Where do they go from Penticton? There are no jobs in

Penticton for young people graduating from high school. Where do they

go from the Kootenays? There are no jobs in Nelson for the kids

graduating from high school — the west Kootenays especially. What about

kids in the northwest? All too often there aren't jobs for them either,

and they end up leaving those regions.

Madam Minister, you sent out this glitzy number. It looks to me an

awful lot like the opportunities program out of Expo. The people in the

north think that the opportunities program out of Expo was a bust and

that it didn't achieve for them what they hoped it might and certainly

what government said it might. It's still the idea that somebody is

going to fly into town and come to this building of yours. But the

building is perfectly representative of this minister and this

ministry; it's a kind of Crystal Palace.

The Enterprise Centre was designed with no future use in mind when

the Pavilion Corporation designed and established that building — $80

million worth of it. It's your Crystal Palace, Madam Minister, on the

shores of False Creek. What kind of community dialogue was established

in Vancouver on the use of that building and that complex? What

[ Page 2613 ]

kind of community discussion was there with city

council and all the citizens of the city in terms of how that was to be

used? What kind of nice open process was established?

Instead, this is an expensive new office, another expensive new

office for the minister, this Crystal Palace. That doesn't relate to

small-town British Columbia. That doesn't relate to the problems of the

kids who are looking for jobs in small-town British Columbia. The real

opportunities are in the regions, and they are incremental

opportunities. They are not some capitalists from Asia dropping down

from the sky. That's what the B.C. Enterprise Centre seems to me to be

designed around.

Let's think of regions like the Charlottes — the small towns of the

Queen Charlotte Islands: Queen Charlotte City, Sandspit, Port Clements,

Masser, Tlell. There is a $50 million federal infrastructure program

proposed for the Queen Charlotte Islands. That's an interesting,

regional, small-town opportunity. As well, there's the opportunity of

working with the Haida nation in the Queen Charlotte Islands. What work

has your ministry done in that regard? There are opportunities

throughout the Charlottes in terms of infrastructure, tourist

facilities, and working with the native people and the artisans of the

Haida nation. There's also the whole question of working with wood and

value-added products within the Charlottes themselves, instead of the

Charlottes just being an extractive area. I think that's a typical

region that now is simply gutted by extractive activities around

logging — and that's it.

Throughout the province there are opportunities in a different way,

just in terms of seniors coming to British Columbia in some of our

better climatic areas like the south Okanagan and the Victoria region

and elsewhere. Those are real opportunities in terms of growth as well,

but they're not the traditional capitalist-out-of-the-sky routine,

which we see too often.

Part of the problem is that this ministry doesn't seem to think

small-scale enough. That's where the jobs are. Most of the new jobs are

in small-scale enterprises in this province, and most of the activities

in this ministry are geared to larger enterprises.

There's a desperate need for seed-capital programs in this province.

The minister has written about seed-capital programs, but there has not

been participation to date in that regard. Think about groups such as

in the Vancouver area — if you want to look at areas of need in the

Vancouver area, rather than in your love-boat strategy. There are

places like Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings, doing tremendous work

among the down and out. I wonder if the minister knows about the

program that has been underway with Simon Fraser University, where they

are actually producing graduates with bachelor's degrees out of

Carnegie Centre — down-and-outers from skid row who are doing

tremendous work academically at Carnegie Centre in their own community.

Those are people who need jobs, who clearly have considerable ability,

and who have overcome significant problems in terms of their own

circumstances.

I look at your glitzy folder, I think of your Crystal Palace, I

think of the parties you throw, and then I ask myself: what does that

mean in small-town British Columbia? You name the towns, Madam

Minister. What does that mean in a place like Kitwanga? That kind of

stuff is grotesque in a town like Kitwanga. What does that mean in

Enderby or Grindrod? It doesn't make any sense at all. What does it

mean in Fruitvale? What does it mean in McBride? What does it mean in

Nakusp, B.C.? What does it mean in Chase?

Think of Nakusp. It's a jobless town if there every was one in this

province. There are very limited opportunities, no chances for kids,

and no industrial processing going on in the middle of a great forest

region. Where are programs in Nakusp? Well, you're going to find some

tidbit there in your back pages. What about Barriere in the Thompson?

What about Telkwa in the northwest? What about Clinton? What about Port

Clements? I don't see anything in here that's real, for the real towns

of British Columbia. Nothing. That's the real British Columbia. What we

have is very much an urban oriented thing in a narrow sense that just

sees these glitzy things as the way to go.

You still fail to see education as the kind of industrial opportunity that it is.

The whole area of value-added in the forest industry in terms of

coordination and parallel work between the province and the corporate

sector is one that is undertapped. Again, your deputy minister may give

you whatever he wants to give you, but if you check the studies, you'll

find that there has been a consistent pattern in that sector of

overspending at a time of high revenue, and then overproducing —

ultimately affecting demand and hurting the industry. There has been a

history of a lack of coordination in that sector that has actually hurt

the industry at times of capital spending and of a crying need for

coordination at the provincial level.

[2:45]

Again and again, capital projects and projects that are at

incredibly high cost per job.... You've been contacted by the credit

unions regarding seed-capital programs, where they're producing jobs at

$15,000 and $20,000 a job. But that's not glitzy. That's not the

glamorous opening of a big facility. That's just day-to-day stuff. Your

predecessor, the former Minister of Economic Development, agreed to

cooperate with those programs. All of that has gone into limbo since

you became minister. That was agreed to by the former minister.

Seed-capital programs for small jobs as a result of initiatives by

credit unions: I know you've got something in the budget now for

community economic development, and I know there's been some

discussion, I think through the Ministry of Finance, with B.C. Central

Credit Union. But the initial work was done by the major credit union

in Vancouver, and that still is in limbo despite the approval of the

former minister. That program, which could readily have been

quadrupled, has been successful; it creates low-cost jobs. This is a

government that has not been creating low-cost jobs.

I can see the minister is just itching to respond to some of these

items with the new speech material she has been provided with. But I

say to you, Madam Minister, it isn't there in these regions of British

Columbia as it should be. This is a wealthy province. The children of

those regions should be able to get jobs. They are not getting jobs in

their home towns. They have to leave. They have to leave the province.

All too many British Columbians now go to Ontario for a future and for

a job, and that's where their kids are going. That isn't the way it

should be in a rich land like this, and your programs to date have done

little to deal with those issues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now we really have it. We have the first

member for Vancouver East giving a diatribe, his personal attack,

wrapping all of his suggestions around a

[ Page 2614 ]

negative rhetoric in order to put down either a

minister of the Crown or a member on this side of the House. After

1986, when all of the people in British Columbia had put aside a decade

of negativism that was perpetrated very much by the party that

represents the other side of this House, I thought we would have

started a very positive kind of building and rebuilding of the economy

after the world recession. It's unfortunate that the economic

development plan and suggestions and opportunities of the opposition

party should be brought to this House through the first member for

Vancouver East. And I'm sorry that the jockeying for position that

seems to be going on in the opposition did not result in the Leader of

the Opposition winning out, because prior to the lunch break he did

bring forward some very constructive points.

Let me respond first to the Leader of the Opposition, who made some

comments prior to lunch. He mentioned advisory councils. I think one of

the best things that has been done in this province, having gone

through one of these council meetings just in the last few days, is the

Premier's advisory council, which has on it not just members from all

regions of this province, but also members of international scope. Some

of the members in that very large committee gave us some exceptionally

good contacts and ideas that were very constructive in the first

meeting. I know that one is going to work. But I want to assure the

Leader of the Opposition that there are other meetings as well, and it

may touch a little on what the first member for Vancouver East is

referring to, because we have already had industry meetings. I refer to

value-added wood products, remanufactured in housing — mobile prefab

housing industries.

Several value-added wood product meetings are planned in the coming

weeks so that we can learn from the industry and from associates of

mine in this House, and also the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker). We can, as a committee on economic development, add more to

our information about the possibilities and the opportunity.

Value-added wood products is an idea that has been talked about and

talked about. I do not question that there haven't been some very good

successes, I can think of several myself. I've visited plants where

there have been some very good successes. But I have to tell you that

the surface has not been scratched. The Leader of the Opposition has

said so today; in an obscure way, the first member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Williams) has said so today.

But we have all been conscious of the fact that this province — and,

in fact, this whole nation — has depended more on its natural resources

over the years and now must get down to the things that say we will

create jobs in this highly technological age. Where the forest industry

has in such a sophisticated way met the challenge of production,

productivity and competition in this province, it does not provide the

numbers of jobs that it provided in the past.

The value-added wood products really must be one of the main

objectives of our economic plan. It not only will be; it is. With the

Minister of Forests and Lands, myself and our committee on economic

development leading in that respect, I can tell you it's going to

happen in this province.

The member for Vancouver East talks about small-town British

Columbia. He was not listening this morning, or he was not in the

chamber, when my introductory remarks mentioned how many places in the

province we were assisting and through what plan. We do have a

community plan. There are 108,000 businesses in the province of British

Columbia — 100,000 of them have fewer than 20 employees.

We know the value of small business in British Columbia, because

it's in small business and its contribution that the economy of this

province is carried — on the shoulders of small business. The first

member for Vancouver East asks: "Where are we?" He talks about a glitzy

brochure. Well, I'm glad marketing is not in the hands of the NDP,

because of its negative approach.

Its way of attacking anything that looks competitive in the

international marketplace has to be given in a cynical and giggling

manner, and that's unfortunate. Let me tell you that the British

Columbia Enterprise Centre, which the first member for Vancouver East

is referring to, is more than glitzy and more than glass. It is — I can

tell you this — the most exciting, the most innovative, the most

productive of any centre for international trade, for small business

information, in any government anywhere in this nation. There isn't

anything like it anywhere. It has never been tried before, and it is

going to be truly successful.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I know that the first member for

Vancouver East simply can't stand success. He doesn't want success in

this government, and he wants to cynically and snidely make it negative

if he can. He talks about small-town British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Small-town British Columbia is connected to that centre with a computer

hookup that has never been known before, which goes into the regional

offices, the small communities like Nakusp, the chambers of commerce,

the regional economic development offices and all the communications

programs around the province.

If a small company in Pouce Coupe wishes to plug into that computer

with a very small investment, they don't even have to come to Vancouver

for the needed information. He talks about small town and city

governments, and I've got to tell you that it's all there in

communications. I also want to tell you we've had very many successes.

We have successes in Mackenzie, with Finlay Forest Industries providing

450 jobs.

Where have we been in small-town B.C.? Well, Mackenzie is not a very

large town. If you'd like to have Campbell River as another example, we

have put in a very small investment, adding to the infrastructure of

that small town. In Chilcotin, we have a very small investment, but we

added to the plant to assist them in their tourist promotion and what

they are doing there.

In the lodge in Rogers Pass, we have added to the plant so that they

can be assisting the worldwide travelers who will go through there. In

Ainsworth Hot Springs, on Galiano Island, in the small community

outside Vancouver in Richmond — that's small-town; that's not a big

city. In Grand Forks — we mentioned the Bradford Enercon company

earlier today. Even the member for Vancouver East would know that even

his own leader paid tribute to the 100 jobs that were created there.

Then we can look at Fibreco, in Fort St. John, which is creating many

jobs there. In Prince George; in Richmond again; in Coquitlam; in

Hazelton, 85 new jobs; in Coquitlam, 15 new jobs.... All of these small

and large businesses that have had assistance or counsel have been

exceptionally successful.

[ Page 2615 ]

Yes, I have been around the province. No, I don't stay in the city

of Vancouver. I can announce to the House today, now that the House is

adjourning.... And I heard that said several times before we started on

these estimates, so I take it from what is being said in question

period or in introductions today that this House will indeed be

adjourning in the next few hours. If that is the case, the Cabinet

Committee on Economic Development, which has all of the economic

development ministers of cabinet, will be traveling around the

province, and will be in all the small towns and all the little

communities. They will have an opportunity that hasn't been afforded

since the Legislature has been in session to do just that.

Let me get back to the B.C. Enterprise Centre, because the member

for Vancouver East seems to have a real interest in that. It has not

been open long; it has only been open for a short time. The attempt is

to make a true one-stop shopping centre for all businesses in British

Columbia and all people coming to do business in British Columbia.

That's a very important part: to market to the world, when people come

from other countries, and do our very best, as we did last year,

because we know that when British Columbians do their very best, they

are the very best.

[3:00]

We can be as competitive as anyone in the world. Just in this last

few weeks, from the report from the week of July 10, 2,347 inquiries

were in the new B.C. Enterprise Centre. The week before that there were

2,005. It is just beginning. It is going to be a real success, because

it has access for small business, for people who want to be in

business, for international investors, for money coming to British

Columbia and for the general public. That has not happened in this

province: being proactive, reaching out to the small communities and

the large communities. Going through the province — we will very

definitely be doing that. Our small-community program has been

successful; I reported that to you this morning. Again, I am really

regretful, but I am sure you will be reading the Blues to have that

report.

I also want to mention that the International Opportunities Network

is something which has not been done ever before in this nation, and is

particularly going to give small communities access to large contracts

and small contracts with agencies all over the world that will be

requiring their services. I'm pleased to tell you that that's available

now and will be more sophisticated by September.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I appreciated the remarks of the

minister, who talked about winning and losing on this side of the

House, and how there was some winning and losing in the discussion of

these estimates. I don't know; we don't operate that way in our caucus.

I met with my colleagues. We made a decision of what we were going to

talk about. We don't write scripts for people. We don't have

speech-writers like your caucus does, Madam Minister. We use our own

styles and approaches.

I take it that you take slight offence at the style and approach of

the member for Vancouver East. Tough beans. That's the way he is; he's

a real man. He has his own approach and I have my own approach.

I want you to know, Madam Minister, that on April 12 of this year I

was unanimously acclaimed the leader of my party. I want to know what

happened to you last August, speaking of winners and losers. I want you

to know that I enjoy the unanimous support of my caucus, and I would

like to know how many members of your caucus agreed with your decisions

to unload 30,000 square feet of Robson Square office space to live in a

glass slipper. You've got to move Sport B.C. from a place they could

have rented in Metrotown for $3 a square foot into this very expensive

office space at $30 a square foot. So you've got two expensive pieces

of real estate that are now being utilized.

So I think that is worth talking about, who the winners and losers

are and who has the confidence of their caucuses, Madam Minister. I'd

like to talk about winners and losers out there in the economy.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said in January that he

did not anticipate any tax increases. I want you to know that he was

wrong. He proceeded in the budget speech to raise taxes for small

business 37.5 percent. I'm sure that was a great incentive to small

business and to private enterprise. Consumers were taxed an average of

$566. I'm sure the small business community which lost that purchasing

power appreciated it.

When the Premier in his throne speech said that the major task was

to get government off the backs of private enterprise, I don't think

free-enterprisers realized that getting this government off their backs

meant this government would have both hands in their pockets. So off

their backs and into their pockets is what happened.

I don't think the 1,445 businesses that went bankrupt in British

Columbia last year — 17 percent of all bankruptcies in Canada — think

that glitzy brochure is going to do them much good. I don't think that

all of the restraint program cuts since 1983 and the continued cuts of

the incentive low-interest loan programs to small business is going to

be appreciated. I don't think the rise from 6.5 percent unemployment to

over 13 percent in the last decade is appreciated by all those people

on unemployment insurance and social assistance — triple the amount

when we were government in 1975.

Indeed we are facing a new reality in British Columbia, Madam

Minister, and that's why we're sometimes — you think — negative. We're

a little sombre about the state of affairs in our province, when the

British Columbia Central Credit Union writes in March:

"British Columbia faces a new reality. Residents of B.C.

in the 1980s are not as well off as they were in the 1970s. Low wage settlements,

high unemployment, and a growing number of people relying on the service sector

for employment have contributed to lower real wages and salaries. Since employee

earnings represent almost 70 percent of total provincial income, income growth

overall remains weak, As a result, B.C. residents are becoming poorer."

Yes, we are gloomy about that. We need to do more than put out glitzy brochures

and Mary Kay pep talks. We think there's more to economic development than

that.

Madam Minister, we think there is more to community economic

development than a puffball program, like the Partners in Enterprise

program. I was there during all those discussions, and I saw the

torture that you put municipal councils through to participate in this

program that is totally discredited throughout North America. It's a

program that doesn't work.

You say that we're negative; we're not. We have an understanding of

economic development. We have backgrounds in business. We have

backgrounds in running large enterprises. We have a major commitment to

this province. I'd like to have the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey

[ Page 2616 ]

talk a little bit about community economic

development. Then I'd like to talk about a lot of people who are being

missed in your program: 52 percent of the population, the women of this

province.

MS. MARZARI: The minister has described some of the programs.

When we look over the estimates, we see a number of programs directed

towards the assisting of business in British Columbia. For a few brief

moments, I'd like to talk about community economic development, a term

which has been abused by many provinces across the country in the last

little while to cover almost every form of economic development.

When we refer to community economic development, and for example

when the B.C. Central Credit Union refers to community economic

development as it develops its program, we're talking about small

capital. We're talking about community and regional capital, and more

importantly, we're adopting a definition of community economic

development that embraces the notion of human capital, of individuals

in communities combining to develop their own businesses that will, on

a small scale and in a labour-intensive way, develop the capital of

their region, develop the profit base — the asset base — and develop

the labour-intensive activities in their region.

So when the member for Vancouver East talks about seed-capital

programs, that's what I think we should be directing our attention to

here. We're talking not about people just walking through the door for

information about seed capital or special loan programs. We're talking

about actually working in those communities with all the groups that

are economically active in the communities — not just those who are

apparently economically active, but those who are not visibly

economically active. By that I am referring to women — as will be my

colleague from Surrey–Guildford–Whalley — who are not visibly

economically active, but who very often are contributing to the

informal economy. These are the groups that we would like to see the

province working with to develop in communities, in towns and in rural

areas real businesses, small, labour-intensive businesses that mean

something and can create profit margins. We're talking about workers'

cooperatives. We're talking about small businesses where the employees

in fact are profit sharing. We're talking about those kinds of things

that add value. We're talking about B.C.-made products using B.C.

materials.

You have an infinite number of resources, Madam Minister, in your

ministry, most notably the Purchasing Commission, and we should commend

the Purchasing Commission and its new criteria developed over the last

few years as it does attempt to develop business in B.C. and by B.C.

When we say community economic development, we mean that more money has

to be put in that direction. More seed dollars need to be put in that

direction for real development, working with those people to develop

those jobs and small corporations.

We have in the estimates $3 million for that development exercise. I

would suggest that a real effort be put there. If there is any area for

expansion, that should be it; and if there's any money anywhere in

those estimates, it should be directed towards doubling or even

tripling that $3 million, so that we can start working with

communities, rural and urban, regional communities, to develop jobs,

which is what community economic development is all about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few things

to this discussion. I'd like to start off by saying that I'm very

impressed with the minister. I've been watching the minister over these

last few days with the legislation that was before us: legislation to

cover up the incredible debt that's been incurred by this government;

legislation that dealt with all of the problems that are the

inheritance of the minister and indeed have had the minister's

involvement in incurring; and I'm impressed by the speech that the

minister just gave.

The minister is a very, very capable politician. However, what we

need in B.C. are real solutions. What we need in B.C. is a little bit

of reality. I think that what we've heard here from the minister is a

lot of kind of positive, cheerleaderish rhetoric, but unfortunately it

has not dealt with the lives of the ordinary people of B.C. It has

nothing to do with the reality that people are having to deal with on a

daily basis. I commend the minister on her courageous stance in the

middle of all of the problems that she has to deal with.

I want to remind the minister that what she has is a tremendous

opportunity to deal with these problems, not gloss over them or use

positive rhetoric. Quite frankly, I want to remind the minister that

the people of this province are incredibly disappointed and

disillusioned by some of that cheerleaderish, faaaantastic talk that

got this government elected. It's too late for all of that. The people

of B.C. have seen what this government is really about. What the people

in the opposition are offering — and have offered consistently through

the years — is a respect for the ordinary people of this province and a

recognition that they are the strength, that they have built this

province. This minister cannot recognize that strength and has to go

tripping all over the world to talk to other people about how to build

B.C. I suggest that the minister is looking in the wrong place. The

people of B.C. have the answers. They built the province, and the

minister's legacy is to clean up the problems that Social Credit has

imposed on the province. Instead of dealing with these megaprojects,

these huge debt projects, the minister should turn her sights to the

people in the communities around B.C., recognize the strength that they

bring and get on with the work.

[3:15]

Many of the people in the opposition have toured this province and

talked to the real people in this province, and have recognized the

fact that they have the solutions. Many people around B.C., including

tremendous groups like women's skills, have developed alternative

methods of supporting those strengths. All that the people of B.C. need

is a recognition that they built the province, they know the answers,

and support from this government in the way of seed capital — support

for their brilliant ideas, the ideas that will get this province back

on the road to economic recovery. A request to the minister: stop

relying on glitz and glamour. Your government has been exposed over the

last few months. Glitz and glamour is not going to bail you out this

time.

Just to sum up, the point I'm making is that the people of this

province have the answers. They need the support of government. All of

the minister's big-price-tag parties and Crystal Palaces aren't dealing

with the fact that women in this province have contributed, have a

history of contributing, have the answer, but are limited in their

ability to contribute because of the barriers that this government

consistently puts before them. My final request: when the minister is

involving the advisory council, recognize that those people in small-

[ Page 2617 ]

town B.C. have the answers and should have the

right to participate in the decisions that are being made. They have a

lot to contribute.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just a couple of things. Yes, there are

small-town business representatives on the Premier's council on

economic development. We also involve them in all of the industry

commitments to discussion that we have been having.

In response to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who mentioned

groups of women in business, I believe we've done one seminar in the

city of Vancouver just on women on business. Five more are planned

around the province. The first one was very successful. In terms of

regional development, we've been doing a lot through Simon Fraser and

UVic. We've established enterprise development centres there. In

addition to that, at Simon Fraser we sponsored the international

conference on small business. We've also financed one for the

University of British Columbia. So the interface with the universities

is very real, and through my colleague the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen), with his responsibility for science and

research, it is very real in terms of applied research and technology.

There was a women investors/inventors project, which we financed,

with workshops that reached out to Ontario and brought the information

back here. We are doing financial and expansion feasibility studies for

small business. In terms of the real people or ordinary people whom the

member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) talked about, I

think all of those people are real, all of those people are ordinary.

Junior Achievers, for example, is a program we're very proud of. It

reaches out to 5,000 very real, very ordinary youngsters, and is a

very, very successful program.

I think I've answered just about everything. I think you mentioned

the Purchasing Commission, and I think the Leader of the Opposition

spoke about the rent cost to move the enterprise from the Economic

Development ministry within Robson Square to the Enterprise Centre. The

cost is slightly less in the new centre — not a lot, but we do not add

any cost, as was intimated by the Leader of the Opposition.

I make no apologies for being positive. I make no apologies for

wanting this province to sell and market with style in the world. I

don't make any apologies for that whatsoever, because we're in a very

competitive international situation, and we're going to be as good as

and better than anyone else.

In terms of travelling all over the world, Mr. Chairman, I want to

tell you that there has not been an international economic mission yet.

I'm not happy with that. When the member accuses me of going all over

the world, I'm going to tell you that I have not been all over the

world. But I do plan to make some trips throughout the world to tell

the remarkable story of this province and its opportunities, its

enviable reputation as the most attractive place for investment. Where

else in the world would you rather be in business than in British

Columbia? I intend to take that message to the world.

In concluding, I don't think I want to just leave the reference to

the credit unions. We've been having meetings with the credit union

movement in terms of getting their assistance in delivering economic

initiatives within the communities. We believe that kind of a system

into each community, interfacing with credit unions, would be much more

practical. That initiative, as was mentioned by one of the members, was

started by the recent administration and is continued by us. Hopefully

I will be telling the House about that in my next estimates.

MR. LOVICK: Just a very quick question to the minister. I

truly appreciate the fact that the minister is indeed making an effort

to answer all of the questions, suggestions and statements emanating

from this side of the House. I note, however, that she ignored —

perhaps simply by accident — what I think was the most significant

question to have emerged here in the last 15 minutes, the one posed by

my leader when he read to us from Economic Analysis of British Columbia ,

published by the B.C. Central Credit Union. It's a damning article, a

damning and frightening statement on the B.C. economy. It seems to me

that the minister charged with economic development in this province

ought to, at the very least, tell us that she's aware of those kinds of

problems, and has given some thought as to how we might solve them.

More specifically, what do we do about that statement that tells us

that B.C. residents are becoming poorer, primarily because employee

earnings represent almost 70 percent of total provincial income, and

income growth overall remains weak, which is the result of people

relying on the service sector for employment.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The date is March 1987; I think that's the most recent issue.

The question I'm posing is simply whether the minister recognizes

that and has an answer to that kind of problem, because it seems to me,

from my cursory examination of the Blues and the minister's opening

statements, that we're relying on the service sector as the great

solution to all our problems. I ask the minister that in all sincerity.

I hope she can respond to those questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member for Nanaimo, I

do not have the publication he is referring to. I want to give some

information which perhaps will be of some help.

I'm not sure what period of time that publication is referring to —

the six months prior to March or the year prior to March or decade to

decade. If it was reflecting on last year, last year we had a very deep

and difficult strike which had a tremendously negative effect on the

economy. Also in that decade, there was a very difficult world

recession which had a great impact on our province.

A DRIE survey shows planned capital expenditures by large

corporations in 1987 up 19 percent in this province, and the B.C.

government forecast of investment activity, which is said to be

somewhat conservative, is up 8 percent. Although the unemployment rate

stays at an unacceptable figure for all of us in this House and all of

our people in British Columbia, it is down to 11.8 percent. That is

down from 13.6 percent in January to 12.1 percent in June, so it is

coming down.

You can quote those kinds of figures, but there are many other

indicators of the economy that are showing very positive signs. For

example, in the year to date from 1986 to 1987, retail sales are up 7.6

percent; manufacturing shipments are up 6.2 percent; pulp production is

up 14.3 percent; electric power sales are up 33.8 percent; housing

starts are up 22.1 percent; export — dollar value — is up 14.2 percent;

also the B.C. composite economic leading indicator is up 5 percent. So

it seems to me that for every publication you can

[ Page 2618 ]

quote, I think what you really want to say is: what are we going to do about it?

I have tried. I think our time is very limited today. I have tried

in my opening statements which I could not complete. I believe that

there are some initiatives that we've taken. The Asia-Pacific centre

for trade, travel, industry and commerce is an exceptional initiative.

I believe that when we have a freer trade agreement with the United

States.... We are working hard on that. I think those are the two most

important initiatives on our plate.

All of the things mentioned today, for instance, the community

programs which my colleagues in Economic Development are extremely

excited about, the diversified economy that we've all paid tribute to

today, the high technological industries and information industries

which we are building, are all part of the total picture.

You asked me to explain what we're doing about it. We're doing all

of those things and more. I wish we had lots of time to talk about it,

but I think the proof of success will be in how we can deliver those

jobs and successful businesses. We intend to attract investment. We

intend to create jobs, and we intend to make the private sector a very

important part of that successful picture in economic activity in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: Very briefly, because I know that we have

constraints of time to work with, I appreciate the minister's efforts

to answer. However, with all due deference, I think that the central

point I was trying to make — and perhaps the error is mine; I didn't

make it very clearly — got lost in that answer.

[3:30]

Every economist will tell you that gross provincial product and

economic indicators provide you with good important information. Those

indicators are literally gross, and they don't necessarily tell us

anything about the central problem that I was addressing: namely, the

fact that — let me just quote part of a sentence — ". . .a growing

number of people relying on the service sector for employment have

contributed to lower real wages and salaries." That's the issue. To be

sure, we can have investment. To be sure, we can have all kinds of

signs of economic activity. However, what kind of employment it will be

still remains in question. That's what I am recommending to the

minister, in saying that it seems to me a perfectly legitimate and

reasonable request of the Ministry of Economic Development to grapple

with that problem. I hope the minister will do that amidst all the

other wondrous projects that seem to be coming from that side.

MR. HARCOURT: We're now going to concentrate on the issue

that the minister brought up, trade, and the two areas that she

mentioned, Asia-Pacific and the free trade negotiations that are taking

place right now.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I'd like, first of all, to say that I agree with the minister; she

doesn't have to apologize for being positive. The other side of that

is, though, that if anybody disagrees with you or has a different

opinion, you don't have to necessarily say they're negative — which you

do on occasion. Madam Chairman, the minister on occasion does use that

sort of language, so I thought I would mention that as we move quickly

on into the trade area.

On a positive note, I'd like to say that the Premier knows and the

minister knows that when I was the mayor I supported the initiative for

bringing about an international financial centre. It was our economic

development officer, Sid Fancy, who started the ball rolling, with Bob

Wyman and the members of the board of trade and others, to persuade the

Premier at that time that it was a good idea to get the ball rolling in

Ottawa. I think that's important to remember, and also that I very

actively.... This modest proposal.... And it is only that; people say

that it will be only 10 or 11 jobs and that it has some problems about

taxation and banks, and it does.

I was on the phone this spring with Michael Cassidy, Nelson Riis and

the other members of the committee who were looking at this

legislation. It was getting a very tough time from the Minister of

Finance's own officials, and from the Liberals, who were trying to

sabotage this initiative. I was in constant contact with the mayor, as

he then was, of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the new mayor, Jean Dore,

to make sure that Toronto didn't once again squish these other

initiatives in other areas of the country: Montreal and Vancouver. So

there are positive activities that take place from our caucus and our

party. We're full of positive initiatives. That's why we want to talk

about what we think is the lack of reaching out for opportunities under

the Asia-Pacific.

The initial opening of offices in Hong Kong and Korea and Japan is

not a bad start, but it's still missing, in our opinion, three of the

vital markets that are the real gaps in your Asia-Pacific strategy. The

People's Republic of China is served out of Hong Kong. You've got a

good office, a good officer; I've met him; a very capable person. There

are two other support people. But how can you serve 1.1 billion people

out of Hong Kong? You can't. So what we're saying is: do more. Invest

more in the way of resources and a longer-term strategy. I won't bore

you with some of the successes, for example, we had in Vancouver with

our economic and trade missions through our sister city, Guangzhou, and

through our cousin city, Shanghai, where we have something like 40

different business deals, with first-rate outfits from all over British

Columbia. We're too timid with our resources into the People's Republic

of China — the whole range of areas.

Thailand, with 55 million people. When I was there last September,

they were saying: "Where are you, British Columbia? We know that you

have expertise and technology. We need to develop our transportation

communications. We need a whole range of facilities and services that

British Columbia business people have to offer." We have no contact

with Thailand. As a matter of fact, it's embarrassing that we don't

have that kind of contact, to the point where.... Even though Thailand

has its economic and trade office here in Vancouver, where did they

choose to hold their trade fair recently but in Edmonton. We got

outhustled. If we're the gateway to the Asia-Pacific, those kinds of

activities should be taking place here in Vancouver. We should be the

meeting place for Canada and Asia. It shows that we're missing the boat.

The other country that I think has tremendous potential is India.

I'm not going to take up a lot of time of this Legislature talking

about it, but I will be in the near future. India is the tenth major

industrial power in this world. It has 750 million people in a country

that has become self-sufficient in food,

whereas 20 years ago it was a

country that was desperately suffering through shortages of food. We

had a minister

[ Page 2619 ]

through there, I think, three years ago, and that's it. We haven't had any follow-up.

So, Madam Chairman, I'm saying to the minister that we support those

initiatives, but we're not bold enough. We haven't invested enough in

the way of resources, and we also are prepared to become involved in

bipartisan, economic missions to sell British Columbia. The way you

sell British Columbia overseas is by putting our domestic disputes

behind us. Don't confuse people. We've said that, and I'll be going on

a trade mission to China this November, with....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I'm pleased, Madam Minister, that one of

your colleagues for Vancouver South thinks that these trips that you're

taking and that I'm taking to sell British Columbia are boondoggles.

That shows why he's in the back bench now: he doesn't understand that

this province relies on trade, and I think that the Premier and

yourself should take this young man aside and teach him the facts of

life in this province, teach him about how to be enterprising, teach

him about a positive role for government, instead of being part of the

rabid rabbit pack over there.

The Asia-Pacific has tremendous opportunities. Yes, it is the

fastest growing economic area in the world. Yes, some of the

initiatives that are taking place are good, but there's much more that

we should be doing. We're prepared to assist, and we hope that that's

not another offer that you'll just thrust aside because it doesn't suit

your partisan interests.

MR. ROSE: I would like the minister to know, Madam Chairman,

that I, too, have made overtures to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Savage) offering a bipartisan approach to any missions that might

be coming to Canada if I can assist in any way in the agricultural

industry. He doesn't have to take me on his junkets if he doesn't want

to, but I think the message that has to get out there is that this is a

reasonable place. There's a market here and there's a government and

opposition that are interested in the welfare of British Columbia.

I don't see anything inconsistent with a good tough opposition on

issues upon which we disagree — and I can name you one: the free trade

issue with the United States. We're totally dependent upon our trade

with the United States; we're getting nowhere with the negotiations,

because they're not going to give up their powers to retaliate in their

own interest, and I wonder if I blame them. We have about 80 percent

free trade with them now. Why be dependent upon a single country for

our economic health and life? This is no substitute for an economic

policy. As a matter of fact, we may be jeopardizing our own economic

policy, and I would like to talk a great deal more about this, but I

can't — but I hope to before anything goes very much further. My own

view is that the talks are dead in the water. However, I think our

Prime Minister will do virtually anything, as he did recently, to get a

deal, and I just wonder at what cost. It's really not about free trade

at all; it's about the economic integration with the United States.

We'll lose our cultural identity if we have to give up the things that

make us Canadian, and our own powers and our own sovereignty.

Not more than three years ago we refused to give up our country to

the sovereignty-association deal with Quebec, and we're now about to

embark on virtually the same thing with the United States. I don't

think that it makes sense at all, and I'm glad the Premier is here,

because I hope that this Legislature will have a chance to express

itself on any free trade deal before it becomes law, because I think

the provinces have a real stake in this whole thing, because much of

this free trade stuff deals with interests that are provincial.

People I respect highly, such as Mitchell Sharp, Eric Kierans, and

people like that, think this is virtually a sellout. If we're going to

have a free-trade deal with the United States and we need to be in an

economic unit, and we do.... Our recent agricultural problems indicate

that to us. We can't sell our grain. The Peace River is going up in

flames or down in smoke. We're going to turn all that food into booze

at the ethanol plant. I'm not belittling that, but I think it will he a

startling example to the Premier how tough it is out there. The reason

it's tough is because we don't have an economic trading unit with

anybody. Why not extend it to Japan and Australia and other places like

that? Why just the United States?

I think our dependence on trade with the United States is too great.

Besides, this has been sold to us that business wants it. Certainly the

agriculture business doesn't want it. I'm tempted to do a pun that

we're going to trample the grape industry underfoot. The fact that we

do allow, for instance, Canadian or British Columbian wines to go into

grocery stores is not going to change the seasonal disadvantage to

wine-growers one iota. Neither will a phase-in period of 15 years

change the cost of labour, pesticide standards, the cost of land, the

cost of water.

Let's get back to business. The Canadian Printing Industries

Association don't want it. Canadian boat-manufacturers don't want it.

Canadian brewers don't want it. The computer services people don't want

it. The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association don't want it.

Motor vehicle manufacturers don't want it. Grocery products don't want

it. Generic drug people don't want it. The Canadian Conference of the

Arts don't want it. The graphic arts industry don't want it. The

Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian rubber association,

the wine industry.... The list is endless. The question is: who wants

it?

I'll tell you who wants it. The corporations want it. They get out from under

their branch plants and go home. We talk about investment.... I'm concluding

on this; these are somewhat discursive and disjointed remarks because of pressures

of time. We talked about investment: 46 percent of all the profits made in Canada

went to the U.S. last year. That's what investment does.

Our Canadian banks are investing in Brazil and Mexico instead of

Canada. That would help us develop our country. That's the kind of

thing we need. Some 1,400 Canadian enterprises were sold to

non-Canadians last year — just recently, West Kootenay Power and Light.

If we don't own anything in the country, what's the point in having

a country? That's the vital question. We need a dispute-settling

mechanism for the minor trade problems that bother us from time to time

— and some of them aren't so minor. I don't think the Americans are

going to give us that. If they don't give us that, we should close the

door and get out of there.

[3:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, it probably is the most

important thing that this province and this nation have to discuss.

It's really unfortunate. Again, I reflect on the lack of time, and I

appreciate the member who has just

[ Page 2620 ]

taken his place for bringing up the subject of free

trade. I'm terribly disappointed, however, that the NDP official stance

is against it. I'll tell you why.

We have in this province and in this nation a tremendous

opportunity. The United States is our province's largest trading

partner; 50 percent of the total British Columbia exports are to the

United States. A trade agreement will ensure and enhance Canada's, and

hence British Columbia's, access to the United States market. Nobody

knows better than British Columbia, because we've been through the

softwood lumber problem and the shake and shingle problem in this

province. It's evident that the status quo of the trading system is not

tenable. It is not going to work, because the mood in the United States

is highly protectionist. British Columbia knows that impact; it knows

it better than anyone else.

I have to say to you, Madam Chairman, that the member who has just

taken his seat could assist with all the discussion we've had by the

Leader of the Opposition and even by himself. "Let us help you in

building the economy." If you really want to help, be a part of the

overtures to the federal administration to assist in making sure that

we have the best deal, and be a part of that. Talk positively about the

negotiations.

The trade agreement will help us diversify our economy. All the

things we've talked about in the debate on economic development in this

House.... We talked about placing greater emphasis of the production of

higher-value-added items. The development of sectors less reliant on

resources will in turn help insulate this provincial economy from the

vagaries of world commodity prices. That is why we need this agreement.

It secures our access to the United States. It assists us in bringing

in the Asian Pacific investment, which also wants access to the United

States market. It gives a market of 250 million people to a province

that now has a market of 25 million people in Canada.

It is too bad that we don't have the opposition in agreement with us

in this cause. I agree; there are some problems. There will be some

fallout. There will be some adjustments; there's no question of that.

But in weighing all the positive features against those which will have

a negative impact, there is no question that British Columbia comes out

better in a freer trade agreement.

MR. ROSE: No.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, that is so.

Madam Chairman, it isn't the solution to all our problems either. It

isn't the be-all and end-all, but it promises to put British Columbia

in much better shape than the status quo, which can only promise a

deteriorating relationship with our most important trading partner. It

really is an important issue in this province. Because these are

Economic Development estimates, I frankly wish we had more time to

debate it.

MR. ROSE: Reading from the so-called fact sheet put out by the ministry:

"A Canadian-U.S. free trade agreement will broaden and diversify

the provincial economy, secure and enhance existing access to the U.S. market,

increase job opportunities for current and future generations, increase the

availability of goods and services, maximize consumer and producer benefits,

and reduce costs. The bilateral trade negotiations are a component of British

Columbia's multilateral trade strategy, and not a substitute for it."

It sounds to me like that is not a fact sheet; that's a wish-list.

That's what you hope will happen. There's not a shred of evidence that

it will happen. It's a leap of faith. Sure, it's a big market, but

who's penetrating whom around here? One Milwaukee brewery could make

all the beer for all of Canada. What do we do with the brewery workers

of Newfoundland — 400 of them out the door — or anywhere else; British

Columbia, for that matter? So there is not all that in it.

The minister has got a little motion here: "We've got to make sure

that we safeguard British Columbia's jurisdictional sovereignty, its

social programs, its agricultural marketing programs and cultural

identity." What is going to be exported, and what are we not going to

permit to be imported?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We've got free trade in apples now. We've got free

trade at 80 percent of the stuff right now. Let's diversify; let's get

in a larger bloc. We're tying ourselves to an economy in decline.

Here's the productivity figures of Japan, West Germany, United States

and Canada between '80 and '84. The productivity of Japan went up 3.2

percent; West Germany, 1.7; France, 1.7. United States, 80; Canada, 40.

We're talking about the future of our country; that's what we're

talking about. It's a very important issue. We don't want to go in

there blindfolded and have somebody else do our talking for us, because

I think the risks are too great.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's important to conclude this year's

estimates on Economic Development on this very important topic, as the

minister has said. I want to set a perspective, because the problem

with the minister's approach to the question of free trade.... She

leaves the implication that we don't want to see enhanced trade. That's

not true. We want to see increased trade, not just with the United

States but with a large number of other nations. She gives the

impression that we don't have access to the U.S. now. We've got $200

billion a year as a country as access between the United States and

Canada in trade right now. Eighty percent of that across Canada is

without any tariff barriers.

The GATT says that over ten years, tariff and non-tariff barriers

will start to be phased out. We're part of that. We're a signatory to

that. This agreement, this working with the United States, is tied to

that. In British Columbia the amount that is tariff-free is even

higher. It's Ontario and Quebec that have the highest tariff areas;

we're closer to 90 percent. The reason we're back down to 80 percent is

because of the retaliatory action from the United States on softwood

lumber and on shingles. It was the United States that took those

actions, not Canada. So you're saying: "Well, let's scurry, and give

them a bit more of our economy before they do something nastier to us."

Let me tell you, that is indeed a leap of faith, because the

negotiations to date do not justify optimism. What have we got out of

it so far? We've had hundreds of millions of dollars of tariffs

unilaterally imposed on us, which we then squidgied around to try to

rescue with the softwood lumber agreement. We had shingles tariffs put

on us, and we threw back a few pitiful, retaliatory counter-tariff

[ Page

2621 ]

barriers — on books, which hurt our own book companies here in Canada.

MR. R. FRASER: That was a federal decision.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm talking about Canada negotiating with the

United States on free trade. The member for Vancouver South laughs at

it because they don't think it's important. That's too bad, because it

is darned important. It affects thousands of people in this province,

and you shouldn't laugh about that, member for Vancouver South. It's

not a laughing matter. It's a very serious matter. We take it very

seriously.

It's important to realize that we're being realistic. Two of the

leading U.S. members of Congress say: " We're not going to abandon our

ability to take unilateral action." These are the people who are going

to make the decision, and we proceed on, eyes closed, saying: "Oh, gee,

they wouldn't do that to nice old Canada." The fact is, they've done

it. They've done it twice in the last little while.

We don't mind the negotiations taking place. We have a different

idea of how they should have taken place. We don't think the

negotiating so far has been to Canada's benefit. We don't think the

actions of the United States so far have been to our benefit when they

impose these tariffs on us unilaterally. We don't think that's a

friendly act of negotiations. So what we're saying is: "Proceed with a

great deal of caution, because the future of this country is at stake,

and the future of this province is at stake."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the remarks of the members

opposite. I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand that we are

at the table only in an advisory capacity, and we support the federal

administration very clearly and very definitely in this initiative.

It should be remembered — and the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr.

Rose) mentioned this — that we already have free trade in some

commodities. He mentioned some agricultural commodities. Agriculture is

not part of the negotiations in this regard, and that has been made

clear by the federal administration.

I do want to mention one other thing. If the member for Coquitlam

thinks we have any free-trade agreements now, he should remember that

there are almost 300 protectionist bills in the U.S. Congress in

Washington, D.C. If we do not get these negotiations successfully

completed by October this year, we will be meeting yet another

initiative which will make softwood lumber and the shake-and-shingle

dispute that we have undergone in this province look like very small

potatoes indeed.

I know we differ on it. I appreciate the comments, and I agree in

this regard: it is the most important economic initiative that this

nation has before it.

Vote 17 approved.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $59,260,467 — approved.

Vote 19: economical and regional development subsidiary agreements (ERDA), $20,535,500 — approved.

[4:00]

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 4: office of the Premier, $2,733,090.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In opening debate on the estimates of

my office, I welcome this opportunity to take

part in one of our finest

parliamentary traditions. That tradition — that government and its

leadership meet the test of accountability here in this Legislature —

is a democratic exercise we all value. There is no better forum, no

better place than in this parliament of ours for the people of British

Columbia to assess and evaluate their government and its performance.

We have been in this House since March 9, and through my

government's leadership and the new spirit of cooperation that we have

fostered, much has been achieved. But cooperation is a two-way street,

and the Leader of the Opposition and his members deserve thanks for

their positive response, for their cooperation, for their assistance,

in the progress that has been made.

As the session draws to a close, now is a good time to look back at

my government's nine months in office and not only list our

accomplishments but, more important, set our sights on the future.

When I was sworn in at Government House, I invited the people of our

province to help us write a bright, new

chapter in British Columbia's

history. I said it was the beginning of a fresh start, both for

government and the people of our province. I offered no easy answers,

no magic solutions, and I acknowledged there was much to do and many

challenges to meet. But by working together, by showing willingness to

do things differently, by changing our attitudes, I said there was no

limit, no barriers, to the great things we could accomplish. Through

strong leadership, through decisive leadership, we're changing the face

and style of government in British Columbia for the better, and

positive things are happening.

Madam Chairman, let's get on record the good, solid, positive things

we've done since our November 6 swearing-in. It's a proud record

reflecting nine months of achievement; a new style of open government

for all the people; a fairness to all sectors, including the

opposition. We've established a Board of Internal Economy. We've

increased opposition funding for research. We've revived the House

committee system. We're providing electoral changes, and to this end

appointed the Judge Fisher boundaries commission. We've laid down

conflict of interest guidelines.

We've set up a Royal Commission on Education. We've made significant

progress in decentralizing and deregulating government. We've had a

major shuffle in deputy ministers for greater efficiency. We're the

first government to offer workable self-government for native Indians.

We have a cabinet committee that deals exclusively with native affairs.

We have set up an economic advisory council. We have in place a science

and research council, and an aquaculture advisory council.

We have forged a new, more effective relationship with Ottawa

through the newly established federal-provincial council of ministers.

We reached an agreement on South Moresby that sets up Canada's most

spectacular national park, and at the same time looks after the

interests of the British Columbians the park will affect.

We've established the B.C. Enterprise Centre that provides one-stop

shopping information for investors and businessmen who want to come to

B.C. We've opened our trade and convention centre that will bring

hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy. Through all this, our

taxes are still the second lowest in Canada. They're affordable and

they'll stay that way.

[ Page 2622 ]

Madam Chairman, since we're a government that looks to the future,

we've developed a positive means to bring about improved industrial

relations through Bills 19 and 20. But people always come first, and

the record shows we have met the social needs of British Columbians.

Our safety and social program net is stronger than ever. We have

increased funding in such areas as minimum wage; social assistance;

help to the handicapped; additional assistance to hospitals and to

health care programs in the province; help in attracting and retaining

teachers in our north. We have provided additional funds for education,

for student aid. We have a tremendous rapport with universities and

colleges. We're developing whole new approaches in that area of

advanced education.

We've provided $81 million worth of job opportunities through

JobTrac. We have brought in fair expropriation laws. We have introduced

support programs for crime victims. We have set up an adoption

registry. We have set up a Royal Commission on Education. We have a

responsible family life and AIDS education program for our schools. We

have provided more help for independent schools.

The most effective measure of accountability is a government's

record and what it achieves. I'm proud to say that in this regard we

have met the test. That process will continue as we review and

reorganize government to make it even more lean, even more efficient,

even more effective and even more caring in the months and years to

come.

Accountability — letting the people of British Columbia know what's

going on — really says what our government is all about. It's a concept

I'm comfortable with. Because from day one and long before the last

election, I said that if we became government, we would be open,

upfront and answerable to all of the people. The expectations raised by

our promise to bring a new style of government have been high, but they

have been met. Because we have lived up to the letter and the spirit of

our commitment, the response from every corridor of our province has

been tremendous.

The face of government is indeed changing, and so too is my office

in terms of its organization and administration. Those changes are

positive, overdue and necessary if our goals of clear lines of

responsibility, proper accounting procedures, administrative

self-sufficiency and better communications are to be met.

I do not intend to go into detail on these changes; rather I want to

convey a sense of my government's philosophy, setting a framework

within which our action should be judged. Basic to that philosophy is

that government's job is to create a healthy climate for economic

growth, leaving business decisions to the private sector and allowing

the marketplace to test and evaluate new ideas and new ventures. We're

proactive, free enterprise with clear goals. We're working hard to

build and strengthen small business, diversify the economy, bring in

new industries, provide opportunities for value-adding to the products

we already produce, to nail down markets and to seek new customers

worldwide — and, Madam Chairman, to eliminate the deficit.

These are key to developing a climate of confidence that will bring

new investment, new business and new jobs. It all adds up to an

economic action program that's both positive and responsible. That

program, as it builds a strong and dynamic economy, will allow us to

continue to look after our people and their needs, especially those

least able to help themselves. So while our spending will continue to

be careful, it will continue to be caring, providing aid to those who

need it most.

The record is clear. Our actions in terms of social legislation have

been both broad and compassionate. But improving these kinds of

programs, doing good things for people, being able to help when help is

required, can only happen if we can bring about steady economic growth.

A stronger, more diversified economy and the new job opportunities it

will bring will continue to be our main goal.

We have a tremendous chance to do great things here in British

Columbia. Despite the fact that we face new, competitive conditions and

that sharp shifts in global trading patterns are creating new demands

and new pressures on economies all around the world, including ours, we

can meet the challenges if we have the will. While market shares can no

longer be taken for granted, new opportunities to sell new kinds of

goods and services are emerging, and resource-dominated economies such

as ours must diversify into new industries and value-added products in

order to meet changing customer demands.

Our government was elected on the basis of change and a commitment

to bring a new, lean and more efficient style of government to the

Pacific region. We want to become more responsive; we want to open

doors, not to close them; and we want to establish a climate of

confidence within the business community. We want to free up the

private sector to be cost-competitive and to become known as reliable

suppliers of high-quality value-added products. We want to build on our

resource strengths and encourage and increase activity through new

technology, through tourism and other areas where we have a natural

advantage. We want to seek out new markets and new customers for

British Columbia's products.

Madam Chairman, we have made a good start, a bold start for

government in office for only nine months, but there is much more to

come. I am proud to stand behind the philosophies and the principles of

this government, and they are known to British Columbians. I am proud

to be a part of a government that gets things done. I am proud to lead

a government that has restored optimism to B.C. I am proud to have

played a role in the Meech Lake accord. Elements of our economic game

plan are starting to come together. Over the next six months more will

be added, moving closer to our goal of less but more effective

government and an economic strategy that will build a new economy,

attract investment, create jobs, and allow us to improve social

programs.

Madam Chairman, the record of the last nine months shows we're on

the right track. The results are starting to show, like ferry traffic

up 11 percent; airline passenger volume to British Columbia up by 5.6

percent; hotel occupancy up by 11.4 percent; U.S. visitors up by 9

percent; Rogers Pass traffic up by 55 percent; restaurant business up

by 7 percent; retail sales up by 7.6 percent; housing starts up by 22.1

percent; export value up by 14.2 percent. Madam Chairman, the list goes

on.

These are solid signs that consumer and business confidence is on

the rise, because when retail sales go up by 9.3 percent between April

last year and the same month this year, and when housing starts and

real estate transactions keep climbing, it's proof that our policies

are working. That kind of confidence is why I'm confident that history

will judge us as the most effective, get-things-done government in

B.C.'s history.

Taking a fresh approach means being courageous, as we were over Bill

19; sometimes being courageous brings political heat. Madam Chairman, I

want the world to know that this government can take the heat, and

whether it's from special

[ Page

2623 ]

interest groups or from those who simply resent

change, we will provide progress in this province such as we have not

see before. This government has set a positive course, a course that

will continue, a course with continued political will and courage, and

a course that will make British Columbia one of the greatest and most

prosperous places anywhere in the world.

[4:15]

I'm certainly most appreciative of the good spirit that has existed

in this Legislature over the past number of months. I think I'm safe in

saying that of all the Legislatures anywhere in the Commonwealth, this

is probably number one. As I said earlier, I think credit must go to

all members of the House. I hope and trust that this spirit will

continue, and that we can continue to debate and have our differences,

but always have that common interest, the good of all British

Columbians, at heart.

Let me close with a few words to British Columbians, wherever they

may be in this truly super province of ours. We're going to keep

building on the great momentum that has developed in British Columbia.

If I may be colloquial, I'll close by saying to the people of our

province: stand by, hang onto your hats, because you ain't seen nothin'

yet; the best is yet to come.

MR. HARCOURT: I enjoyed that second throne speech. I too

would like to, as the Premier has done, congratulate the Legislature

for being a more civilized place, one that we can bring our relatives

to. We don't have to cover the ears of schoolchildren. It is a place

where debate is hard-fought, where we have different viewpoints, but we

can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think that the new tone of civility bodes well for the fall

session and other sessions, and I agree with the Premier that we should

work very hard at maintaining that sense of civility built up here in

the Legislature. We should all be proud of it, because on some

occasions in the past the personal invective, the personal attacks

have, I think, been unfortunate, and it demeans us all. The level of

debate has not been that which the people of British Columbia would

like to see.

I'm prepared, in this spirit of cooperation in the Legislature, to

make a trade. If you will not use the title "pit bulls" of our side, we

will not use the title "rabid rabbit pack" of yours, so that we can

start with a clean slate.

Mr. Premier, I would like to say, personally, that you are to be

congratulated on what you have said to your caucus and on the way your

caucus has changed the tone and the operations of this Legislature. I

think that's very important. Furthermore, I would like to say that I

will continue to do that with our caucus. On both our behalfs, I think

we should thank and congratulate our House Leaders, House Whips and

caucus chairs, who are the ones who have to work out the hawks and the

doves in our caucuses, who have to work out the difficult and trying

times that do occur on occasion in the operations of the House. They

have served us all well, and I think they deserve our congratulations,

and we expect them to continue in that particular tone.

I would like to say to the Premier that the introduction of the

bureau of internal economy was a very significant and positive change

of the Legislature. We look forward to the initiatives that the bureau

will bring forward for the sole purpose of improving our ability to

serve the people of British Columbia better. I think the agenda items

that they have before them now will allow our respective caucuses and

this Legislature to serve our constituents better, and allow there to

be more open government, with the ability to have straight radio and

television telecasts of the proceedings of this House, and other

important measures. So on behalf of our caucus, I say to the Premier

that that was a very important and positive innovation, and we will

continue to work through our two members of the bureau to carry out the

mandate of the bureau of internal economy.

Now having said that — as our House Leader says — I think that tone

of the change in the operations of the House is good, but it's too bad

it didn't carry over into the business of the Legislature. We have had

far too much incompetence, intolerance and extremism over the last many

months. I think we have had an unfortunate progression, through the

throne speech, the budget speech, the estimates and the bills, from

people who expected better of the government. They gave a mandate to

end confrontation, to get rid of the bitterness that has plagued this

province for far too long.

We came prepared to cooperate in a bipartisan task force to get the

economy going again; that was rejected. We said that we'll work through

the committees; that was rejected. We went through a throne speech

where there was very little mention of unemployment. It was a very

uninspiring and dull throne speech. The budget speech: the budget was

confusing, disappointing. It didn't give a very good signal to the

people of British Columbia. It applied a bunch of taxes that were

unfair, It was a budget that disappointed the people of British

Columbia.

So we went from an anticipation of a fresh start to people being let

down by the throne speech, to being disappointed by the budget, to

being totally shocked by Bills 19 and 20 and the extreme reactions of

this government, to being in a state of despair — very many British

Columbians — about the treatment of the native people of British

Columbia.

When the Premier was at the constitutional talks he told the native

people they were pigs in a poke, and that he wasn't going to buy a pig

in a poke. The genuine....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. HARCOURT: Those were his exact words, that he wasn't

going to get involved in self-government discussions because it was a

pig in a poke. Twelve years to understand the concept of

self-government, and he practised wilful blindness. He would not

understand this genuine aspiration of the people of British Columbia.

Those two initiatives blew it for a fresh start for this province for

the next 898 days.

We gave a signal to the trade union leaders, the working people, the

business community and the educators and people involved in the

education system, with Bills 19 and 20, that we're going to have not

only confrontation but more blatant confrontation in B.C.; that we're

not going to have cooperation; that we're not going to have a Pacific

institute of industrial relations; that we're not going to have an

enthusiastic application of union pension funds to rebuild British

Columbia; that we're not going to have trade union leaders involved in

the economic development council; and that we're not going to have a

combination of business and trade union leaders working with the

government to cooperatively get involved in trade missions and economic

missions to sell British Columbia. Bill 19 killed all that.

[ Page 2624 ]

Bill 20 didn't deal with the really overwhelming problems our

education system is facing. It didn't deal with the central fact that

teachers and parents and school trustees were trying to get across:

that teachers' working conditions are our children's learning

conditions. It doesn't address that. The shortage of funds for

it didn't address the real problems of education, but it sure as heck

demoralized educators a lot more. It sure as heck divided

administrators from teachers. It sure as heck sent the wrong signal to

the people who have to work in that education system day in and day out.

What happened is that the expectations of the people of British

Columbia were shattered in this session. Broken promises, or promises

that the Social Credit government didn't make but delivered anyway —

and I'd like to list some of those.

Here are some broken promises: an end to confrontation; strategies

to introduce new investment; labour to be involved on an economic

council; TV in the Legislature; legislative committees working and

functioning properly; a task force on privatization that would involve

both sides of the House; the Vancouver Island Highway; more child care;

more forestry research funding; a task force on the disabled;

negotiations on land claims. Those are just a few of the promises that

were broken.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: These are your promises. You should remember

that. The Premier should remember after the election what he has

written before the election.

[4:30]

Even more unfortunate are the things that this government failed to

promise but delivered anyway. We didn't ask for Bill 19 and Bill 20. We

didn't ask for higher property taxes on seniors. We didn't ask for an

increased tax on small business. We didn't ask for health care user

fees. We didn't ask for the centralization of this government that's

being carried out. We didn't ask for the phantom and shifting park

boundaries of Strathcona and Tweedsmuir. We didn't ask for the lifting

of the uranium moratorium or the lifting of the offshore drilling

moratorium. We didn't ask for a gambling casino and a liquor store on

every corner or the vice boat. We didn't ask for museum and heritage

park fees. We didn't ask for the elimination of

section 80 votes. And

even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, neither did the people of British

Columbia.

By the way, speaking of the people of British Columbia, I heard

there were record numbers coming over the Rogers Pass. The Premier got

it wrong: they're leaving British Columbia. It's one-way traffic. It's

people from British Columbia going to Ontario looking for jobs. I

wouldn't use that statistic much longer, Mr. Premier. And I wouldn't be

terribly proud of the fact that in this trimmed down, lean and mean

government, my office increased from 13 people to 51 people — a 400

percent increase in the Premier's office. If that's lean and mean, boy,

I'd sure hate to see somebody who's anorexic; they'd be the invisible

person.

Mr. Chairman, it has been an improved Legislature in its operations,

but it has been pretty dismal in its business. As a caucus, we're not

disappointed for ourselves; we're disappointed for the people of

British Columbia. We deserve better in this province.

In closing, I would like to talk about the Meech Lake accord. As you

heard previously from our caucus, we're very positive about the fact

that Quebec has been included as a fully participating member of this

great Confederation of ours. We generally welcome the accord. We think

that was a positive step in this country. But we also have some

concerns we would like to see addressed to the people of British

Columbia. We would like to see a process whereby the people of British

Columbia can ask about these concerns. They are as follows, Mr.

Chairman.

First of all, the social programs. Is this going to lead to a

balkanization? Is this going to lead to a string of different social

programs, to opting out of important national programs across this

country? This is a question we ask.

The second question is: are we finally going to do the right thing

with the native people of this province? Are we going to sit down and

address with goodwill and good faith the issues of aboriginal land

claims, the issues of self-government, the issues of aboriginal rights,

the issues of subsurface development? Are we going to talk about the

issues of native education? Are we going to talk about the issues of

the devolution of educational and other programs to the tribal councils

throughout this province that are asking for more responsibility? We

think the native people in this province should finally be dealt with

in good faith and goodwill, not as they have so far. That is a question

we'd like to ask around the province of British Columbia.

We think it's unfair that there is a one-province veto now, which

could lead to the new emerging territories not being able to become

provinces because of one veto. Where would British Columbia have been

in 1871, or the new territories my relatives came to in 1905 to start

the province of Alberta? We think it's unfair that the Northwest

Territories and the Yukon can face the blackball — the ding — of one

province. We have a concern about that, that these maturing areas of

Canada could be blackballed from being a province.

We also feel that the Senate's time has come and gone, that we

should accept the triple-E proposal, which has been voiced on a few

occasions. My learned colleague here has quoted it in the past in the

heart of triple-E country, in Calgary. Triple-E actually stands for the

Senate being elderly, expensive and expendable. We in turn put forward

a proposal for a triple-A Senate, Mr. Chairman. It deserves to be

attacked as a useless appendage in this day and age. It gets the abuse

it deserves due to the attendance of a lot of the members and the

interference in the House of Commons business of parliament, and

therefore it should be abolished.

We should strengthen the House committees and the work of the

provinces with the federal government. We don't see why we should keep

this third leg, this third arm. It has come and gone. Let's let it

drift off into the sunset, pensions in hand. As for the remaining

senators, let them be part of the history books, not part of our

current history. It's an institution that should be triple-A, not

triple-E, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, on behalf of the New Democrat caucus, I wish all of

the members of the government side of this House an enjoyable British

Columbia summer. I may say that I regret we won't see each other for at

least the next six weeks. But we're going to have a chance to rest up.

We've all worked hard — darned hard.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We'll be working.

[ Page

2625 ]

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sure you will. That's what worries us. We

want you to rest. The province can't stand any more of your work.

Please, for all of our sakes, play golf with the hon. member from

Penticton; go fishing in the Kootenays; wrangle in the Cariboo —

anything but work.

Let me say that I am looking forward to going to my place in the

Gulf Islands and to assisting the business of the House by talking to

my friends and neighbours about the Islands Trust. But regrettably I

will not be participating, as I'm not a member of committee on that

particular item.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You quit.

MR. HARCOURT: Oh, no. I'm just prepared to put my very

successful land holdings out front, and not hide them. I don't like to

have any conflicts. As a successful person, I think it's important for

me to put my 100 acres out on the table and say: "I have a conflict

here." I don't think I should be involved in decisions about my 100

hard-earned acres of this beautiful part of British Columbia. As a

successful business person and a successful socialist who believes, as

all of us do, that what we wish for ourselves, we wish for everyone,

I'm prepared to say that I may have, if not a real conflict, an

apparent one, and therefore I am going to make sure that I follow the

proceedings through the newspaper of North Pender.

So, in the good spirit of this Legislature, may I wish you all an enjoyable summer.

Vote 4 approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of

resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 6; May 21; June 18,

26 and 29; and July 6, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16 be now received, taken as

read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that towards making good the

supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be

granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $9.497 billion

towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the sum to include that authorized

to be paid under

section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, and

section 1 of Supply

Act (No. 2), 1987; and the sum of $410,913,000 for recoverable disbursements

required for the purposes referred to in

schedule D of the main estimates for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the sum to include that authorized to

be paid under

section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, and

section 2 of Supply

Act (No. 2), 1987.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

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

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 3), 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government

programs for the 1987-88 fiscal year. The amount requested is that

resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the

estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government

programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously.

Because of my understanding that the House is about to enter an

indefinite adjournment, I request that this bill be permitted to pass

through all stages this date, pursuant to standing order 81.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Premier wants to table a document.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Premier have leave to table a document?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document

referred to in Committee of Supply. This document will stand in my name

on the order paper as a resolution to be debated at the next sitting of

the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, while the documents are being distributed, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are three

businessmen from Vancouver. They are tourists in Victoria and are going

to visit the museum before they leave — and pay an admission fee. The

House Leader's wife, Beverley, is also here as a tourist, and she's

going to visit the museum today. Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I

introduce Mr. Bill Waring from the Dutch Pannekoek House, William Brown

from Andres Wines, and Michael Francis from Milton Manufacturing. Would

the House please make these three gentlemen welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 54.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is the third and final for the fiscal year 1987-88. The first,

[ Page 2626 ]

introduced on March 21, 1987, authorized the value

of appropriations for three months; the second, introduced on June 25,

authorized the value of appropriations for one month. This bill, which

is in the general form of previous years' final supply bills, requests

a total supply of $9.497 billion for a vote of the expenditures as

outlined in the

schedule to this bill, and the sum of $410.913 million

for recoverable financing transaction disbursements as recorded in

schedule D of the main estimates. These sums include that authorized

under sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), and sections 1 and 2 of

Supply Act (No. 2), 1987.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of

this supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the

government for the 1987-88 fiscal year. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the minister that we

can give speedy passage to this legislation. I think we agreed earlier

in the debate today in discussion of a couple of bills that it's

probably $400 million or $500 million short of what the government will

actually need this year, but we'll deal with that at a later date.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 54 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 3), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 3), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that His Honour

is in the precincts. Perhaps we could maintain our seats for a moment,

and His Honour will join us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987

University Amendment Act, 1987

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987

Forest Amendment Act, 1987

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987

Local Election Reform Act, 1987

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987

Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987

University Foundations Act

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 3), 1987.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, members will note standing at

the end of the assembly three members of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff.

They are retiring today; this will be their last session. Would the

House please give a nice warm round of applause, congratulations and

thanks to Mr. Harold Bleay, Mr. Andy McNamee and Mr. Jim Crawford. I'll

just point out that Harold has served us for 11 sessions, Andy for

eight sessions, and Jim Crawford for eight sessions.

MR. ROSE: Could I express, on behalf of the opposition, our

thanks for the work of these gentlemen and wish them a happy, pleasant

and fulfilling retirement. I sometimes yearn to join them; sometimes my

constituents wish that I would as well. But seriously, I haven't served

enough time here yet. I don't enjoy the longevity of these gentlemen.

But I promise I won't do it either.

I really do sincerely thank them for looking after us, thank them for all their loyalty and good work and wish them bon voyage .

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as they say in some circles:

happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again. I move that this

House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the

satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government,

that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until

Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to

prorogue the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the

province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so

satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at

the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its

business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and that date,

and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to

[ Page 2627 ]

act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy

Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order, as, in

duty bound, I do so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, hon. members, before we adjourn that

I think it would be appropriate.... Some of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff

got some applause, but we have a great staff in these buildings, from

the Sergeant-at-Arms to the library, to the staff who work in our

offices, and I think they deserve a great round of applause.

I might also mention the Pages, who usually are still going to

school when we finish but this year have given up some of their summer

holidays to come here and be enlightened; they've all told me what a

great time they've had.

Also as Speak