1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5189 ]

CONTENTS

Forest Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5189

Oral Questions

Public opinion polls. Mr. Hanson –– 5189

Summer youth employment program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 5190

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Skelly –– 5190

Education financing. Mr. Rose –– 5190

Tabling Documents –– 5191

Provincial fisheries. Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 5191

Throne speech debate

Mr. R. Fraser –– 5192

Mr. Howard –– 5195

On the amendment

Mr. Williams –– 5198

Mr. Mowat –– 5201

Mr. Cocke –– 5203

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5206

Mr. Nicolson –– 5208

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5210

Division –– 5211

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I

introduce two prominent people from Surrey in the chamber today: Mr.

Ken Schaeffers and Mr. Paul Rust.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to welcome a hardworking member of the NDP from Vancouver East, Mr. George Lawson.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Fort Babine is a very small and

remote community at the outflow of Babine Lake in the constituency of

Skeena. Although I don't see them in the gallery, a number of students

from the school at Fort Babine are certainly visiting the House today,

and they will be in the gallery later on, along with their teacher

Ellen Stanley and the principal of that school, Mr. McSween. I'd like

the House to join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the public accounts

for the fiscal year 1983-84 be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the members, may I indicate that copies are being distributed forthwith.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the

amendments are minor ones primarily for administrative purposes.

However, there are three amendments of significance. One will establish

a fund to provide a way of financing roads under our Ministry's small

business enterprise program. Another will provide that scaling may be

carried out by official scalers appointed by the Forest Service, which

will provide some efficiencies and cost-effectiveness to our scaling

activities. The third will provide that when bid proposals are called,

forest tenures may be broken down so that a number of smaller tenures

may be issued rather than one large tenure.

These are the significant points in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

draw to the attention of the House that the statement made by the Minister of

Forests upon introduction of his bill is consistent with practice recommendation

No. 5, and I would commend members to familiarize themselves with what is now

a new routine.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. HANSON: I have a question that I wish to direct to the

Premier. On December 14, 1984, I wrote to the Premier asking for

information about a number of public opinion polls referred to by his

former principal secretary, Patrick Kinsella, in a speech at Simon

Fraser University. Were any of the polls that were cited by Mr.

Kinsella paid for using taxpayers' money, including off-budget funds

controlled by cabinet?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of Mr.

Kinsella's remarks, or the polls he was referring to, so I have no idea

what information the member is talking about. However, if they were

polls of a political nature they would have been done by the Social

Credit Party.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary question. Mr. Kinsella referred

to a massive sample of voters that was launched about two weeks after

he assumed the office of deputy minister to the Premier. Is the Premier

aware if any of these polls were paid for by tax money?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I would suggest, if you want to talk

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), who would take responsibility for coordinating any government

research that's done.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am directing these questions to

the Premier because the questions refer to a person formerly residing

in the Premier's office with certain responsibilities.

A question to the Premier. Has the government entered into any

relationship with Mr. Kinsella, Progressive Strategies Ltd., or any

other company involving Mr. Kinsella, since he left the Premier's

office in March 1984?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not to my knowledge and certainly not at my direction.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier was

aware, no doubt, that the political polling carried out extensively in

the United States by the Republican Party is paid for by the Republican

Party and not by, say, the Reagan administration.

Similarly, in Ontario if polls are conducted with tax dollars, those

polling documents and the data and results are released and made

public. In view of the public interest in this matter, and the practice

in Ontario, as I've referred to, and in the United States, will the

Premier now release to the public copies of all reports on public

opinion research studies conducted by the government since October 1,

1981?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would take that question as

notice, to consider what research is still relevant to current

government policy, and will reply to the rest of the question at some

time in the future, if and when a determination has been made.

[ Page 5190 ]

[2:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary. To aid the

Premier in his determination of what companies may be involved, I would

appreciate his bringing back to the House information with respect to

polling services performed by Decima Research, Public Affairs

International, Goldfarb Consultants, Canadian Gallup Poll and/or

Canadian Facts, from that period — October 1, 1981 — to the present.

Would he undertake to bring that back and table it with the House?

SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Before asking the question, may I offer the new minister my

congratulations on his appointment to that very important post.

The question is this. The minister's predecessor negotiated a total

B.C. contribution to the 1985 summer youth employment program of just

over half of Ottawa's contribution, compared with Ontario, which is

contributing nearly twice as much as Ottawa. Has the new minister

succeeded in raising B.C.'s share of the funding to a more realistic

level, matching our need?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question, and would be pleased to take the question as notice and

report back to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I take it that the minister doesn't know

whether he's succeeded in raising that amount. May I ask the minister

then: has he entered into negotiations in an effort to raise that

minimal amount?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take the question as notice and report back to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd start with the easy

questions. B.C. has put its small share — $10 million, which is the

primary chunk of the funding — into the private sector wage subsidies,

cutting out entirely the contributions in public sector and community.

What guarantees has the minister secured from the private sector that

this amount will be spent, keeping in mind that last year's allocation

for youth jobs was underspent?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take the question as notice and report back to the assembly.

MR. GABELMANN: I give up.

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. SKELLY: This question is to the Minister of Energy. The

federal Minister of Energy stated on Friday that she had notified the

provincial government last September that there is no federal money for

the Vancouver Island gas pipeline this fiscal year or next fiscal year.

To quote the minister: "I have said that there never has been any

money." Will the Minister of Energy explain why he continues to

announce and re-announce that the pipeline will be built with federal

money, when he knows the reverse is true?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

opportunity to maybe clarify a few things. As the member will perhaps

remember, when the federal government introduced the national energy

program for Canada, which each and every year takes $100 million out of

the energy revenue of this province, the commitment of the federal

government of the day — in those days it was the Liberal government;

I'm sure you can remember back that far — was that the Trans-Quebec and

Maritime Pipeline would be built out of existing funds, and that at

such time as the province of British Columbia was able to determine

which of the two routes the gas pipeline would take to Vancouver

Island, they would consider that. That tax is still being removed from

the people of British Columbia. They have taken over $800 million out

of this province in terms of revenue as part of the national energy

program.

In my role as the minister, I will continue to be persistent and

rather a nuisance at times with Ottawa, asking them to honour their

commitment, because they continue to take that amount of tax dollars

out of this province each and every year. That is the whole basis under

which the national energy program was built. It was built on that

basis, and it's on that basis that I've had discussions. The federal

Minister of Energy wants to conduct the negotiations through the press.

I have done the best I can to ensure that we don't do that through the

press, and we have had a whole host of communications.

MR. SKELLY: You keep announcing; she keeps negotiating.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You show me the announcements; I'll show you the negotiations.

MR. SKELLY: I understand that the federal government has

taken a great deal of money from the province of B.C. In their energy

taxes. Perhaps the minister is deducting the cost of unemployment

insurance and welfare in British Columbia from the amount she's

collected.

My next question to the Minister of Energy is: has the minister

decided, while he's announcing these pipeline projects, in the meantime

to reduce electrical prices on Vancouver Island until the Vancouver

Island gas pipeline gets built? That way, the people on Vancouver

Island will have some equity in terms of heating costs on the Island

until that pipeline is built — if it's ever built.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. On the

contrary, the people of Vancouver Island are currently blessed with

subsidized electricity from the people on the mainland.

EDUCATION FINANCING

MR. ROSE: I have a number of related questions dealing with

educational finances which I would like to direct to the Minister of

Education. First of all, apparently Delta's revised estimate is about

$168,000, as far as their deficit is concerned, which I think is both

punitive and vindictive. Because the government failed to say that

ministerial approval was needed before the deficit was incurred, and

because the ground rules kept changing — the goalposts kept changing —

I want to ask the minister whether as a gesture of good faith and in

the spirit of cooperation or reconciliation — to

[ Page

5191 ]

say nothing about partnership — the government has decided to eliminate this

fine against Delta, which penalizes, ultimately, the children of Delta.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a statement from the school district, although I understand one is on its way.

It's rather interesting that we started off somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $634,000, and according to my colleague across the way

it's now something in the order of $160,000. It's just amazing how this

should all come to pass. My point is that I believe that the amount

that they are now talking about may be related to sick leave. In the

matter of sick leave, I understand that the Ministry of Education and

the government, for a number of years, have acknowledged that type of

indebtedness as a deficit.

I think it's only fair that I get an opportunity to review material

which Delta will be submitting. If it's in transit, fine. If they have

communicated certain information to you as a member of the opposition,

fine. But I don't intend to make any statements one way or another

until I have all the information available to me.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, one is sorely tantalized and tempted

to respond to the faulty bookkeeping of the minister that something

that can start out as $600,000 and end up....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They're not my books.

MR. ROSE: You were the one who.... Your ministry was the group....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if we address the Chair, then possibly we circumvent the personalities.

MR. ROSE: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can

get out of the fact that he has changed the goalposts and the fine on

at least two occasions. But I'd like to go on to a related question.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You'll answer it anyway, whether I've asked it or not.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Another question, hon. member?

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a question about the conflict

between the School Act and the interim finance act and the Compensation

Stabilization Act. If there is an arbitration award and it's granted by

Mr. Peck of the Compensation Stabilization Commission, then what is the

minister prepared to do to assist these boards in meeting the extra

costs granted by Mr. Peck, for which there is no financial provision or

formula, since the minister controls the global budgets of boards?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, as of this moment, any

decision which has yet been made by the CSP office.... Yes, we know one. There

was one mediated in Alberni School District for 5.2 percent covering 18 months.

I'm sure that Alberni School District won't be coming looking for more

money after mediating a settlement.

Now the other item that the member is making reference to is this. In both the Howe Sound case....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Does that make you nervous? Well, if it

bothers you that much, I'll put my hands behind my back. Is that what

you'd like as an ex-school teacher?

Mr. Speaker, there are only two decisions....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I loved that headline from Alberni.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, not that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, there have been two decisions

rendered by the CSP office: one on Howe Sound, the other on Surrey. One

involved a negotiated settlement, the other an arbitrated settlement.

Both were referred back to the parties. No decision has been made by

the CSP office. I recognize that school districts are in a difficult

position, but so is everybody else. I think it's incumbent on us to

wait until we have a decision from the CSP office. Both of those

decisions will be somewhere between April 20 and May 1.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the

annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the

year ending March 31, 1984.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL FISHERIES

HON. MR. PELTON: Last Thursday the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) posed two questions with respect to the salmonid

enhancement program, particularly as far as the rationale used as the

basis for signing the treaty with the U.S.A. and the actual dollars

involved were concerned. I would like to respond to those two questions.

In respect to the first one, the two major principles in the

recently negotiated Canada-U.S.A. salmon treaty are (1) that both

countries shall give the highest priority to conservation of stocks;

and (2) that the fish in the ocean belong to the country in which they

spawn. The province of British Columbia has been involved in the treaty

negotiations from the outset and was represented during the recent

sessions. The province's major concerns were to ensure that the people

of this province benefited from the economic value of the Pacific

fishery and to ensure a fair representation of both sports and

commercial interests. My ministry will be working

[ Page 5192 ]

closely and cooperatively with the federal

government to ensure that these principles and objectives are

maintained during the implementation of the treaty.

As for the dollars involved, Mr. Speaker, I have with me extracts

from the 1985-86 estimates of the federal Department of Fisheries and

Oceans. I would assure the hon. members that the federal government

intends to meet fully its commitments regarding fisheries management

and enhancement on the Pacific coast. We have, as a matter of fact,

confirmed with the federal department that the aforementioned estimates

are correct and that the federal government's commitment to salmon

stock enhancement is stronger than ever.

There's just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I might add: that

is, that the hon. member has not only this day received a response from

me but also that in Friday's edition of the Sun newspaper, he also received a response from the federal Minister of Fisheries.

[2:30]

MR. HANSON: I seek guidance from you, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: The answer is no, hon. member. If it's a response that the member is looking for to a ministerial statement or....

MR. HANSON: …for the $25 million that was promised by Mr. Mulroney, and in fact only....

MR. SPEAKER: No.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds adjourned the debate.

MS. BROWN: I stated my case: I'm not supporting the Speech from the Throne.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Speech from

the Throne because it recognizes the economic realities facing us today

and proposes realistic measures to assist the process of economic

renewal we are now experiencing. As a matter of fact, I did welcome the

opposition's new era, for it has the responsibility to propose concrete

measures to meet the challenge our province faces. I welcome their

commitment to abandon personal attacks in favour of positive

cooperative dialogue. That is the responsibility of each member of this

House. However, I was disappointed in the presentation of the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but then there are some differences

between us. I am inclined to be more positive about the opportunities

we have here in British Columbia.

It seems that the NDP continues to see government as the primary

source of new jobs. I really question how realistic that ever was in

our economy, let alone in today's world. Secondly, the idea that

somehow some minor tinkering with provincially fostered demand will

fully restore an economy which is as export-based as ours displays a

rather pathetic ignorance of the elementary facts of our economy. I

regret that the opposition either has such a limited understanding or

is still stuck in the old socialist rut.

Members of the Legislative Assembly can accomplish a great deal when

they're working in their constituencies. Often I feel we accomplish

more by listening to our constituents and acting on their behalf than

we do by sitting here listening to each other. Having committed myself

to constituency work in the past months has given me an opportunity to

witness firsthand the economic renewal currently underway. Indeed,

communities throughout B.C. are experiencing renewed economic activity

and investment, construction and development. Consumers are once again

starting to make their purchases that put people in the service, retail

and manufacturing industries back to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are?

MR. R. FRASER: They are — slowly but surely.

The great economist, Alfred Marshall, once described economics as

"the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life." Business and

economics are not just million-dollar investments or corporate mergers;

they are jobs. They are created through the purchase of the essential

goods and services we use every day: houses, haircuts, food, cars,

rides on the bus, whatever. Our economic climate is now in the process

of regaining health and buoyancy. Economic activity is taking place

throughout B.C. at an increasing pace, and that indicates that renewal

and regeneration is indeed underway in our province.

The president of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada is quoted in the February 22 edition of the Victoria Times-Colonist

as saying: "The provincial government is providing prudent fiscal

management in a difficult economic environment." That means jobs, Mr.

Speaker. It is reassuring to hear such praise of our government's

thrust in budgetary policies by this prestigious organization. It

echoes what members on this side of the House have been saying for the

last two and one-half years.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not very enthusiastic.

MR. R. FRASER: Oh, I am indeed enthusiastic, Madam Member. Yes, I've seen it happening in that great riding of Vancouver South.

We have made difficult choices. I suppose that sometimes people

think we are consciously out to damage the economy. Far from it, Mr.

Speaker. What we're doing is trying to make people realize that the

good days we enjoyed are no longer with us, and we all have to tighten

our belts and make it work. When we work together, we can make it work,

Mr. Speaker. The time will come when people will see that these

policies have been correct, and are still correct. We are not the only

elected representatives to have recognized the reduced ability of the

taxpayer to pay. Thoughtful municipal governments in our province have

also shown fiscal responsibility and are now in a strengthened position

to participate in our recovery. More will see the value of such

prudence.

Some examples, Mr. Speaker. The city of Prince George has managed to

hold tax increases to an average of 1.5 percent in each of the last

three years, yet has been able to maintain essential service levels. In

the words of the member, city council there has been first rate. In

Kelowna, 62 senior staff members voluntarily accepted salary cuts in

1982 in an effort to help cover a $1 million cut in the city's budget.

This

[ Page 5193 ]

year in Armstrong, the local school board recorded

a surplus of $30,000 and did not lay off any teachers. One school

principal said words to the effect that when difficulties arise, the

residents of Armstrong don't sit around and complain; they do

something. That's nice to see. Real leadership has come to the fore,

and perhaps none better than the following example.

Elected officials in Trail recently passed a motion that said, in

part: "Recognizing the economic situation our community is facing,

Trail council is committed to an in-depth review of all city budgets, a

review of all capital projects and a review of the city's user-fee

policy." That is leadership. Trail has been fully supportive of the

modernization programs underway at Cominco and has pledged to the

federal government that city council is prepared to reduce the level of

taxation on the mining company smelters. They realize that to manacle

the biggest employer in the city is to harm themselves. They do not

choose to do this, obviously.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is the fiscal responsibility shown by the communities throughout

the province, as well as by this Legislature, that is now enabling B.C.

to recapture the economic vigour of past years and to take bold

initiatives for future growth. Many communities are working on downtown

revitalization programs in an exciting effort to redevelop business

areas so that they may take advantage of coming better times. A unique

cooperative program developed in 1980 by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs to promote the revitalization of downtown business areas is

taking place. The process brings together local city councils, downtown

merchants and individual communities, and the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs.

The key participants are the merchants who have the greatest

investment and incentive in improving the viability of their

businesses, and this they are doing. Once an initial startup grant of

$5,000 has been made, the merchants can study available options and

develop a concept plan. Moneys provided by the provincial government by

way of low-cost loans are repaid by the merchants two years after the

completion of the revitalization project. During the construction

phase, Ministry of Municipal Affairs makes available a facade

improvement grant to improve storefronts, and after completion, offers

a promotion-aid grant to offset costs incurred in promoting the

downtown area through various media and advertising campaigns.

This program is especially intriguing for its reliance on the

dynamic private sector to develop merchant associations for

representation purposes, the establishment of a positive working

relationship between merchants and their municipal council, and

cooperation through working together on plans for the long-range future

of their downtown areas. The low-cost loans provided by the government

must be repaid, and the merchants are doing this; but what a great

opportunity to generate jobs through increased business activity. Since

1980-81, 40 agreements have been signed with 37 municipalities,

resulting in over $12 million in actual and committed investments. The

program administrator describes the initiative as not just

beautification but regeneration of the entrepreneurial spirit of B.C.

merchants.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has also shown

his high regard for the entrepreneurial flair of our province's young

people by ensuring that high school business students are given the

opportunity of participating in revitalization efforts in their

communities. With the minister's assistance, students in Armstrong

recently worked with the promotion subcommittee of the Armstrong and

Spallumcheen Chamber of Commerce to promote the opening of that

community's revitalization program.

One of the most interesting downtown revitalization schemes is

happening in North Vancouver's Edgemont Village, where $365,000

provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has enabled merchants to

install new sidewalks, wiring, lamp posts and awnings. A 25-year-old

shopping centre has thrown off its rustic old worn image and replaced

it with a new look and a new attitude.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has described Kimberley's downtown

revitalization as one of the best in the province. His ministry

provided a 12-year low-interest loan with no principal or interest

payments for the first two years. Sixty percent of the $380,000 cost

will be borne by the Kimberley retail merchants association, while a

grant of $30,000 was made on behalf of the merchants of the Bavarian

Society. The city of Kimberley has agreed to pay 40 percent of the

total cost.

In all, 15 municipalities signed agreements in 1984 for the downtown

revitalization program, and grand openings were held in Enderby,

Mission and Armstrong, among others. Approvals for loans in 1985 have

already been given to Grand Forks, Langley, Nelson, Sidney and

approximately 20 other communities undertaking concept plans in

anticipation of proceeding this year. This is a vivid example of the

economic renewal taking place in B.C. Not only is the provincial

government assisting these communities in a constructive and positive

manner, but the merchants and municipal councils are working together

in a joint effort to take advantage of increased economic activity.

Most important, it is showing the vitality and entrepreneurship of

B.C.'s small business sector.

According to figures supplied by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

small businesses represent 98 percent of all registered businesses in

the province and employ one-half of the labour force. B.C. small

business produces 32 percent of the gross provincial product. Even

though we comprise only 11 percent of Canada's population, the Federal

Business Development Bank does 25 percent of its loans in our province.

We have a dynamic private sector, and it is they who are leading our

economic renewal. Our government is seeking to assist the private

sector and individual citizens in their efforts to stimulate our

recovery in these difficult days.

The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing operates the rental

conversion loan program, which provides loans to individuals, groups or

corporations in B.C. who want to convert existing homes or commercial

or industrial buildings to produce rental accommodation. In this

regard, it was interesting to note the story in the February issue of

the Victoria Times-Colonist that reports a study by the

Community Council of Greater Victoria claiming that the removal of

rental controls almost two years ago did not have an adverse impact on

tenants. That proves what members on the government's side of the House

were saying at the time legislation restoring market sensitivity to the

rental accommodation market was introduced: that it would merely

balance the forces of supply and demand, bringing equality to the

relationship between landlords and tenants. We have been proven right

once again, Mr. Speaker — a normal, everyday opportunity.

[ Page 5194 ]

The Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, through

the discovery enterprise program, is encouraging high-technology

industries to locate in municipalities throughout the province. In its

first year the discovery....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I'll give you individual help later, if you need it.

In its first year the discovery enterprise program invested $3.4

million in 22 projects, stimulating an additional $30 million in

outside investment and creating 270 jobs.

MS. SANFORD: Who told you all this?

MR. R. FRASER: Well, I'm telling you this. I've learned it

before, Madam Member, but I'm trying to help you. Just pay attention

and you'll be all right.

Many communities are benefiting from renewal and used the recession

as an opportunity to put into place imaginative programs to stimulate

economic activity. Port Alberni — and the leader of your party might

wish to hear this — completed a $2.5 million construction program, the

Alberni Harbour Quay. It is a multipurpose facility, including a public

market, crafts, workshops, pier and float as well as tourist

attractions. New Westminster's quay development site is presently going

to tender as that community's waterfront undergoes revitalization,

while Prince Rupert is working with the port authority and CN Rail to

develop an overall waterfront strategy. That's leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: You have to have long-range plans in this world, Mr. Member.

North Vancouver is the site of an $82 million waterfront improvement

project, the Lonsdale Quay, while Nanaimo's harbour is undergoing new

development. It's happening everywhere.

This would be a propitious time to congratulate Oliver, which was

recently awarded an environmental development award in the public

sector category by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) in

recognition of the community's action in building a new sewage effluent

disposal system. Rather than being discharged into the Okanagan River,

treated effluent is now pumped into a large reservoir and is later used

to water a community-owned golf course. That's progress, Mr. Speaker.

The economic renewal underway in our province is most evident in

communities throughout British Columbia. There is a renewed sense of

purpose and an increased effort at developing innovative programs to

attract investment, and that means jobs. I never like to talk of

management in capital investment; I always like to talk of job

creation, because that is what it really boils down to.

[2:45]

Seventy-one Expo committees have been established throughout the province.

Volunteers in the committees are devising unique and imaginative schemes to

attract Expo visitors to their communities, which is the main function of Expo.

They encourage local artists, musicians and others to participate in B.C.'s

world exposition. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the community

I live in — principally the city of Vancouver — is more and more becoming involved

in, committed to, interested in, and supportive of Expo, which has received

a lot of criticism in the past month. I even notice our local mayor, who has

normally been opposed to everything until it appears to be popular, is now trying

to go overseas at taxpayers' expense — this seems to be incredible, but

it was described by someone as the mayor leaping on someone else's horse,

and that's normal for him to do. However, he's not too harmful — can't

be all bad.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: No, sir, not our local mayor. Gosh, he's an

interesting guy. He's a great campaigner and a very nice guy. I just

can't wait for the first day he makes a decision on his own.

Smithers, Mr. Speaker, is preparing for a 1986 northern B.C. Winter

Games to be held next winter, just as Kitimat was winding down from

festivities held in that community this past February 1, 2 and 3.

Residents and businesses in Smithers are also undertaking a campaign to

raise money needed by the Hudson Bay ski hill, which is mainly owned by

the community. As of February 18, they had raised $140,000 of the

needed $200,000.

It is efforts such as these that illustrate the extent to which

economic renewal has taken hold in B.C. In example after example,

communities are creating, stimulating or benefiting from burgeoning

economic activity. In the city of Vancouver alone, projects which have

been on hold for at least two years are now nearly complete, in many

instances. All the activity which our local council wishes to take

credit for has in fact no relationship whatever to their effort; it is

the effort of this government — Expo, light rapid transit, B.C. Place

and a number of other things. This government has been the leader in

this province by such a wide margin it's unbelievable.

I had a very interesting meeting recently with some representatives

of the labour movement who were asking me what our government has done,

and it was no trouble whatsoever to relate a number of projects which

are creating thousands and thousands of jobs which are benefiting

everyone. So let there be no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd say that's cabinet material.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be the new leader.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, you might be right on both counts, actually, but we'll wait until the future.

I want to add my support to those who have expressed support for the

pursuit of excellence in education referred to in the Speech from the

Throne. I have taken a great personal interest in this subject and have

spent a number of hours, days, weeks — whatever — not only in my own

riding but outside the riding as well. It distresses me that there are

people in the community who will make every effort — endless efforts —

to destroy the good system that we have. It disturbs me that there are

people in the community who are paid to organize meetings, and who come

prepared with resolutions that seem to lead our good citizens and our

good parents down the garden path.

In fact, as we all know, school activity depends to no small extent

on the vision and perception that the principal of that particular

school might happen to have. I can see differences from school to

school within the riding that I represent, Vancouver South. It's quite

incredible the opportunities

[ Page 5195 ]

that our kids have these days. It's also quite

incredible that those who are benefiting from the system most — who

should be the students, in fact — are not always the students. Some

pressure and self-interest groups have spared no effort whatsoever to

suggest to the parents that their children's education is being

undermined. I suggest to you, as was said earlier by the minister

responsible for universities, that there are times when we all have to

work a little harder to produce the effort that will result in the

opportunity going to the children and not just to the administration.

I have said many times in this House that I'm completely supportive

of the public school system. There are obviously thousands and

thousands of teachers who are completely dedicated to their profession.

There are some in it, however, who are more dedicated to themselves.

And using the students as an excuse is no alibi, as far as I'm

concerned.

I want to congratulate the government on all the new initiatives to make our community go better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that won't take long.

MR. R. FRASER: I'll carry on for hours if you wish, Madam Member.

The hard decisions that we've made had to be made. The decisions

that have not been taken by other governments will have to be taken by

other governments. Let there be no doubt about that.

Back to education. In the community cultural heritage that comes out

of Vancouver South, I can tell you that in the city of Vancouver, which

has a budget of approximately $150 million annually, some $30 million

that out of the approximately 47,000 students in the Vancouver School

Board system, some 9,000 have communication difficulties and some 1,100

have real communication problems, which suggests to me and should

suggest to you that that $30 million out of about $150 million is a

significant contribution to the people who wish to emigrate to Canada,

jurisdictions made a commitment that significant, Mr. Speaker. I

suggest that those of you who believe that there's not enough money

spent on this program should do a little research work on the subject

and check what other jurisdictions do.

The people of Vancouver and the people of this province have made no

small effort to welcome immigrants to this country. We expect them to

become Canadians when they get here.

The course of action this government will be taking in this

legislative session, as read by His Honour, will enable our growing

economy to gain strength and resilience as the year progresses. We are

gaining new industries and new jobs through joint efforts of the

private sector, municipal councils and our provincial government. As we

approach 1986, economic renewal and the dynamic character of the

individual British Columbian will continue to attract foreign

investment and expand exports of our natural resources and manufactured

products.

The recession is behind us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. FRASER: The future is bright, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

There is a saying: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

We can now add another chapter: "When the going gets tough, some just

leave town, because they can't handle it." That's what happens to some

of those guys. It's incredible. I wish those who can't handle it well.

But there are lots of people out there who can handle it. Thousands of

people working in our community have had to face realities that no one

would wish to face — realities not caused by us. All the problems

cannot be solved by any government, whether it includes every member of

this House or not. But we will not solve any problems if we keep

fighting against the facts of life, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this new throne speech. I welcome the new opportunity that

we all will have, and I welcome a new willingness to work the problems

out together.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I attentively

listened to the third member for Vancouver South congratulate those

wordsmiths in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for preparing such a

document that lent itself to being read with such ease — monosyllabic

words and things of that nature.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I think that did quite all right.

There are a number of similarities between the current government

opposite and its Premier and the federal Liberals and former Prime

Minister Trudeau. They are very great similarities. Both Prime Minister

Trudeau and the current Premier were aloof from their advisers, took

very little counsel but that of their own and operated to a great

extent in secrecy in terms of coming to conclusions about how to deal

with things. I think secretly our Premier was envious of Prime Minister

Trudeau, because Trudeau seemed to be able to get away with attacking

people,

whereas this Premier can't. The Prime Minister seemed to be

able to get away with ridiculing groups in society. He had the flair

for it. He had the intellectual capacity to put it across. This Premier

doesn't seem to be able to do that.

In the last months of their reign in power the Liberals in Ottawa

lost touch with society. They lost touch with the common, ordinary

people. They lost touch with the circumstances in communities. They

lost touch with economic realities — exactly the same pattern of events

and activities that this government has been engaging in in the past

few months — the last number of months of its last reign in office.

The Liberals under Trudeau blindly followed high interest-rate

policies as a goal and as an objective in the absence of any concern

about what those did to our economy. They followed a high interest-rate

policy endorsed by this Premier in written form, applauding the

activity of the federal government and the Bank of Canada to move

interest rates up a few years ago. He said that that was the wonderful

device to deal with the economy. Our Premier supported it blindly. Draw

the comparison within this province of the current government's

activity with respect to the way it approached the economy a couple of

years ago, blindly following the concept of its narrow, and restraint

program and saying that was the solution. That was going to solve all

our problems and all our ills, and that would lead to economic recovery

and get people

[ Page 5196 ]

back to work again. That policy failed just as miserably as did the high-interest rate policy of Trudeau's.

[3:00]

The result of the Liberal government's activities in Ottawa under

Trudeau was the highest unemployment that we've seen in this nation

since the time that the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) refers to as "the Great Depression."

There was the highest continuous rate of bankruptcies, a lessening of

disposable income on the part of our citizens, and a lessening of

capital investment — everything was on the way down economically

because of the policies followed by the Liberal government.

When we look at this province, our province, we see precisely the

same pattern, because we have a government that has blindly followed a

narrow concept in trying to deal with the economy. We see in this

province the highest unemployment rate since what the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications calls "the Great Depression."

He said it the other day almost as if he loved the term and loved the

activity. It was almost as if he was proud of the fact that we have 15

percent of the people in this province unemployed. That's the way the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications dealt with the

matter.

Bankruptcies are running rampant, particularly in small businesses.

There's a shortage of capital investment money, a shortage of equity

money and a shortage of disposable income on the part of our citizens.

I'm inclined to think that Gorde Hunter, in the Times-Colonist

at the end of last week, was quite accurate when he said that this will

be the Premier's last stand — that the Premier will not lead the Social

Credit Party into the next election. We have again a comparison with

the Trudeau Liberals: they got into such a miserable bit of discontent

internally and recognized that they couldn't possibly deal with the

economy in any positive, rational, helpful sense. Finally Prime

Minister Trudeau decided that was it he threw in the towel and resigned.

That's why this is happening. And there's a Liberal standing up

right now; that's the only thing that's caught his attention all

afternoon. When I talk about the Liberal Party, the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) stands up, a light gleams in his eyes, he

says, "Oh, where's my card?" and he looks in his pocket to see whether

his dues are paid up. The fellow that sits just in front of him — the

Premier — both because of the dissent within the Social Credit Party

and because of the revelations in the Speech from the Throne, has, like

Prime Minister Trudeau, admitted defeat, admitted that it's not

possible for him or his government to be able to deal effectively with

the economic situation in this province.

I agree with Gorde Hunter in that I think the Premier is on his way

out, by his own determination. I tend to disagree with Mr. Hunter when

he goes through the catalogue of potential successors.

MR. SKELLY: There's no potential there.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the only potential successor to the current

leader of the Social Credit Party is the third member for Vancouver

South, who just sat down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: It's true. He wants it, and his supporters in

that central, cliquish, secret group want him to have it as well. He's

waiting in the wings. So I say to Gorde Hunter, through you, Mr.

Speaker: write another article, but get the players correct this time

and point to the third member for Vancouver South as being the

alternative....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. Although we are

allowed a great deal of latitude during the throne speech debate,

improper or incorrect reference to a member in the riding he represents

is unparliamentary. There is a list of members who sit here and the

ridings they represent, and the member might refer to that when

referring to other members.

MR. HOWARD: I'll look at that list then, Mr. Speaker; I certainly will. Where does he come from?

Let's deal with unemployment and job creation, and ask ourselves

whether there are possibilities within the economic situation as it

exists right now and the alterations in corporate activity and their

structure…whether those alterations and the situation are amenable to

the creation of jobs. I think not — certainly not to the extent that it

was the case not too many years ago. What are the corporate objectives?

Now they're simple, they're always there, and they are consistent. And

they probably come more to the fore and more noticeably to the

attention of corporate managers and the general public in tough times

than they do at other times. But they're simple and uncomplicated. One

of them is not the creation of jobs as an initial activity — as an

ancillary activity perhaps.

The primary corporate objectives are to serve the balance sheet; to

try to make the profit-and-loss statement come out on the profit side

rather than the loss side; to manage their affairs so that cash flow

comes in all the time, so they've got money to spend; to arrange their

deferred taxes — in other words, unlike the rest of us, who have to pay

taxes on a payroll-deduction basis, they defer the payment of taxes so

that they can have that cash ready to spend — and to arrange their

depreciation. They keep one set of books — and I don't say this in a

disparaging way — for tax-reporting purposes and another set of books

for shareholder-reporting purposes. There's nothing illegal about that.

I'm not saying that they're hiding anything; it's just that they report

one thing on one side and something else on the other. That's in order

to manage their cash flow. That's what their purpose is.

In the last few years corporations, in serving those objectives,

have determined that they need fewer employees. When fewer employees

are required in any particular plant or operation, they're out of a job

for that operation and they have to look elsewhere. They're unable to

find anything elsewhere and they swell the ranks of the unemployed.

With fewer workers, and even the same production, they can identify

that as higher productivity. That serves the balance sheet and the

profit-and-loss statements. If they can increase the productivity

beyond that and reduce the cost of producing a unit of whatever is

being produced, all the better for the corporation. That activity is

fairly well ingrained now. We see quite a few references to that by

corporations in the lumber industry.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: In sawmills. With fewer workers we've got increased productivity, and it will stay that way.

This throne speech, barren of any reference to that question,

indicates that the government has a barrenness of mentality about

dealing with it as well. We've got to take the

[ Page 5197 ]

question of the tens of thousands — hundreds of

thousands is perhaps the more appropriate phrase — of people who are

out of work, who are unemployed employables, unemployed people who are

on welfare — unemployable in many instances and for a variety of

reasons.... I don't say that disparagingly; it's just a fact of life.

We've got to have some recognition of that. The throne speech doesn't.

Nor does anything I have heard from any of the members in the current

government pay any attention to that.

We've got to identify as much as we can the area in which to

operate. It is the promotion and encouragement of small businesses.

That's the answer to the otherwise unanswerable question of providing

employment opportunities for people. If they cannot fit into the wage

economy and become wage earners in a production unit or a service unit,

then their alternative is to live on unemployment insurance until that

is exhausted and then move onto the welfare rolls, unless some

encouragement is offered. That's where small business comes in.

There is in the throne speech — and I say this before somebody

corrects me — a reference to small business. Did you notice where it

was, Mr. Speaker? It was almost as if by accident, as if somebody had

put the whole throne speech into the word processor and said: "My god,

we'd better put something in about small business." So they inserted it

with hyphens on either side of it, just as you would insert something

with a word processor. It's an accidental reference, not anything

reflecting cognizance of the problem.

Small businesses employ more people per dollar invested than do

large corporations. They always have and probably always will,

especially those that are family-owned and family-operated. Take

northeast coal: a million dollars capital investment per job; one

million bucks to create one job, Even with a high level of imagination

and $50,000 for a small or small-to-medium business to create one

job.... Use that comparison, and take the $1 million and make it

available to small businesses, and you create 20 times the number of

jobs that were created in northeast coal. That's what small business

does — and not a word in here about that.

Small businesses, as I know from my own experience in the small town

I live in, buy locally all their commodities, all the materials that

they require. They buy them locally if they're available. They don't

have foreign-located head offices to maintain. They don't have a

corporate bureaucracy to give sustenance to. They are involved in the

community in a local and social sense, and contribute more to local

community viable life than does a large corporation — always did and

always will. That's where the encouragement needs to come. That's where

it would come when we talk about that and as we have talked about it.

There are some job-creation references in the throne speech. Let me

just mention one of them. It's almost apropos of what the member who

sat down a while ago said. It's on page seven; in fact, it's got a

title here called job creation. Under the job creation title in the

throne speech, there are two sentences. One sentence is identifying

what the job creation projects are, and the other is expanding and

saying what a good thing it is; so you can basically say there's one

sentence under job creation. What is it? Expo 86, the new Annacis

bridge — I thought we built that four or five years ago, or the member

for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) built it, anyway and the Coquihalla

Highway.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, I haven't driven over it yet, and I'm sure

the minister, who sometimes gets to Langley, hasn't driven over it

either. No, he spends most of his time other places than in Langley,

that's why, and never gets there.

Expo 86, the Annacis Bridge and the Coquihalla Highway — that's the

job creation concept of this government. That is recycling the same

taxpayers' money. That's not the creation of wealth. That's not the

foundation that we need in this economy and this society to provide

income to people, just recycling the same tax money over and over

again. That's like the downtown revitalization program. That

transferred money from one pocket to another, but it didn't create any

wealth.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, we need to encourage small businesses, not stifle them.

Our people who are unemployed have got the imagination, the initiative,

the desire, the skills and the temperament to contribute something to

this province. They are people, along with thousands of others in our

province, who deserve a government better than this one. They are

people that are better than this current government in themselves and

by themselves; and we can do better, if the government would just get

out of the way and stop impeding progress towards small businesses

doing something in this nation. Stop impeding the hopes and aspirations

of people.

Maybe what the government has to do — in the kind of clichéd sense —

is pull up your socks. For heaven's sakes, if you haven't got the

imagination to do something, at least give people the impression that

you're a little better than Trudeau and the Liberals are. But this

throne speech doesn't do that, Mr. Speaker. It's negative. It reflects

the one thing that characterizes this government throughout its history

of office: confrontation, contrariness, attacking people in society and

condemning them. If this government disagrees with something, they

don't sit down and rationally debate the area of disagreement; no, they

go on the attack. They don't debate on merit. They even went so far in

1979, because of a refusal or inability to debate subject matters on

their merit, to classify us as Nazis. Now that's confrontational

tactics, and that's the hallmark of this government's activity. No

debate, just attack.

There is confrontation with the public service. The theme was:

"Let's restrain everybody, and the cost of government will go down."

You know that's a hoax, Mr. Speaker. The cost of government didn't go

down; it went up, and it's gone up every single year since this

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has been the Minister of Finance.

Every single year the cost of government has increased, not gone down.

If the news reports are correct, Thursday's budget will be a $9 billion

budget. If that is accurate, that's a 7 percent increase over what it

was last year, and that's a total since 1979 of a 60 percent increase

in the cost of government.

So confrontation is where it's at. Even Dr. Pedersen, in his

resignation from UBC, wasn't subjected to what I thought a gentlemanly

Minister of Universities would do: namely, express appreciation for Dr.

Pedersen's contribution, express respect for the idea that they can

have differing opinions, or something of that sort. No, he went on the

attack. It was negative and confrontational, and basically called Dr.

Pedersen a liar. And he did it within the sanctity and safety of the

House, which is the worst kind of confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, the misery facing this province today is the absolute

direct result of this current government's policies. It's nobody else's

fault. There is nobody else to blame. It's the

[ Page 5198 ]

direct result of the sorrowful political goal of

this government — wanting to hang on to office by any and every means,

except honourable debate about the issues or an examination of issues

on their merits. It's not a question of being in power but of being in

authority that is the attraction for the current government. Basically,

power is respected and admired by the great populace; but as we all

know, power in the hands of a despot becomes authority, and

authoritarianism is feared and despised, not respected. I think that's

probably what has occurred.

In my opinion, there's no better way to describe the public view of

the current government than to identify it as a loathing and despising

on the part of the populace against the government because it has

misused the question of power. Power shouldn't have a personality. The

use of power should play no favourites. It should dispense justice in

an evenhanded way. Then it's admired, respected and appreciated, and

the benefits of society and government are enjoyed by the population.

But when people in positions of power are shallow and crass, and

exhibit brutalizing tendencies, then power does take on a personality.

If there is a symbol anywhere of this government's personality, it's

one of confrontation. The sadness in the Speech from the Throne is that

it still reflects that personality trait of this government. It still

gives negative messages to the people of British Columbia.

As I said earlier, we've got hundreds of thousands of people out of

work and looking for jobs, and others on welfare and social assistance,

many of whom have come to the conclusion themselves, regretfully, that

there are no jobs available. Despondency sets in, and demoralization,

and family discord is the result. Social and family upheaval, and all

of the miserable things that are visited upon people, come as a result

of that mood of depression. Not a word in the throne speech to even

recognize that that exists. Not a sentence to say: "We are sorry, as a

government, that there are people out of work." Not a whisper to say:

"We have regrets that tens of thousands of people can't find work."

It's completely ignored. That in itself is confrontational. That is in

effect saying to those poor souls, who can hardly keep body and soul

together in many instances: "We don't care."

Isn't it sad that we come to meet here at the opening of a new

session, and the Speech from the Throne can't take a moment to

recognize the misery that this government has inflicted upon this

province? That's why the amendment says what it does. That's why we

want to append this motion, and I so do, seconded by my colleague from

Vancouver East, as follows: That the motion, in reply to the opening

speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, be amended by adding the

words: "But this House regrets" — and I personally regret, too, Mr.

Speaker, having to do this — "that the speech of His Honour fails to

indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy of

our province, and that it continues to send negative signals to our

people, thus undermining confidence in our resource-blessed province."

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: First, I must express my thanks to the people

of Vancouver East who have returned me to this Legislature again to

represent them. Vancouver East is one of the great ridings in this

country. They are special people, and they've been sending special

people to this Legislature and the Parliament in Ottawa for many

decades: people like

Harold Winch, Arthur Turner, Angus MacInnis, Grace MacInnis, Arnold

Webster, and others. They're people who've had a great impact on the

quality of life in this country, and all of us are proud to be part of

the movement that they helped build. The people of Vancouver East and

the people of Okanagan North decided on November 8 that a message

should be sent to the people who have abandoned those seats over there

on the other side of this House. In my own riding, the message was very

clear, in terms of the choice between the current government and the

alternative. The vote was something like this: 12,857 votes for our

side of the House; a poor third — 3,743 votes — for the other side of

the House. That's a pretty clear message in terms of the kind of

performance we've had from Bill Bennett.

At this stage, as we move into the decade under this man and this

administration, we should reflect about Bill Bennett's ten years in

power. Isn't it time we reflected on the results of his work in this

part of the world, in terms of his impact on the magnificent landscape

of British Columbia, our comer of the province? I can't help but wonder

if the earlier premier, W.A.C. Bennett, might well reflect in a similar

manner to some of us over here today. I suspect he might agree with us

that in many ways the decade of Bill Bennett has been a lost decade.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, it might be appropriate to refer

to members by their office or their riding but not by their given names

in speeches, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: His decade — this man from Kelowna, Mr. Speaker

— has been a lost decade, because he's generally made the wrong

choices, he has generally made the wrong expenditures, he's generally

picked and promoted the wrong people, and he has certainly set the

wrong priorities. Strangely, in recent years he's taken an urban focus,

on the city of Vancouver. It's been a costly one. It doesn't really

make a lot of sense in terms of looking at the province as a whole, I

know that W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't have agreed with that. The reason I

know is that when I first came to this Legislature, coming as a young

alderman from the city of Vancouver, as a young city planner, I talked

a lot about that city that I'd grown up in. My first speeches were

about the city and things that should and could be done there. The

former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, listened, and he responded. He

responded in a way, in those days, that I thought was a little strange.

He said: "Well, young fella, I see it this way. It's like a pretty girl

sitting on the veranda, and there's a lot of young men coming along and

they are attracted by that one pretty girl. The world just isn't that

way, Mr. Member. It's a world where only one of those lucky young men

will join with that young girl. So they will have to carry on and look

for other girls elsewhere. Well, a city's much the same. We should be

looking at the small towns of British Columbia. That big city doesn't

need our help — not that kind of help. It's the small towns of British

Columbia that we can work on."

At the time I was kind of offended by that. After all, coming out of

university and everything, that didn't sound very sophisticated to me.

But you know, I've reflected on that since, and it seems to me that if

we had developed the regions of British Columbia, and the hinterland,

in a more sound and sensitive way in this last decade, then we'd all be

better off.

[ Page

5199 ]

And the city of Vancouver would be better off as

well, because it would reflect on the city of Vancouver. Anything

that's done for the benefit of the hinterland in this province benefits

the big city as well.

[3:30]

It seems to me that that message from W.A.C. Bennett was not learned

by the person who was at his feet. W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't ever have

spent $125 million on a stadium in downtown Vancouver and ended grants

to recreation complexes and community facilities in every small town in

British Columbia. W.A.C. Bennett wouldn't have done that.

W.A.C. Bennett would never have spent $1 billion on an untried ALRT

system in the big city and, at the same time, close down acute hospital

wards. W.A.C. Bennett would never have spent $1 billion on a one-shot

fair in the big city, a six-month extravaganza, when he could have

carried out smaller projects of lasting benefit in every town of

British Columbia.

W.A.C. Bennett would have known that it didn't make any business

sense to spend a dollar and get fifty cents back. He was a better

businessman than that. That is what Expo represents. W.A.C. Bennett

wouldn't have let Mr. Vander Zalm and others run after glitter projects

in greater Vancouver, in the big city. He wouldn't have let them do

that.

He would have seen those projects for what they were, and he would

have seen the kinds of programs that we've seen in this last decade for

what they are. I think the word that he might have applied to them, Mr.

Speaker, is that we've been chasing fool's gold for a decade. We've

been chasing fool's gold under this administration for a decade. I

think that's the kind of term that W.A.C. Bennett might have used.

He knew the real thing, and he knew fool's gold as well. The glitter

projects in the big city are fool's gold compared to what we might have

done.

What have been the major thrusts in this decade under this man from

Kelowna? Northeast coal has clearly been the one new major departure in

terms of public policy. If anything has been the thrust of this

administration, other than the big city programs, it's been northeast

coal. At this point it's very clear: it's the wrong project in the

wrong place at the wrong time. It required infrastructure that the

southeast never required. It cost far more to mine than the southeast

has required, and it's come in at a time when there are declining

markets for coal as well.

It's in place now and there are 3,000 jobs there. As the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, that's a cost of $1 million a job in terms of

the jobs in the coalfields.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they got the wrong hole.

MR. WILLIAMS: And they've also located the hole in the wrong place, but that's the mining operation itself.

Think about it. If we were going to employ the 228,000 — the 16.4

percent — that we presently have unemployed in this province, under

this administration's methods with northeast coal, we'd be talking

about $228 billion, some 30 times last year's budget alone, to employ

our population. I think we all know, as W.A. C. Bennett would know,

that that just won't work at all.

What about the other programs in this decade, Mr. Speaker? Well, there was

BCRIC, of course, and it's trading today for $2.57, so I think the market

is telling us what BCRIC is worth. That's another one of the major projects

of this new man from Kelowna. So once again we've had classic errors in

BCRIC, in terms of appointing the wrong people — department store millionaires,

urban land developers, people with no background in the field — and the result

is there in terms of the prices for shares right now.

Restraint has already been gone into. Conservative economists have

estimated that restraint of the last three years of this man's decade

has added up to a minus quantity in terms of 50,000 more unemployed

than would have otherwise been the case had restraint not been pursued.

So clearly that's the result of restraint.

We get other ideas that come off the wall from the think tank for

this man from Kelowna. There are new buzzwords — special economic zone.

But those aren't quite half-developed yet, and we still wait for some

agreement from Ottawa. But they're new buzzwords, new ideas that

clearly don't do the job in terms of employment. In a sense that, too,

is part of the fool's gold. It's the classic problem, I suggest, of the

prodigal son searching the world for an answer — a program, a policy, a

goal or a fortune, and, of course, the answer is always right here at

home.

We've been chasing fool's gold, and the answers to our problems are

really right here around us on the hillsides throughout the province of

British Columbia. What's available in terms of employing our people is

very clear. It's what we've always worked at through the years, through

the century. It's really the green gold that's on every hillside of

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

But the man from Kelowna chooses to ignore it. Our future in this

province is still tied to our land and our people, and it's as simple

as that. If you ignore the land and you abuse it, as we've been doing,

and if you do not replenish it, as we don't with our forests, then we

truly are the prodigal people, and this is the prodigal son. As David

Suzuki says, this is not a planet for the taking. The land is the base

of a life chain that we're only a minuscule part of. We have a moral

and an ethical obligation to husband the land and nurture it, because

we're only here for a short time. But that kind of bond has been broken

under this administration, and we're all losers as a result.

Ironically, that kind of effort would create jobs and build the economy

as well as meeting our moral and ethical obligations to this part of

the planet we share.

If we look at our forest lands a little more carefully, we've got

1.5 million acres of what the foresters call not satisfactorily

restocked land. Those are lands that have been logged, that we've done

nothing with, and they've come up in bush or scrub. In addition, we've

got over half a million acres that we've put new conifers in, but on

which the conifers will be lost if we don't deal with the brush that's

taking over. That's two million acres related to old logging areas. But

we've already got, in total across the province, about three million

hectares of bush land instead of forest land. That's a legacy of weeds

that we're being given from this administration — an area of some seven

million acres. That's almost the area of Switzerland which has been

allowed to go to weed in British Columbia. That's economic loss, and

that's jobs lost as well in this province of ours. It's $50 million a

year in stumpage alone, if we were handling the lands right. Of course,

in this province we don't charge much in stumpage. We need to tackle

those weeds, Mr. Speaker, and and we need to intensively manage those

forest lands.

One of the outstanding foresters in our province is Prof. John

Walters. He's done most of the original research in terms of land

management. He runs the UBC Research Forest at Maple Ridge. He spoke to

the professional foresters last year

[ Page 5200 ]

about this problem, and he said that we should

spend at least $660 million a year. That's twice what you still haven't

achieved in terms of a five-year agreement with the federal government,

an agreement that the Premier and the former Minister of Industry have

constantly tried to derail. Even that pitiful amount of $60 million a

year they have tried to derail. Yet the most thoughtful, experienced

man in the business says that we could and should be spending $660

million a year. And what does he say that will do? He says that will

transform our forests. He says we can create far more lumber, logs —

results — out of a quarter of our forest land through intensive

management than we do out of 100 percent of our land right now.

He says that amount of money expended in the province would mean

100,000 new jobs. The dimension of our unemployment problem in this

province is so great that these are the kinds of terms we have to talk

in. There have been no goals, no numbers from this administration, no

attempt to say, "We're going to create 50,000 jobs this year, " because

you obviously don't intend to do that. But out there in Maple Ridge

there's a professor working away who says: "This is the way you can

create 100,000 jobs." That means moving 100,000 families off welfare,

100,000 families out of unemployment, and that is what has got to be

done.

The unemployment rate right now is 16.4 percent. That's the official

rate. It's the highest since records were kept. In North Okanagan alone

there are 28.5 percent, as the member said last week, and that's a

diversified local economy. When you get into the forest towns you're

looking at 40 percent unemployment. It's clearly the forest communities

that need the work. And these are the same people who have the skills

to do the job that Prof. Walters is saying we should be doing. It's

immoral to let these two things remain the way they are when there's a

job that needs to be done and people are out of work on a scale we've

never seen in our generation. Yet the job does not get done. It doesn't

make any sense. There is $2.6 billion being spent by these people on

pogey — unemployment and welfare — and people are idle.

We should compare ourselves with the Scandinavian model. They've

never entertained anything over a few percent unemployed; they are

upset if it's 3 percent; consistently throughout this century they've

not had double-digit unemployment. We should look at Denmark, Sweden

and Finland: these are countries that could be the models for British

Columbia. Let's look at little Finland. It's twice our population and

much smaller in land area. What do they do in terms of looking after

their smaller forests? This is what they do. They actually harvest

about the same land area in their smaller country that we do. They

harvest 160,000 hectares a year; we harvest 150,000 hectares a year —

less in terms of area harvest. They can do that because they manage

their lands carefully and well, and they put their people to work. It's

as simple as that. They're involved in things like this — these are

words the foresters use: scarification, site preparation, planting,

seeding, spacing, thinning, fertilizing and draining. I toured that

country, and it's most impressive. It's like walking hundreds of miles

through a park, because they manage their forests differently than us.

Has anybody walked through a clearcut in British Columbia? Is that like

walking through a park? They do that kind of work — clearing,

fertilizing and planting on 800,000 hectares annually. We do it on only

a quarter of that. They do four times what we do, on a smaller forest

base. No wonder they don't have any unemployment.

What about little Denmark? We don't even think of Denmark as a

forest country. They have about a million acres of forest land in

little Denmark. That's one one-hundredth of what we have in British

Columbia, and out of that they harvest two million cubic metres a year.

If we met their standards, we would be harvesting three times the

amount we do now. We presently are held down at 70 million cubic

metres; we would be harvesting 200 million cubic metres if we met the

forest standards of Denmark. There would be nobody unemployed in

British Columbia if we followed the Scandinavian model.

At the same time, the direction that we should be taking in terms of

husbanding the land.... We should be husbanding the resources in terms

of young minds. They have to grow as well. We already have a university

professor resigning because he doesn't think young minds can grow

satisfactorily in your climate in British Columbia.

[3:45]

It's our land and our people that are the questions before us, Mr.

Speaker, and it's the prodigal from Kelowna over there who sees

neither. He builds the $30,000 escape hatch from his office so he can

avoid the press, and he surrounds himself with his $3,000 or $6,000

parliamentary secretaries — whichever it is; after today's performance

I can understand the reduction in the fee. He doesn't participate with

the people out there in the community. I wonder if the man from Kelowna

has ever talked to the people in the food bank lineup in the lane

behind Christ Church Cathedral at Georgia and Burrard. I think not.

Like the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) said: "It's

interesting that the food bank is Mr. Bennett's contribution, and his

father's was the Bank of British Columbia."

Always we get, from the member from Kelowna, the short-term play.

It's the focus of all his activities. It's always the short-term play;

it's always the minor point against your opponents....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, please, for a moment. The member

for South Okanagan, I believe, is the correct term, or the office that

the person holds, if you would, rather than personal names.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's the current member for Okanagan South, Mr.

Speaker, and even Okanagan South may crumble before long, and we'll

have some different representation from all of the Okanagan Valley

after the next election.

The long-term good of the province is not served by that kind of

attitude, the kind of approach that we get from the member for Okanagan

South. It's no wonder. If it's always one-upmanship, if it's always

gamesmanship, then there's never going to be any kind of long-term

economic plan. We're all the victims of that.

We have here a Premier who's isolated. He speaks to a few downtown

business groups in Vancouver. He speaks to that handful of people in

the business community who are happy with the big-ticket items —

projects that his father wouldn't have entertained in a thousand years.

Yet the green gold is there right across the province. It's land

waiting to be replenished. It's a way of employing our people. It's not

a make-work project but real, necessary work — work with a payback in

the short term in terms of people planting and working in the forests,

and in the long term in terms of harvesting and new industrial jobs as

well. It's a genuine

[ Page

5201 ]

investment in our future. It's the best kind of work, Mr. Speaker.

It's work that links man with the land, and work in that sense that

I believe has a spiritual basis. That's important in terms of

fulfilling, worthwhile work — work that will benefit us and our

children. In a sense, if we see our forests rather as agriculture in

British Columbia, and if we see our children as the assets they are,

then culture and agriculture can go hand in hand. This would be a very

different land indeed than it presently is.

There's no evidence in terms of change in this throne speech. It's

clearly going to be more fool's gold from the people on the other side,

and the prodigal son, it's abundantly clear, is no nearer redemption

than ever. That's his loss, and it's certainly British Columbia's loss.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I speak against the amendment and in

support of the Speech from the Throne, a document that conveys a theme

of hope and confidence in the future of our province. The past several

years have been difficult for nations in the western world. Indeed, it

may be argued that all nations are facing difficulties, some more

perilous than others.

One of my colleagues previously mentioned a recent study that

concluded that Canadians have the second-highest standard of living in

the world, yet many in our country are dissatisfied and many are

without employment. It is obvious that our economy is undergoing a

transformation. Employment is growing most rapidly in the service

industries, communications and tourism. The object today is to broaden

our economic base into new areas of manufacturing and processing. This

transition will not be without difficulty, and many people are finding

it extremely trying.

Given the problems that we are facing, I believe our government has

acted in a responsible manner to ensure that hardships have been kept

to a minimum, while at the same time encouraging the creative and

entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians. The Speech from the

Throne illustrates the positive initiatives that our government is

taking to meet these changing conditions. Now the opposition has the

responsibility to propose concrete, specific measures to meet the

challenges that our province faces. We welcome their commitment to

abandon personal attacks in favour of positive, cooperative dialogue.

This is the responsibility of every member of this House. Solutions

have not yet been found to all the demands placed upon the changing

economy, but we can be hopeful that the worst is over. We must ensure

that our province remains in a position to adapt and adjust to the

external forces so that the benefit which change brings will be ours

rather than our competitors.

Unemployment in most nations remains unacceptably high, but we in

British Columbia should not make the mistake of believing that it is a

problem we cannot rectify or reduce ourselves. While we are limited in

our ability to influence world demand for our natural resources and

manufactured goods, we can work to remain competitive and productive.

Unfortunately, many of those who are proposing measures to put people

to work repeat old solutions that have been proven failures in the past

and/or are so costly that we would only succeed in digging British

Columbia further into the quagmire of debt for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to get calls from young people who say to us: "Please

don't continue to increase the debt. Don't mortgage our future. I don't

want to get out of my educational facility or institution only to find that

when I go to work I have to pay off a debt that has been incurred by you people."

Make-work projects that do not challenge or develop people's

initiative, talents or productive skills are more damaging than

remedying, as well as being a costly imposition on those who are

employed. We must examine positive courses of action, not shop-worn

platitudes whose only product is political rhetoric. I believe that we

must examine the causes of unemployment in our province and find a

means of increasing jobs for people.

Much of the difficulty we face today is due to the structural

changes in our society. Because of our province's resource wealth and

growing economy, during the 1970s B.C.'s population grew at a rate

almost twice the national average, and as part of the trend that was

evident across Canada, our labour force grew at an even faster rate

than did our population. Much of this can be attributed to the greater

number of women entering the job market. Between 1973 and 1983 the

female labour force in British Columbia grew by 68 percent, while the

male force grew by 30 percent. This is noticeably larger than the

Canadian average, which in the same time period increased by 54 percent

for men and 19 percent for women respectively.

At the same time as this phenomenal growth in the labour force was

taking place, our resource industries were economically being less

intensive. Last year low record production levels were reached in

forestry and mining, and both these industries required fewer employees

than in previous years. Despite the fact that these developments are

minimally influenced by government actions, government can be a

positive force to encourage positive growth in our economy by

accommodating change and assisting progress. This is especially so in

the area of labour relations. At a time when unemployment is

unacceptably high, it would be folly to allow those presently working

to be made unnecessarily idle by work disputes and other stoppages. In

January of this year, only 4,292 worker-days were lost in labour

disputes involving 319 workers. This is a positive start to 1985, one

which I hope can be maintained with the support of the throne speech

and the budget initiatives.

I believe the labour situation is improving in British Columbia. I

anticipate that the actions of the government will be seen as positive

in this regard and that our province's reputation as a hotbed of labour

unrest or an unreliable supplier of goods will be replaced by an image

of harmonious and cooperative labour relations.

In fact, in an average year in British Columbia approximately 1,500

collective agreements covering 225,000 workers expire. Most new

agreements are reached without any kind of work stoppage. Over the past

five years the annual average number of work stoppages has been 98.

This means that about 94 percent of all collective agreements are

settled without a minute's time of work being lost. Compared to the

rest of Canada.... Other provinces hold the dubious distinction of

having the highest percentage of working time lost due to work

stoppages in the last four or five years. In 1983 and in 1984 only 0.3

percent of the estimated working time in B.C. was lost due to work

stoppage.

The amendments to the Labour Code passed by this Legislature last

year were the first major overhaul since it was introduced over a

decade ago. Given the enormous socioeconomic changes that have taken

place since that time, some of which I mentioned earlier, these

amendments were a much

[ Page 5202 ]

needed effort to bring the Code up to date and to

deal with the new reality. The changes themselves are not responsible

for economic renewal taking place in this province, but have been

integral in improving our labour-management climate, which is crucial

to the continued recovery.

Our Labour Code amendments made workers' representation more

democratic than it was previously, an important consideration when

change affects so many individuals. A more democratic approach was

introduced in the areas of certification and decertification by making

representation votes by workers mandatory in both cases. I think it is

important to note that despite the dire predictions by some, both

inside and outside this Legislature, that the increased number of votes

would result in significant delays, the ministry, in cooperation with

the Labour Relations Board and organized labour, have made procedural

arrangements satisfactory to all parties. Since the amendments were

passed last September, 107 certification votes have been held in

response to the workers' desire to be represented by a collective

bargaining unit.

We believe that the Labour Code amendments did not favour one side

of the labour-management relationship over the other and that they were

fair to all concerned. And that includes the public. Members of the

general public, as well as uninvolved and unaffiliated workers, are

often brought into disputes by secondary picketing. The amendments

limited secondary picketing sites to places where the employer was

carrying on the business of the primary site and only after the Labour

Relations Board had granted approval for this action. This has

benefited the public and other workers without unduly restricting the

right of labour to carry on legal picketing. The amendments also

reinforced the democratic rights of union members to dissent from

illegal action or political protest ordered by the union, without fear

of being punished unfairly. I believe this is a positive development

for all British Columbians.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, as the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain I am extremely

proud of the celebration that will be taking place in the city of Vancouver:

our one-hundredth birthday. Expo 86 also will be taking place in the city of

Vancouver — and in the province. It is a once-in-a-lifetime event that will

provide all British Columbians with an opportunity to participate in our province's

heritage, culture and achievements.

The United Nations, as well as 33 countries, have already made firm

commitments to participate in this prestigious world exposition. Those

countries, from virtually every corner of the globe, include Britain,

the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, Kuwait, Kenya, Senegal,

Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Peru. Canada will of course be represented

by its own pavilion, and the provinces and territories will also be

represented. So far commitments have been made by the provinces of

Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon

Territory and, of course, British Columbia with her B.C. Expo pavilion.

Ontario announced today it will be spending $11 million on its pavilion

and an additional $11 million on what goes into the pavilion. Manitoba

is presently suffering from some economic uncertainty, but we sincerely

hope that they will honour their initial commitment and return to the

fold. Also, in the true spirit of detente and good will we have the

People's Republic of China, the United States of America and the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics coming together at the same fair right

here in British Columbia. As well, we welcome the commitments from

Mexico, France, Ivory Coast, Australia, Spain, Thailand, Iraq, the

Republic of Korea, Colombia, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany,

Pakistan and Czechoslovakia. Numerous other countries are waiting to be

signed. Fourteen corporate sponsors have signed commitments, and these

include: Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Telecom Canada, Air

Canada, Via Rail, Royal Bank, CP Air, Pacific Western Airlines,

Dairyland, Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada, the wine industries of B.C.,

Scott Paper and Imperial Oil. At least ten more are waiting to announce

their participation and sponsorship.

It is also giving thousands of British Columbians employment. An

even greater number of our residents will participate in both on- and

off-site activities in 1986. I think it is interesting to note that

more British Columbians will be working off-site on jobs created by

Expo 86 than the 21,000 that will be working on-site during the fair. I

repeat: there will be more citizens of British Columbia working off the

Expo site than the 21,000 that will be working on the site during the

fair. Expo 86 is creating jobs for British Columbians today and will

continue to create jobs throughout the fair.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

During the construction phase alone, 18,000 person-years of

employment have been created in British Columbia. During Expo, 34,800

person-years of employment will be created within British Columbia. To

me, this indicates that many opportunities exist for

entrepreneurial-minded British Columbians to provide unique products

and services for the millions of people who will be visiting this

celebration.

I believe it bodes well for the future of labour relations that both

union and non-union workers have been able to construct Expo side by

side. In fact union firms and employees have been awarded 85 percent of

the dollar value of all construction contracts awarded by Expo. Clearly

this demonstrates the competitiveness and the skill offered by the

union workers of British Columbia.

One of the first measures the newly elected Social Credit government

took in 1976 was to remove the distasteful legislation brought in by

the previous government which prevented some British Columbians from

working on projects paid for by their tax dollars. As of January 1,

1983, there were a total of 480,239 workers in British Columbia who

were members of trade unions. This represented 46.1 percent of the

total paid workers in British Columbia. It would be extremely wrong to

say that over 50 percent of the working population could not work on

projects of government support.

As a former human rights commissioner, I am pleased that I will have

the opportunity in my new position as Parliamentary Secretary to the

Minister of Labour to closely follow the actions and policies of the

Council of Human Rights. I have stated on earlier occasions in the

House that I fully support the provisions within the improved human

rights legislation that was passed last year. I believe that the

council is doing a commendable job, despite criticism that emanates

from those who are misinformed or merely opposed to anything that our

government does.

The council is fulfilling its educational responsibility in a

constructive manner and has embarked on an extensive public speaking

program to promote the principles of human

[ Page 5203 ]

rights within our province. Specific target areas

are the business community, small employers, community groups and

schools. The Human Rights Act safeguards equal rights and equal

opportunities that are fundamental to the freedoms we enjoy in British

Columbia. As the former Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said

when introducing the new legislation, it provides British Columbians

the freedom to live without harassment or discrimination based on

hatred, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance or fear. Mr. Speaker, it should

be obvious to all in this Legislature that the Human Rights Act and the

Council of Human Rights are doing an admirable job of protecting the

rights and freedoms of all British Columbians.

I think it is imperative that the top priority of the Workers'

Compensation Board should continue to be in the provision of services

and protection for workers in British Columbia. I am pleased to note,

from my information, that the Workers' Compensation Board has

increasingly been focusing its attention on activities of the more

serious industrial hazards, and the minimum penalty for deliberate

violation of safety regulations has been raised substantially. At the

same time, I'm sure that the board's strengthened emphasis on education

and consultation with industry will encourage a greater degree of

voluntary compliance and greatly help to improve the working

environment.

Another positive step is the current review of the industrial health

and safety regulations. This process is aimed at making regulation less

complex and more useful for labour and management to jointly cooperate

in reviewing workplace hazards. Considerable improvements have also

been made in efforts to reduce the Workers' Compensation Board unfunded

liability during the last two years. I believe that both management and

financial operations at the board have become more effective under the

new chairman.

I hope also to be able to make a contribution in the vocational

rehabilitation services, which was transferred in late 1982 from the

Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Labour, in its efforts to assist

those with mental handicaps and physical disabilities to become more

capable in pursuing suitable and productive employment and take their

rightful place in our community. The ministry works in conjunction with

other government agencies and organizations representing disabled

persons. I hope that my experience may be of use in assisting these

valuable efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is an encouraging signal to

British Columbians and indeed to other jurisdictions in Canada and the

world. It indicates that our province is looking forward to a future

that will bring continued improvement to all British Columbians,

economically, socially and spiritually.

The solutions to difficulties we commonly face are not to be found

in quick-fix panaceas or by blaming others. We must work together to

improve our economic climate, and we must have confidence in the

abilities of all individuals.

The economic renewal of this prerequisite to the future is now

underway in British Columbia. I am confident the government's course of

action will assist in encouraging this state of affairs, and I strongly

support the Speech from the Throne.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can stay a little closer to

the amendment than the last speaker. The only time he mentioned the

amendment was when he opened his remarks, and he indicated he wasn't

particularly partial to the amendment and then went on and made the

speech prepared for him in the Ministry of Labour. I know that this

parliamentary secretary business is a marvellous new opportunity that

has been afforded some of the members in this House, but you can sure

see some sterile stuff coming out of those bureaucracies that is even

worse than the renditions that we heard here before.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the

amendment. He defended a document that's before this House right now.

He defended the document by indicating that it was full of.... Let me

read it to you. "There is hope and confidence.... Hope and confidence

exudes from this document, Mr. Speaker."

Well, I'll be kind to the member. You know, there's no hope or

confidence in this document. There seldom is in a throne speech. So

let's not kid ourselves. A throne speech is a PR job done by a

government. But this one is even more empty than most. I said before

that this is a throne speech that is rather nice to follow because it

has these beautiful little titles. But once you get beyond the title

and read what it has to say about what it has to say, it says nothing —

zilch.

Mr. Speaker, what our amendment says is "that this House regrets

that the Speech of His Honor fails" — and I say fails — "to indicate

measures necessary for the reconstruction of the economy of our

province and that it continues to send negative signals to our people

and undermine the confidence in our resource-blessed province."

Mr. Speaker, the member says that out of this Speech from the Throne

comes hope and confidence. Where does he get that hope and confidence

from the speech? Where is it in this whole speech? I don't see

anything, Mr. Speaker, but a lot of words. He talked to us about the

marvels of Expo in his speech. He talked about the marvels of great

labour-management accord of recent months due to something that the

government has done in the past. He talked about a letter that he got

from somebody, or maybe it was a personal contact from a number of

students. And you know what those number of students said, Mr. Speaker?

They said: "Don't increase the debt." Is that what they said, Mr.

Member? "Don't increase the debt. Don't mortgage our future." Well,

I'll be darned. They talked to him a little bit too late. The total

debt in this province in 1975, including all Crown corporations — there

was no operating debt at that time; none at all — was $4 billion. From

the dawn of time until then, we had accumulated a debt — and Hydro was

as voracious then as they are now; loved to go into debt — of $4

billion. We are now in excess of $16 billion in debt.

[4:15]

Those students said to that member: "Don't go into debt." Well, Mr.

Speaker, what's he going to say if he is to be honest with those

students? Without really providing any kind of an economic upsurge,

without really doing anything for the economy of this province, which

has suffered worse than any other jurisdiction in the country through

this recession and continues to suffer.... That member can take a look

at the food lines if he doesn't think so. What did we get for this

additional $12 billion? The very thing that those students were talking

about — a future that is mortgaged to the hilt and with not a thing to

show for it. That government, which is supposed to be so

management-oriented, has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they

couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag; they couldn't find

their way out of a wet paper bag. It's the most disgraceful display of

management that this province has ever seen, and, Mr. Speaker, this

province has seen some pretty disgraceful displays in the

[ Page 5204 ]

past. I go back down to the old coalition, a

similar coalition to what you've got now: corrupt, stupid, but nothing

like this present government.

We're asking for some hope for the future. We're looking forward to

seeing what the government has to say definitively on budget day. But

nothing in this speech gives us hope or confidence. It's a description

that would be afforded by a PR man. We should have been working with

the total community a long time ago. One of the things that I have

found in the past few months, in asking questions — as I'm sure most of

my colleagues in this House on both sides of the floor must do from

time to time; that is, talking to different people in different areas

of the economy — is that there is no confidence. A province that has a

300 percent increase in bankruptcies must be in dire shape, in terms of

confidence. Go to our sister provinces and find out what theirs are — a

low of around a 7 percent increase; the highs are around 15 to 17

percent increases. Yet here we are, all by ourselves, with this 300

percent increase. Something has to be done about it.

I predicted, and I will predict again, that this government will not

survive — nor should they survive — this particular effort that they've

put forward in the last few years. They may have fooled the people in

'79 and in '83, but they will not fool the people the next time they go

to the polls. This province has been badly mauled. It's been mauled by

a government that doesn't know up from down. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going

to say that they did it on purpose, because I don't think they did it

on purpose. But I do think they are completely off track. You know,

they went to bed with the Fraser Institute and they came out of that

bed, and who suffered? Not them — for some reason or another — but the

people of the province of British Columbia suffered as a result of

those discussions that they had with the Fraser Institute. They were

totally on the wrong track.

Now why should they have been able to predict that they were on the

wrong track in the first place? They could have predicted it if they

had read a little history, because exactly the same kind of methods

that they used were used by R.B. Bennett — no relation to the present

Premier — a prime minister of this country in the thirties. And what

did he do with the country? He shot it to death.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ignored Harry Stevens.

MR. COCKE: That's right. He ignored one of his own kind, H.H.

Stevens. And they sent the economy into a downspin then, as this

government has done this time. I'm not going to suggest that there

hasn't been a recession that hasn't affected the globe. Yes, it has.

But it's to the extent that it has affected us that we're complaining.

It's an extent that hasn't been enjoyed — if that's the word to use —

by people in Manitoba. It hasn't been visited on people in Ontario. No,

we are unique in the Canadian experience. When we went into this

recession, and when the Premier got up and made those profound remarks

on February 18 a couple of years ago — going on three, I guess — we had

an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent. Now we're up around the 16 percent

mark. Holy fiddle! Haven't we shown good management? Yes, Mr. Speaker,

that's the kind of management that this government has provided, and

it's an absolute failure — demonstrably in every way an absolute

failure, a failure that even those members must recognize. They must

recognize it, because everybody in the province does. Nobody in British

Columbia is running around extolling the virtues of this government.

The way they have done business....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, there are lots of people.

MR. COCKE: Oh, your daughter and who else?

MRS. JOHNSTON: My mother.

MR. COCKE: Okay, so there are two or three people in the

province who are extolling the virtues of this government, but they are

few and far between.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen to date has been a bit of a sad show

in this House. For instance, I was waiting with bated breath to hear

what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would have to say about

anything. It was an absolute marvel to hear that maverick, who was

criticizing this government right out of their shoes until suddenly he

became a parliamentary secretary....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen to him. He said: "Would I sell myself for

$3,000?" I don't know what your price is, Mr. Member for Omineca, but

obviously the price was right, because I listened to a speech that was

a monumental difference from all the speeches that I've ever heard him

make around here.

MS. BROWN: They sure know how to shut you up.

MR. COCKE: They shut him up all right.

Let's talk for a few moments about one or two aspects of how this

speech relates to the amendment. What we're calling for here is the

amendment, and what that amendment says is, yes, let's restore

confidence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, tell us what you are going to do. What

are you going to do for reconstruction?

"In broadening the partnership, my government will harness

the $2 billion a year purchasing power of municipalities and other public sector

bodies, including Crown corporations, to create new opportunities for business

and new jobs for British Columbians."

One of the most frequent criticisms that I get.... I'll bet you that

when the members of this government's support get up they will agree that

one of the most frequent reports that we get vis-à-vis this whole question

of supporting B.C. business is that B.C. is continually buying elsewhere. I've

talked to bridge contractors, structural steel people, all sorts of people —

people making those insulators, remember, that went elsewhere. They don't

buy B.C.; they haven't bought B.C.

Tumbler Ridge was a good experience for anybody that wanted to take

a good look at it. So much of that work was done out of province; so

much of that work was imported from out of province that it was not

even funny. If you went up to Tumbler Ridge, you saw nothing but

Alberta car licences everywhere.

One of the problems that this government has is that they don't talk

to business, labour or anybody. I understand there is a big deal coming

up on budget day. They're going to bring all the aldermen and mayors

and everybody down to give

[ Page

5205 ]

them the message. You know what that message is

going to be, Mr. Speaker? I know it as I know my own name. They're

going to dump on the municipalities. They're going to say: "You do it.

You get the province back on the rails." And the reason they're going

to say that, Mr. Speaker, is because they can't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Friendly partnerships.

MR. COCKE: Friendly partnerships is right. We've had so many friendly partnerships.

The residential taxpayer in this province is being hammered to death

by this government. I hate to think of what's going to happen to the

residents in the metropolitan areas once they decide how they're going

to pay for ALRT.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer a few words along the same

line with respect to this speech and the fact that it does not provide

the confidence. I want to take you to the point in the speech where it

talks about volunteers. Do you remember local volunteers — almost the

last

section of the speech? It says there are thousands of local

volunteers in host communities, and the government wants to thank them

for their assistance — the Winter Games, the Summer Games and all the

rest of those volunteers. That's great, but when this government came

to power, they talked about volunteers in the community and the

development of more. Do you know what they did? They took every

volunteer service in the last three years and just put the squeeze on

them to the extent that they just can't function.

Let me give you an indication of what volunteers do. The Senior

Citizens Service Bureau in New Westminster serves all the seniors in

that town that need help. We have as high an incidence of seniors in

New Westminster as they have in Victoria, believe it or not. The

government cancelled every cent of funding to that bureau. The bureau

is now running around spending most of its time trying to get a few

dollars out of the community — or anywhere — in order to keep up their

service. The amount we're talking about is $50,000 or $60,000. But that

was the money that was used to provide the people who were the

catalysts who would then provide the backdrop for the volunteers. It's

a tragic waste of human endeavour, because now there is nobody to

provide that leadership, if in fact it keeps on going the way it's

going.

[4:30]

All through this speech we see the same kind of thing: words and no

substance. Look at the speech and the way it talks about public

education, the way it talks about employment training, and so on, when

we know the exact opposite is true. There is the biggest squeeze on

education that we've ever seen in the history of this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What is that member muttering about? I couldn't

make sense out of your speech, and I can't make any sense out of what

you're saying across the floor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It doesn't make very much sense to me, Mr. Speaker, but anyway he's had his chance. Maybe he can speak on the amendment.

They talk about excellence in higher education. We need this in order to get people

ready for the jobs, when and if jobs ever come up. As long as the Socreds are

around, I'm a little bit worried about that. We had a president leave the

University of British Columbia. He left for sunnier climes. I've never noticed

much that is sunny about Ontario — that is, vis-à-vis B.C. I understand that's

a possibility. In any event, he left with a great many criticisms in his lee.

I think that, plus the job that the member for Prince George is doing on the

public schools and colleges, puts us in jeopardy. Even if we do recover, we're

going to have to be sending out for our help, and that's just nothing to

really look forward to.

I believe that the speech indicated to me that there's still as much

of a problem in that government as there was when they first announced

their restraint package. They don't really understand what one should

do in order to bring recovery.

The member for Vancouver East did a splendid job in talking about

forestation, indicating what other jurisdictions, other nations and

other countries do with respect to their resource in the forests. We

neglect it. I have a brother who loves to travel around the world, and

does a lot of it. Every year he goes away somewhere. I have a little

bit different desire: I travel a lot around B.C., so I know pretty well

every inch of this province, with the exception of one of the two high

points in Atlin. I find that the way that this province has handled its

most precious resource — other than human resource — the forests, is

absolutely reprehensible. What could we have been doing? We in the

opposition have been crying out, saying: "For heaven's sake, while

we're in the doldrums, let's at least do some work that needed to be

done years ago in the forests. Let's get on with it." But we just can't

get around to it. We're busy building a monumental loser up in Tumbler

Ridge called northeast coal. We're busy building all sorts of edifices,

all sorts of grand looking things to aggrandize this government, but

they're not working. What could have been working is reforestation:

working in those woods to bring about the most marvellous harvest for

future generations and meanwhile, as the member points out, to create

many many thousands of jobs. As I recall, he said 100,000 jobs just

from this one particular area.

But I happen to agree with those who say that if we're to succeed,

small business has to be assisted, has to be led, has to be helped. I'm

not talking about throwing money after them but at least getting in

there and working together to plan a better economy. They're obviously

being ignored — with a 300 percent increase in bankruptcies,

something's happening wrong.

They must — any government must — sit down with the important

sectors of the economy. There was a day when the largest sector in

British Columbia was harvesting our resources, and that day is probably

drawing to a close in terms of the major aspect of the economy. I think

secondary industry, service industry, will grow and continue to grow if

we're to be a healthy economy, but you don't make it grow when you

don't even know what one another thinks.

What is the government going to do about it? Well, I'll tell you.

They're going to send out some splendid people from the executive

council on a trip around the province to find out what people are

thinking. "In the weeks and months ahead, led by my first minister,

members of my government will travel across our province to communicate

directly with ordinary British Columbians" — he stole that from Ed

Broadbent, incidentally — "our private sector, labour and management

groups and local governments to put in place a program of partnership

for economic renewal." I know who

[ Page 5206 ]

comes off the worst on those partnerships that this

government pushes forward. In any event, they're going to go around the

province. Was there one mention there that they're going to structure

some of the standing committees of this House in these particular areas

so that one would have that kind of all-party understanding of what's

happening? Not on your life; no sir. We've got the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) this fall running all over the province on his own.

We had the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) going out and

saying: "Let's talk about schools." I would say he should say, "Let's

talk about fools, " and then look in the mirror, because anybody who

says "Let's talk about schools" in our particular climate is asking for

trouble, and nothing but trouble.

If this government doesn't wake up shortly, we're going to be in a

worse mess than we're already in. I would like to say this too, and the

throne speech and this amendment afford me the opportunity. I would

just like to say, bye-bye Socreds. You're finished. You're all washed

up. You'll never be back again — maybe as Liberals and Conservatives,

but you're finished in this province once and for all, and you deserve

it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Once more we've had from the New Democratic Party opposite a prediction of the demise of the government, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Better give speech No. 4, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, be patient. If there are some familiar

phrases in speeches I might make to the members opposite, it's only

because of the slow learning over there, and it's done in the best of

spirit with the best of intentions.

While the member opposite once more predicts, as his colleagues have

done, the demise of the government, the reasons they give for it once

again are precisely wrong. It's uncanny the way the New Democratic

Party opposite can come up with the wrong answers to the right

questions. If you were to advise them that the way to get accommodation

and a meal was in the Empress Hotel in that direction, the New

Democratic Party without fail would march in precisely the opposite

direction, because that's their instinct.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: But it would be the same if it were the

direction to an oasis in the desert; they would turn around and march

off into the sand and the sunset, as their party has been doing.

Here is their amendment: "but this House regrets that the speech of

His Honour fails to indicate measures necessary for the reconstruction

of the economy." But that was what the throne speech was all about.

That's precisely what the throne speech did, and the members opposite

have been unable to recognize it. They further go on to say: "It

continues to send negative signals to the people…" when what the throne

speech does is send positive signals to the people — the precise

opposite of what that amendment says. "…undermining confidence in our

resource-blessed province…" when it's building confidence. So you see

in every aspect of this amendment, they are recommending precisely the

opposite of what took place.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, reading the platform of the New Democratic

Party in the last election. This was the party that was for the common

people. That's what they said. Every single plank in their platform,

without exception, was against the economy and would have done harm to

the very people they were pledged to support. Why is it that the NDP

cannot understand that it is impossible to picket your way to

prosperity when the unions demand more? It is impossible to spend your

way to prosperity when there aren't jobs in the economy and the

spending only costs more in taxes.

I think the best way to get this simple message across and I hope

and pray that this time I'm successful with our NDP colleagues

opposite.... We have in our province many ghost towns. We could have

picketed in those ghost towns; we could have tried to have public works

in those ghost towns; we could have tried to tax the people more in

those ghost towns in order to support some public works project —

perhaps another school, perhaps another highway, perhaps another

bridge. But without the fundamental production that was the reason for

that town's existence in the first place, it doesn't matter how much

you spend or how much you tax or what service industries you have. The

basic reason for existence has gone.

It's so easy to confuse, in a large metropolis or at a NDP

convention, the image from the reality. The reality is that in any

society, including our own, you have to have fundamental production.

It's so easy to recognize in a small town where that town only has a

mine and that mine closes. Everybody gets that relationship right away.

It's not so easy, apparently, when we're here on the floor of the

Legislature. We say: "By golly, if we don't spend more on the schools

and the hospitals" — and all the other things that the members

opposite, who are against restraint, say we should spend on — "then the

sky is going to fall in on the province." But that's not what the

message is in this particular throne speech. It goes back to the

necessity of having some fundamental production in the province that

will support the schools and the hospitals, and all the other

activities that we desperately — just as much as the NDP, even more

than the NDP — want to see prosper.

But wait a minute. What are the NDP against? They are against

northeast coal. No, sir, they want that money spent on social projects.

They don't want to see a railroad built so we can get the coal out.

That's wrong.

I can remember when Stu Leggatt was a member. He stood up day after

day. He was against the fundamental production in the province. No, he

wanted to take that money now, and he wanted to spend it on all the

great projects that the NDP had for using tax money.

Somewhere along the line there has to be a little....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, there are many ways.

Mr. Speaker, how easy and fundamental it really is. If a business is having

difficulty in selling its production and the government goes and says, "We're

going to tax you more, " suddenly the business isn't producing anything.

Then the people become unemployed, and you say: "Create jobs. Retrain them."

So what do we do? We spend more tax money training people to do some other jobs,

but who is going to employ them? Is somebody going to come along who can afford

more taxes than the fellow who went out of business? Is that the way we're

going to have success — we'll guess at what the retraining should be, not

really knowing where the industry is going to come from that can pay more taxes?

Suddenly, what we're doing is spending more on unemployment in