1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Protection of St. Mungo site. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 3247

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Reforestation program. Mr. Skelly –– 3248

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Parks –– 3249

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3250

Mr. Pelton –– 3254

Mr. Passarell –– 3257

Mr. Davis –– 3260

Mr. Lockstead –– 3263

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3267

Mr. Barnes –– 3270

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery

today Mr. Reinhard Marks, newly appointed consul-general of the Federal

Republic of Germany in Vancouver, and Mrs. Marks. I would like the

House to join me in welcoming them here today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Also in the galleries this afternoon we have

Mr. Clarke Ashley, who is the Minister of Justice for the Yukon, and

Mr. George Privett, his special assistant. I am sure that all members

would like to pay a special welcome to them.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr.

George Hobson from Courtenay. Mr. Hobson is a community-minded citizen

who has served as the mayor of Courtenay; he has been chosen as citizen

of the year for Courtenay and also served as the chairman of the games

committee to put on the Summer Games in Courtenay two or three years

ago.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon

is Mr. Dick Sendall. Dick is a member of the B.C. Chicken Marketing

Board. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon I notice a

long-standing and personal friend of mine, my wife Louise, who is

visiting us along with the wife — Yvonne — of the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). I would most appreciate it if

everyone would welcome them here.

Oral Questions

PROTECTION OF ST. MUNGO SITE

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a more detailed

reply to the question of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)

yesterday about the St. Mungo heritage site, connected with the

proposed Annacis Island bridge.

The St. Mungo fish cannery site was purchased by the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways as part of the site was needed for a

right-of-way for the bridge construction. A total of 1.5 acres was

purchased, and 0.51 acres are needed for a highway right-of-way,

leaving 1.07 acres which we turned over to the heritage conservation

branch of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. During the last two

years, the part of the site needed for a highway right-of-way — and I

think the member should take special note of this — has been excavated

by the heritage conservation branch, with costs paid by the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways. Expenditures on the archaeological

excavation by Highways are $570,000 over the last two years. The

archaeological excavation on the right-of-way has been completed, and

Highways obtained a go-ahead to start construction. Work will start

immediately. The part of the site which is not needed for a highway

right-of-way has been fenced to protect it.

All the concerns the member had have been looked after over the last two years, and I don't know where you ve been.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria

inquired of two ministers yesterday. He attempted to have one minister

influence another minister, but we are not going to influence each

other. He has given his reply on the position of the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, and now I'd like to give my reply on

behalf of the Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Government

Services.

The cost associated with the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways, as you have just learned a few moments ago, was $570,000. The

total project cost was $700,000. There was a contribution by the

Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Government Services of an

additional $130,000.

The member asked for details associated with this particular

project. I want to say that a contract for the project was awarded to

Provenance Research Inc. In the summer of 1982. The project had two

major dimensions — scientific archaeological excavations and public

education. On the data recovery program the objective was to retrieve a

maximum amount of data from the portion of site to be impacted by

construction. The excavation phase began October 1, 1982 and ended

April 30, 1983. The analysis phase ran concurrently with excavation and

extends to March 31, 1984. The excavation and analysis program at its

height employed 25 people.

The objective of the public

interpretation program was to increase

public interest and awareness of British Columbia's heritage resources.

The program highlights included an on-site

interpretation centre, school

tours, classroom preparation, teacher workshops, hands-on activity at

site, tours for the general public, special group tours and

participation by the Archaeological Society of B.C. The program began

February 4, 1983, and was scheduled to end April 30, 1983. Public

response was very high, and the program was extended to August 30,

1983. A total of 18,275 people visited the site, of which 13,817 were

public and 4,458 were school children. This phase of the program

employed five people for seven months.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has recently awarded

construction contracts for the Annacis Island crossing. The west end of

the St. Mungo archaeological site is being cleared, as it is needed as

a area of materials storage. It is important to note that it is the

area that was investigated by the above-described archaeological

project. Portions of the area to be cleared were already heavily

disturbed. The remaining portion of the archaeological site is

provincial Crown land. Officials of the ministry have indicated that

the remaining portion of the site could be transferred to the Ministry

of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for future protection

or for an ongoing public

interpretation program, if so desired. Arthur

S. Charlton, provincial archaeologist, says: "The heritage conservation

branch considered the archaeological work conducted to date to be

adequate and a reasonable mitigation and compensation for the loss of

resource on the Annacis Island project."

MR. HOWARD: I think that we have just seen an example of an

abuse of the question period in replies. I think Your Honour has, on a

number of occasions, indicated that if there are to be detailed

statistical references made in reply, it would be more appropriate to

do that by way of a ministerial statement. That is the objection that I

make, not to the reply but to its length, convolution and statistics.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order.

[ Page 3248 ]

MR. SPEAKER: If, hon. members, we are to interrupt question

period with points of order, that time will be taken from question

period. It has been the practice in the past that if there are points

of order to be addressed arising from question period, they should

properly be addressed at the conclusion of question period so we do not

any more interfere with the question period process.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the

Minister of Highways. Only a small percentage of this site was

investigated. Your ministry needlessly destroyed a portion of that site

yesterday in bulldozing. The amount of money spent was equivalent to

one of Doug Heal's little glossy television ads. Eighteen thousand

students went through there, which shows the interest. That site could

have been capped and preserved for all time for future work, but you

had your people go in and destroy it.

Will the minister stop the bulldozer that is rolling on that site right now and cap the rest of the site for preservation?

HON. A. FRASER: It doesn't seem the member's got it straight

yet. I have no intention of stopping anything. What we're doing now is

all agreed to by the heritage branch.

[2:15]

REFORESTATION PROGRAM

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. A

Pacific Forest Research Centre study has predicted a loss of 60,000

jobs over the long term as a result of cutbacks in B.C. reforestation

programs. Will the minister advise on what points he has been unable to

reach agreement with Ottawa on a new reforestation program which would

add some $90 million additional dollars to the reforestation

expenditures in B.C. in 1984-85?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond.

I just want to be reassured that I won't be accused of abusing question

period by doing so. Do I have that assurance?

MR. SKELLY: Depends on the response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely

wrong when he talks about cutbacks in reforestation. Since 1976

reforestation in British Columbia has been doubled. Last year, the year

for which the member has our last annual report, we planted 105 million

seedlings in British Columbia. For the year just ending, our level

would be 115 million to 120 million. I can't be certain of the number

because all the statistics are not yet in. We are now sowing our

nursery seedlings to produce 140 million seedlings next year. That is

some cutback.

No, I cannot tell the member in what specific areas we have not yet

reached agreement with the federal government, but I can assure him

that negotiations have not failed. They're ongoing, and they will be

carried on until a satisfactory resolution is reached.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister says

there are no cutbacks. A five-year forest and range resource program

report submitted to cabinet on September 30, 1983 says:

"In general, the growth built into and approved under the

initial five-year programs has not occurred. Indeed, one year after publication

of the second five-year program, the implementation

schedule was set back for

two years. One year later, the forecast and resource base for 1983-84 were reduced

substantially. Growth in subsequent program years was put off indefinitely."

That, in this report to cabinet, Mr. Speaker, sounds to me like a cutback, no matter what the minister is saying.

In fact, would the minister not agree with the statement that the

increase in tree planting was achieved at the expense of intensive

silviculture spacing and fertilization and reflects the minister's

priority for basic silviculture? The major implications of restraining

the five-year program to a no-growth

schedule are that the productivity

of the provincial forest land base will be more reduced, and predicted

wood supply shortages will occur earlier and will be more severe. Does

the minister agree with the statement submitted to cabinet by the

ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is no simple answer to

the member's question. However, the member seems to equate slowing down

the rate of growth with a cutback, and he also seems to equate planting

with silviculture. Reforestation is a part of the total siliviculture

exercise that we undertake in British Columbia.

I am absolutely amazed that that member, who is seeking the

leadership of that party and is the forestry critic, knows even less

about forestry now than the previous critic did after several years,

and the former critic is also a leadership candidate. Sad be the day

that either of those members becomes the leader of that party, which,

I'm afraid, is on the way out.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this violates....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if that member would be so

kind as to take his seat, I would like to answer his question. My

answer will be no more lengthy than the member's question.

As I have pointed out, we have increased the level of planting

twofold in the eight years that I've been the Minister of Forests and

have had the pleasure of serving with this government, and we have not

cut back on our forest management work. We have had to trade off growth

in the more optional intensive silvicultural work to maintain the

growth that we have had in planting in the basic silviculture programs

which we've had. I think we've done a tremendous job in spite of the

very serious economic problems that we've had in this province. The

restraint in government, which has had to be shared by all cabinet

members in all their portfolios, has been a difficult problem to

contend with, but we in the Ministry of Forests have maintained our

basic silviculture, which is replanting, and we've had to do that at

the expense of the growth rate in our more optional intensive

silvicultural work.

MR. SKELLY: A 90 percent reduction.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member read from a report. A few

weeks ago I tabled the 1982-83 Ministry of Forests annual report. If

the member would look at page 10 of that report, it spells out what our

accomplishments were in forest management work compared to what our

goals had

[ Page

3249 ]

been. Through our normal spending programs, together with the employment-bridging

assistance program which we undertook during that fiscal year, we met or exceeded

most of our silvicultural goals. We did not quite achieve some of them but we

met or exceeded most of them. For example, for that year our goal in surveys

of backlog planning needs was to survey 256,300 hectares; in fact, we surveyed

266,823 hectares — in excess of our goal. In site preparation our goal was

to prepare 52,000 hectares for planting; in fact, our preparation accommodated

62,661 hectares. If these are cutbacks, I'm quite amazed, quite frankly.

I think that member should do a bit more research on the portfolio for which

he is critic. I'm sure he would find out that we are accomplishing an awful

lot in forestry in British Columbia today.

MR. SKELLY: Would the minister then confirm that in this

document, which has not been made public but which has gone to cabinet

— "A report to cabinet, September 30, 1983" — it states:

"However, a 9 percent increase in planting goals over

the period covered by the fourth five-year program, compared to those

built into the second program, was achieved at the expense of intensive

silvicultural activity such as spacing, which underwent a 90 percent

reduction in goals over the same period. Major implications of these

restraint measures include a possible need for allowable annual cut

reductions to meet with lower productivity of the forest land base,

inability to fund the transportation infrastructure required to support

the currently approved AAC, dismantling of insect and disease control

programs, and the virtual elimination of range and recreation

enhancement programs."

This is from your own cabinet document of September 30. You should do a little more research, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I did not detect a question

in that last little speech that the member made. If there are abuses of

question period, perhaps they should be drawn to the attention of the

member for Alberni.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding I will recognize

the first member for Victoria, who has informed the Chair that he has

a matter to raise under standing order 35.

1 would remind all hon. members that it is incumbent upon the

members themselves to make sure to some degree that our question period

functions in the manner in which it is intended. Quoting from reports

at any length is in fact an abuse of question period by both the

questioner and the responder. Lengthy questions in excess of one and

one-half minutes also tend to evoke lengthy answers. If question period

is to be observed and function properly, I would commend the regular

rules that we have been following to all members so that this chamber

may be served in the most effective and efficient manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could

take under advisement what you have ruled in the past. Lengthy answers, even

though they were not taken as notice but were as presented today, have always

been given leave from this side of the House, which allows government members

to present those answers after question period. I wish the members on the government

side would remember that fact.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In

taking that into consideration, I think you should leave a little bit

of discretion to the ministers as to how they want to respond to the

questions and when they want to respond to the questions.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am

somewhat concerned that a precedent has been set here today that I have

not seen occur before. Normally when a question is asked in oral

question period, the minister either replies then or takes the question

as notice. Today at the beginning of question period we saw two

ministers rise to answer questions that they had already replied to —

not questions that they had taken on notice. I think that is a breach

of our normal procedure and certainly would set a very dangerous

precedent if that were to occur. I would ask the Speaker to review that

point.

MR. SPEAKER: If that were the case, hon. member, that would then fall into the purview of a ministerial statement, as opposed to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake a review and advise the House accordingly.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35

to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely that

one of the few remaining Indian village sites in the Vancouver area,

dated at 4,000 years ago and occupied continuously from that date, is

at this moment being bulldozed by the Ministry of Highways to store

building materials. I urge Mr. Speaker to act immediately on this

matter, as there is still a chance to save some of this non-renewable

resource if the bulldozing is stopped immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to review the matter

submitted by the member without prejudice to the urgency factor and

report to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, continuing with my comments in

opposition to the amendment put before this House and in particular

continuing with my comments with respect to labour relations, I think

it's fair to conclude that most of us, or at least any of us who have

any exposure to labour relations in this province, appreciate the

necessity that the laws and the philosophy we wish to bring to this

very important area are constantly being re-evaluated and are

constantly being considered as something that is fluid and something

that is reactive.

Interjection.

[ Page 3250 ]

MR. PARKS: The hon. member for Skeena inquired whether or not

I had my boots on, and I can assure the hon. member that I am wearing

both my shoes and intend to continue to wear them.

I think the importance of the necessity for ongoing review of the

labour laws of this province is very well reintroduced and reinforced

by the results of a recent opinion poll that has just been released. I

believe that, because the conclusion appears that the people of this

province do not work as hard as they could or that they work only as

hard as they need to. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very sad conclusion to

have reached.

If, in fact, the people are working only as hard as they perceive

they need to, then the obvious result is that productivity is going to

be, at the very best, low and not likely to increase.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have heard from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor how important

this government sees an expanding economic development. Whether this

province will in fact take advantage of the infrastructure that this

government has put in place and develop our economy will depend upon

this province's competitive position.

The public opinion poll also concluded that the residents of this

province acknowledge that their trade unions have not shown leadership,

and they expect that this government will fulfil the role, act

decisively and give leadership in this most important area. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to you that the remarks of His Honour clearly

indicate that this government is going to continue its role in

reviewing labour relations law in this province. I believe that what we

are about to receive in this current session will, in fact, be

benchmark legislation. I don't think it's accurate to suggest that we

necessarily require that very dreaded phrase "right-to-work laws." I

don't believe that is necessary; I think it's fair to say that there

has been a tremendous amount of consultation between government,

management and labour. I think it's going to prove to be very fruitful

for a well-reasoned and amicable approach to some of the problems that

in the past few years have marked labour-management relations.

[2:30]

As I said before our lunch recess, the economic times themselves are

predicating the necessity for changes to our labour laws. I trust that

with the good intentions of this government and the good intentions as

enunciated by various labour groups, we will be able to work together

and bring about a set of reworked, revamped, modern and reactive labour

legislation. Hopefully, it will be for the betterment of this province.

The Lieutenant-Governor commented in his speech on the very

worthwhile infrastructure that the government is putting into place

with respect to housing. I note that the vast majority of those

serviced lots come within the so-called northeast sector of the lower

mainland, of which Coquitlam, of course, is an integral part. In fact,

over 1,000 housing sites have been serviced by this government and are

now being put before the private sector for individual development as

the market demands.

In addition to the Riverview Heights project I'm referring to, we

have Westwood Plateau also coming on stream. Then as the decade unfolds

we also have the Burke Mountain properties. The key point for that

unfolding, as I'm sure my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Reid) understands, is the necessity for proper commuter corridors. I

would ask the minister in charge of rapid transit — ALRT — to keep in

mind that with the immense number of housing units and the immense

number of projected residents going to this area, it surely is reason

in itself for an extension of the ALRT from New Westminster into the

Coquitlam town centre. The town centre concept, as worked between the

GVRD and our provincial government, I think, has a very sound basis and

really is the type of decentralization that we require in the municipal

spheres.

Before I conclude, I should note one of the more important aspects

of my community. In 1909 some 39 families travelled from eastern Canada

and settled along the Fraser River. They came to work in the sawmills

down there. They brought with them their French-Canadian culture; in

doing that they brought about the existence of a nice little spot

called Maillardville. We are celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary

of Maillardville, and if any of the government members or if any of my

fellow colleagues in the House are able to partake of the myriad events

this year, you all will be very bienvenue.

MR. REID: Merci beaucoup!

MR. PARKS: In closing, I note the desire that was expressed by His Honour with respect to....

MR. BLENCOE: What kind of French is that?

MR. REID: Très bien!

MR. PARKS: Comme ci, comme ça — more ci than ça.

Clearly the past session that I witnessed indicates to me the

worthwhileness of some legislative reform. It seems to me that some of

the factors being considered — the potential introduction of

television, the reduction in the length of speeches and a myriad of

other recommendations based upon the rules and procedures of other

Houses — certainly should be given a sincere look in a bipartisan

context. I welcome that review, and I trust that it will also result in

a more dignified and gentlemanly way of conduct in this House.

I close by saying that I agree with His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor saying that we have seen the troubles; we have

recognized the troubles and we have put forward solutions. I would

suggest this province now is in the threshhold position of being able

to take the progressive steps forward, and I welcome the opportunity of

serving in this House.

MR. GABELMANN: I hadn't intended to make any comment, in

speaking this afternoon, on the item in the throne speech dealing with

legislative reform. But having heard the words just spoken by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, and witnessing the abysmal

performance in this House during question period today....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, some members say "by the

opposition"; another member says "by both sides." I'm going to suggest

that it was by this House in general. The behaviour that we exhibit in

this place is an embarrassment to me, and it should be an embarrassment

to every member in this Legislature. What has happened to this

Legislature in the

[ Page 3251 ]

last few years has been a deliberate attempt to make it irrelevant,

a deliberate attempt to deny its rightful role in our society. The

fundamental element in our democratic system is a parliament. There has

been a calculated and deliberate decision on the part of, if not the

entire government, then at least some members of that government to

demean what happens in here so as to make it less important, so that

parliament doesn't get in the way of government in its desire to govern

without reference, except every four years, to what the people in this

province might have to say.

For the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to get up in this House

and brag, as he does by inference, of his partisan behaviour in the

Speaker's chair last fall is absolutely disgraceful and, I think,

reflects badly on all of his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I worry about

what the Lieutenant-Governor was talking about when he talked about

legislative reform being needed in this House. Is it to further deny

the rights of the opposition? Is it, as the member suggested, to

further limit our ability to speak in this House, as he just finished

saying a few minutes ago? Are those the directions that the

Lieutenant-Governor is threatening in this speech? What other elements

of closure are we to expect?

Mr. Speaker, there isn't a member in this House who doesn't know,

deep in his or her heart, if not in their minds, that there needs to be

massive legislative reform in this chamber. But the only way it's going

to happen in a durable and constructive way is if everybody is involved

in the process to achieve those changes, to ensure that those changes

have the full and unanimous support of every member in this House. Yet

we hear suggestions being put forward by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam that some ideas have already been put forward,

and he mentioned a few. Where have they been put forward? I've not

heard them, as a member of this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just put them forward.

MR. GABELMANN: He said that they had been put forward —

"suggestions that were being considered" were his words. Where are they

being considered? I allow, and I expect, that the government will make

governmental policy decisions in the secrecy of the cabinet room.

That's proper and appropriate. They should come here to this House and

be responsible for what they do. That's the appropriate procedure. But

when we deal with legislative reform, that's the responsibility of 57

members, not 19 in the cabinet room. When we do consider these changes

— if in fact we do — I trust that the changes will be considered by all

members. I trust that there will be an agreement to reach consensus on

all of those changes before they are implemented. And I trust that they

will have as their primary objective a way in which all members can

contribute more effectively to the governing of this province. Mr.

Speaker, I will leave it at that for the moment.

In making a few comments this afternoon on the throne speech, I must

say I have to open by referring to an advertisement that was in the

mid-section of the Vancouver Province this morning. It is an

advertisement obviously donated by various groups who are concerned

about poverty in this province. It's headlined: "Here's How the Hungry

Eat." They talk about the food bank in Vancouver. This is in 1984, in

prosperous British Columbia. It is an appeal to those people who are

well-heeled enough to be able to provide some food so the food bank can

continue in existence. In the ad they say: "If the food bank can't help

people who are hungry here in the midst of plenty, who will?" The

answer should be, and should have been over these years, that we in

this province will help collectively; not some individuals whose

consciences have been tweaked, but we as a society — all 2.8 million of

us — will feed those people through our collective agency, the

government. This government has not only abandoned its responsibilities

to prepare for the future in every area of resource development in this

province; it has also abandoned its responsibility to act as the

collective agency for all British Columbians in making sure people

don't starve here. But here they are, actually and literally starving

in British Columbia in 1984, and we have to have a two-page ad in the

Vancouver Province , and undoubtedly one in the Vancouver Sun

today, appealing to those people of conscience, and those people with

some extra bucks in their pockets, to contribute so that others can

have maybe just two meals a day. If there are people who can afford to

do that, then maybe they're not paying enough toward the collective

needs of this province. Maybe the government should be taking its

responsibility more seriously and making sure that all of those people

who can afford to make those donations do so, and that they do so

through the tax system, and that the benefits go through the government

and are distributed properly to those people who are poor and hungry

and without adequate clothing or shelter here in what could be the

prosperous society of British Columbia.

When you look at the fact that there are now well over 200,000

British Columbians, including dependents, dependent upon welfare, many

of whom are children, and when you look at those welfare rates, none of

which come anywhere near the levels of income required to meet the

poverty level, not to speak about exceeding it, wouldn't any

self-respecting elected person in this province who recognizes that he

is here to govern on behalf of all of the people make sure that those

levels are adequate — make sure that people don't have to go begging,

and make sure that we don't have to go back to the days of beggars on

the streets and alms for the poor in its modern equivalent, full-page

newspaper ads? I didn't see any reference to that in the throne speech,

Mr. Speaker.

I could very easily become bogged down in my comments this afternoon

and talk entirely about social services, health and education, and what

I consider to be a travesty which is occurring in this province at the

present time, but I'm not going to do that now. I want to talk about

something that I — and the public — have always thought Social Credit

was good at, and that's making sure that the resources and the economic

side of this province are well looked after, and that those resources

and that basic economy of ours will be developed in such a way that not

only this generation but future generations as well will be well served.

[2:45]

There are three basic industries in my constituency, and for the

most part they are similar to many constituencies in British Columbia.

They are forestry, fishing and tourism. When I listen to the throne

speech and read it, and see what there is about forestry, fisheries and

tourism that will benefit North Island and the rest of the coast of

British Columbia, and many other parts of this province, I am struck by

the fact that there are no references. Yesterday we had Governor

Spellman of the state of Washington speak to us very briefly in this

Legislature, and for half of his speech he talked about

[ Page 3252 ]

fisheries and how essential it is that the agreement be negotiated

between the States and Canada and that the resource be enhanced — to

paraphrase him, before the Chinook, or what we would call the spring,

is wiped out, and he said in 20 years. The governor of the state of

Washington can come to British Columbia and spend half his time talking

about the need for enhancement of the fish resource, and the need to

make that industry a priority, and the government in the throne speech

makes not even a single reference to the fact that we have a crisis in

the fisheries on this coast. That tells me that the government fails to

understand what makes this province tick. The province does not tick by

repeating mistakes made in dozens of other countries around the world

with their duty-free zones and their cheap, almost slave, labour and

their silicon valleys that every jurisdiction in the western world

wants to develop. Our strength is our resource. Our strength should be

our trees, our fish and our beauty.

AN HON. MEMBER: And our people.

MR. GABELMANN: There won't be many people left here to enjoy our strength if you're in office for much longer.

I want to briefly talk about those three resources. In that crazy

question period we had this afternoon, I listened with interest to the

Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland'

s) attempts to justify the

present levels of intensive forest management happening here in British

Columbia. He got into a semantic argument with the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) about whether they were cutbacks or not. As far as I'm

concerned, I'm not going to deal with the issue of cutbacks, because

they are irrelevant.

In British Columbia we have never had an appropriate level of

intensive forest management practices. We have never planted enough

trees, or fertilized enough, or spaced enough, or commercially thinned

enough. We have never practised all of those kinds of intensive

forestry management practices that must be practised. We have never

dealt properly with the non-satisfactorily restocked lands. We have

never had a level of forest management practices in this province to

refer to to decide whether or not there are any cutbacks. The fact we

should recognize is that there is a cutback from what is the

appropriate level. For the first time in my experience — and I believe

it's the first time in the existence of tree-farm licences in northern

Vancouver Island — there is a 15 percent to 20 percent failure to meet

tree-planting schedules. In effect, if I have my figures correct, in

one tree-farm licence alone they need another 150,000 trees planted

this year beyond the number they have been allowed or are able to

plant. That's a 15 percent to 20 percent shortfall in what is required

to be planted.

In his answer earlier today, the minister indicated that while there

may be some shortfall in the rest of the forest management program —

and he admitted that they weren't doing as much there as he would like

— he was arguing, in effect, that the tree-planting program is going on

as it should. If it was, why is the stock of NSR land increasing? Why

is the Nimpkish Valley tree-farm licence unable to get enough trees to

plant to meet what they're cutting? Why is the annual allowable cut

predicted to diminish in this province over the next few decades?

Because the forest base is diminishing. Because the trees that will be

harvestable not just 70 or 80 years from now but even 20 years from now

will not meet current levels of cut, so we will be reducing the annual

allowable cut. When you reduce the annual allowable cut, you reduce the

number of people working in the woods industry. The only way to redress

that....

We can't catch up. You never catch up in this business, and we can

never catch up for the rape of the woods that occurred in this province

in the earlier part of this century when there was no silviculture. The

only way we can begin to try to deal with it is to put everything we

can into it now, increase the growth rate of those trees already

planted, make sure we are keeping up with what's cut down and begin the

process of filling up the empty lands. But we're not doing that. We're

not fertilizing, spacing or thinning; we're not practising any sound

management practices in the totality. Sure, it happens in places. Sure,

some efforts are going on. Sure, it's better than it was in the 1940s

when the loggers went in and took the trees out, and that was that. But

there isn't much old growth left, and there isn't enough second growth

onstream. Even if we did all of the things that I'm talking about,

which could theoretically take an almost unlimited amount of money,

we're not going to get onstream. We're not going to be able to keep the

industry operating at the level at which it needs to operate, can

operate and will operate for generations if we look after it.

So in the face of that — acknowledging as we do on this side of the

House that there aren't unlimited dollars for these purposes — the

federal government comes along and says: "If you'll give us 50 cents to

match our 50 cents, we'll help you meet some of these shortfalls." So

we can have, for 50 cent dollars, some replenishment of the

silvicultural fund. I'm given to understand by what I consider to be

good sources that the failure to reach an agreement to spend what is

now, I understand, $60 million — $30 million each, but the figure could

be any other number if the two governments would agree.... The

failure to reach the agreement to spend that money lies primarily on

the side of the province of British Columbia.

I'm not sitting there in the negotiations, so I don't know

firsthand. I know enough about negotiations to know that unless you're

there you never know what goes on. But I'm given to understand by

people who are close to it that there was a deliberate decision on the

part of the government of B.C. not to take advantage of those federal

funds in forestry, in the same way as they are not taking advantage of

shareable money in a whole variety of other programs that the federal

government is prepared to put fifty-cent dollars into.

For some reason the government is prepared to pour hundreds of

millions of dollars into some megaprojects but not into others. In this

province forestry is the megaproject. There is no other megaproject

that can or ever will reach the dimensions of the forestry industry in

this province. Instead of glamorous ideas of duty-free zones, of

Silicon Valleys, of new stadiums and of great big redevelopments in the

city, let's put our priorities in this province straight; let's

recognize that we want to provide social services in health and

education, and if we are going to provide those services in an adequate

and a proper way, we have to make sure that the economy of the province

is functioning properly. That requires, in this province more than in

any other in this country, that the money go into forestry.

For an extra $80 million or $100 million of provincial money we

could have a reasonable silviculture program. But no, we decide we're

going to spend $126 million on a stadium, we decide we're going to

spend untold millions on other developments in the Vancouver area — not

that I'm against them, but they have their place on the priority list

and

[ Page

3253 ]

they're not first on my list — and we decide we're going to spend

hundreds of millions of dollars of provincial and federal tax money to

develop a coal-mine in the northeast to compete with one in the

southeast to sell coal at a price that doesn't even meet the cost of

production,

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Tell all those workers who work there that you're against it.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking to the workers in my riding who

are on unemployment insurance and on welfare. You come, Mr. Minister,

with me to Zeballos and to Tahsis and to Gold River and to Port Hardy

and to Port McNeill and to Campbell River and to Quadra Island, and you

go to those workers there and ask them what they think about the

policies of this government in preserving not just the forestry

resource but also the fishery.

There's not a mention, not a damn word in this document about the

fishery, while at the same time we've got a delegation in Ottawa

pleading with the federal government, which has the main jurisdiction,

for the survival of the fishery industry in this province — an industry

that has been virtually destroyed, not just by overfishing, but more

importantly by the provincial jurisdiction having failed to protect the

rivers and the streams that produce that fishery. All anybody has to do

is come with me and visit the Nimpkish River itself, which probably

produced as many fish in the good old days as the whole province

produces today, and see how few fish come out of that river. And you

wonder why, until you go up the Nimpkish valley and you see the debris

and the mud in the gravel where the salmon would be spawning. There has

been no serious effort on the part of the provincial government in

British Columbia, in my view, in the history of this province, to deal

properly with what could be one of the biggest money-makers in this

province. That's not just the salmon, which I think have been destroyed

by awful logging and road-building practices on the coast. There's the

groundfish, and there's the oyster and the rest of the shellfish

industry. The dogfish industry. How much attention has been paid to

developing a dogfish industry? It's there. It would serve two good

purposes: one, there's some money available out of it; and, two, we'd

get those predators out of the water. What efforts have been made, what

initiatives have been taken by the government in Victoria, knowing that

the government in Ottawa isn't interested in it, knowing that the

government in Ottawa is far more interested in the east coast fishery

because that's where their votes are and that's where there are some

seats they can protect, if not to take away the jurisdiction from

Ottawa, at least to negotiate the right to do more than just look after

some aspect of the shellfish industry — which they now have — even to

take over the management of the entire resource so that we can have one

local unified resource management program in place.

[3:00]

I've seen no indication whatsoever that they're interested in having

that kind of discussion with Ottawa. But let's assume for the moment that

they don't want to. Let's assume for the moment that they believe the

fishery resource should be federally managed. That's a legitimate position.

Don't they then have an obligation to make sure that the views of the people

who work in this resource, and who could work in this resource on this coast,

are represented in Ottawa by the provincial government? Why wasn't there

a representative with the delegation that was in Ottawa last week demanding

that Ottawa pay more attention not just to divvying up a meagre resource that

exists now, but to working out methods by which we can replenish that resource

and develop other aspects of it? It's been an abject failure, symbolized

beautifully, I think, by having the throne speech on Monday not even mention

the subject, and then Governor Spellman arrives on Tuesday and spends half of

his speech talking about it. It's an absolute indictment...the failure

of the government to manage those resources in this province that we do best.

What's another one that we could do well at? Tourism. What's the

government's approach to tourism? Ads in Los Angeles to make sure that

all those visitors in L.A. make the three-hour plane trip or the

four-day drive so they can stop off in B.C. this summer. That's fine.

Let's do that. Sure, maybe packages can be worked out so that people

coming from New York or Montreal can come via Vancouver and spend a few

days here. It's an excellent idea. I have no objection to it. But is

that the sum total of what we're going to do in this province to

attract people here? And when we attract them here, what are we

suggesting to the industry that they do? The first thing the government

says to the industry is that it should lower its prices to make sure

more people come here. For God's sake, as it is now, most of the people

in the tourist industry can't keep their balance sheet in the black,

and the government is saying they should reduce the cost of

accommodation and reduce the cost of restaurant meals, which were

jacked up 7 percent last year by this same government that now wants

them to reduce the price. Is there any thought that maybe it's the

government's responsibility to plan for these things? Isn't there any

awareness that you can't base a tourism strategy on ads to draw people

from L.A. or an appeal to the restaurant and motel owners to lower

their prices?

What about the people who would drive up to the northem end of

Vancouver Island if they knew there was a road there? I've still got

maps floating around that don't even have the road on them, yet the

road has been open for five years. Tourists may want to make the round

trip between the Island and Prince Rupert, and on through Prince George

and down the canyon back to Vancouver, but if they're camping or have a

mobile home, they have to organize their trip so they're not overnight

anywhere in north Island, because there is no place to camp and nowhere

to park. You could park in the ferry parking lot while you're waiting

for the ferry in Port Hardy, but what good does that do the tourist

industry in Port Hardy and Port McNeil and Campbell River? This is the

same government that won't allow tourism development in the Nimpkish

Valley because they say that that Crown land should be controlled by

Canadian Forest Products Co. The government encourages people to go to

Cape Scott Park but won't maintain the trail that people walk on to go

to Cape Scott Park. You have to walk through a mud hole; there's no

maintenance.

How do we expect to attract people to this province unless we

encourage them to come? Encouragement mostly happens through word of

mouth; it doesn't happen because people see a glossy ad,

notwithstanding those gorgeous TV ads for skiing in this province.

That's not why people come here. They come here because someone else

told them it was a good place to come to and they enjoyed themselves.

That's not what tourists say when they leave North Island. If you can

believe this, there isn't a single provincial government campsite north

of Campbell River. The whole northern end of

[ Page 3254 ]

Vancouver Island doesn't have a single government campsite. Last

summer I drove right across the province on the Highway 16 route, and

there were all kinds of government campsites. Every level of government

in North Island — every stripe of politics is represented therein — is

appealing to the government that if they won't build their own

campsites would they at least allow some Crown land to be available for

private campsites. But we can't even get that. That's a tourist

strategy?

I want to close by reiterating the basic theme of my comments in

this throne speech debate and on the amendment. It sounds good. It

makes nice newspaper headlines to talk about all these futuristic

ideas: a silicon valley on the Saanich Peninsula, a duty-free port

beside the coal at Roberts Bank — a whole variety of other ideas, some

of which may well be worthwhile and may in fact be an appropriate

development at some stage in the economic development of this province,

while at the same time allowing the basic strength of this province —

not only its strength now but something that has always been its

strength — to be sapped away by neglect. It's tragic that there isn't

greater public awareness of the way in which we have farmed our forests

in this province. In fact, we haven't farmed them; we've mined them. We

mine our trees in the same way those big machines mine the coal in the

northeast. It's a ripoff mentality. I don't like the term, but I don't

know a better one. It's a mentality that says: "Get what you can out of

the resource today and damn the future, because it doesn't matter; we

won't be in government 10, 15 or 20 years from now so it doesn't

matter." But it does matter. It matters to our kids and their kids, and

to many generations after that, if we can survive the Reagans and the

Chernenkos.

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in this throne speech, nowhere in policy

announcements of cabinet ministers, is there an understanding that — to

crib a phrase — we should go back to basics in this province. All the

government can understand, when it wants to go back to basics, is that

everybody should learn how to count, how to read, how to spell. Sure

they should, but we should also go back to basics when we understand

what makes this province tick economically, and what makes it tick is

its trees, its marine resources and its beauty. That should have been

the theme and the focus for the throne speech. That should be the focus

for a legislative program this year, not all of these peripheral issues

that the government throws out to divert people from the real story,

the real tragedy that's occurring here in British Columbia.

MR. PELTON: Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking you for

recognizing me, and by congratulating you, sir, upon your election once

again to the position of Deputy Speaker of this House, an indication of

the esteem in which you are held by all members.

Needless to say, I'm not able to support the amendment which is

before us this afternoon. I do take quite a bit of pride in being able

to rise in support of the speech of His Honour. It has been criticized

in some quarters as "staying the course." In view of the substantial

progress which has been made in reducing the fact and the psychology of

inflation over the past two years, let me suggest that it would be

purely irresponsible to abandon the course. Modification may indeed be

necessary from time to time, and it is our duty as members to offer our

suggestions and to bring to government the particular concerns of our

constituents. The clear message I have received is that our province

needs clear and positive leadership which is at the same time

responsive to these concerns. This is the direction which our Premier

set both in his historic national leadership for restraint, and in the

consultation which has been the hallmark of the process in recent

months.

Beyond raising concerns, Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation to

identify opportunities and to press for their realization. In my own

Dewdney constituency, over the years residential taxpayers have been

relatively heavily burdened as a result of a very weak industrial tax

base. Indeed, many of our breadwinners have found it necessary to seek

employment outside of the community, while still desiring to live in

our area, which has such a strong appeal to the family-minded.

The concept of free-trade zones is an exciting one. At the same

time, I believe it must be developed with some sensitivity. It seems

clear to me, for example, that the Dewdney area would be really ideal

for the type of spin-off industry — that is, light manufacturing,

assembling, distribution, warehousing and so forth — which is, or

should be, a major result of such a zone. It is particularly important

that boundaries and rules relating to such zones take into account

natural population and other geographic patterns, rather than merely

being arbitrary lines on a map which might create a sense of

discrimination, particularly among those who were just outside such a

zone. There might even be some merit in moving nationally towards free

trade other than in agricultural commodities.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Our position in the world economy clearly requires a degree of

well-calculated risk-taking which is hardly present in the declining,

protected industries of central Canada. In British Columbia we have

chosen to deal with long-term problems in a timely way, despite the

difficulty inherent in such a course, rather than postponing the

inevitable and thereby making those adjustments even more difficult

when they are finally faced. Unlike New York–type cities, we are not

prepared to drain our people's financial resources to the point of

bankruptcy and then run, hat in hand, to the federal government. In

this country, in view of the state of their finances, it would be

rather superfluous in any event. Instead, we are looking to creative

approaches to generate the economic activity which will boost our

recovery, while we simultaneously make use of a sharp pencil in

sketching out our expenditure needs.

Expo 86, Mr. Speaker, is precisely such a creative endeavour — a

world-scale event which will put our province centre-stage as never

before. Fifteen to twenty million visitors are anticipated. Frankly, I

find that prospect mind-boggling, and I do not consider myself to be a

narrow-minded individual. Fifty-six thousand person-years of employment

will be generated along with a phenomenal $2.6 billion in income

activity — the largest single boost our lower mainland economy has ever

known. We must plan now, and we must be ready to maximize our

short-term and long-term advantages from this incredible opportunity.

In my own constituency, the community of Maple Ridge had an

excellent opportunity to practise community organization and

involvement through the 1983 Summer Games, which I must say were

handled extremely well and with great imagination by our volunteers. I

am very pleased to see that already a number of our leading

community-minded citizens

[ Page

3255 ]

have come forward with some very innovative and creative ideas which they have passed on to the organizers of Expo 86.

Another very innovative creation in my constituency has been the

formation of a traffic safety committee which has operated for well

over a year, involving people throughout the community, including

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, health professionals, ICBC personnel,

RCMP and others. Certainly we are one of the first communities in

Canada to take such a strong, coordinated approach to this extremely

serious problem. As a result of this work, a report was completed which

made a number of very cogent recommendations; these have been passed on

to various agencies which can, and hopefully will, take measures to

implement them. In this regard it is most encouraging to me that His

Honour made special mention of renewed provincial efforts to combat the

carnage on our highways.

I believe this year, 1984, must be for British Columbians a special

time of reflection. Over the past eight months I have often had an

opportunity to speak with my constituents, who are pretty

representative of the broad spectrum of opinion in our province. This

is very much the message I have heard from them: 1983 was a trying and

most difficult year for all, a year of unprecedented conflict and

confrontation in our province. We were intimately aware of it in this

chamber, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was reverberating

through every

section of our society and every region of our province.

[3:15]

The conflict and confrontation was not of the ordinary kind: not a

traditional partisan conflict or confrontation of competing interests,

but rather a conflict between old values and assumptions on the one

hand, and new realities which seemed to capture us by stealth on the

other. Reflective of that unique situation was the apparently

spontaneous ignition of public interest and concern. Individual by

individual, family by family, community by community the new realities

were sending out a shock wave whose reverberations are still with us.

Assumptions concerning automatic prosperity, those cherished illusions

of more than three decades, were shattered like a fragile pane of glass

into a thousand shards. With William Butler Yeats, we could well have

said: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." The central

assumption which governments of every stripe had relied upon for social

consensus was rent assunder, as the veil of the temple. Those who had

been used to picturing themselves as the progressives on the leading

edge of social change found themselves scrambling desperately to

protect an already irrelevant status quo, while the more conservative

forces in the community found themselves in the forefront of change and

reformation of values. On balance, and not without considerable,

conscientious anguish, the public opted for the future. The fundamental

affirmation of our maturity, as a community, gives me great cause for

hope. The human spirit moves always towards a new state of harmony

following periods of great disruption and trial.

Our people are looking to us to guide and assist in the

establishment of harmony, cooperation and a new social consensus which

fully recognizes the new realities without abandoning the ideals,

values and aspirations of the old. More than symbolic of the public

desire for reflective leadership is the universal concern, which I have

heard expressed, concerning nuclear disarmament. Nineteen eighty-four

must be a year in which we transcend politics as usual if we are to

have any hope of coming close to the expectations which our people have

for our free democratic institutions. This issue is as much a

provincial one as health care; in fact, to my mind, it is perhaps the

major single health-care issue in the minds of British Columbians today.

As one who has probably spent more years in our armed services than

any other member of this House, I feel a particular personal

responsibility to address this question. Let me begin by saying that I

do not agree with those whose political cynicism causes them to discard

the Prime Minister's peace initiative out of hand. That is not to say

that the initiative is necessarily free from some measure of political

self-interest. Simply put, the gravity of this issue is such that

questions of motivation are absolutely secondary in relation to the

overriding need for substantial progress towards bilateral nuclear

disarmament, regardless of the process by which it is achieved.

Clemenceau said that war was too important to leave to the generals; I

believe it is too important to leave to the politicians or the generals

acting without regard to the public will. We must assiduously avoid the

trap of naivete, just as we are avoiding the opposite trap of cynicism

or despair borne out of the general anaesthesia of nuclear realities.

Let no one imagine that the Soviet Union will not endeavour to squeeze

every last drop of advantage out of our sincerest efforts to propose

and advocate peace. Let no one imagine that the fundamental nature of

their regime will alter dramaticaliy as a result of their change in

world public relations strategy.

We are not far past the fiftieth anniversary of the "great famine,"

that misnomer which describes the deliberate mass starvation of over

eight million Ukrainians, imposed by Stalin as part of his campaign to

collectivize agriculture and Russify the Ukraine. It is passing strange

to me that our collective memory of such an event bears so little

proportion to its magnitude. We are barely a few months past the

unspeakably barbarous slaughter of 269 civilian Korean airlines

passengers. As we speak, weapons of chemical and biological warfare are

being employed against the simple peasant herders of Afghanistan. Some

of those who are most vocal in the peace movement are, I am

immeasurably sad to say, invincibly ignorant as to the fundamental

moral nature of the Soviet regime. They believe that because Russians

are people just like ourselves, somehow their government cannot be all

that different in its way of thinking from our own. Nothing could be

more tragically wrong than to believe that, Mr. Speaker. The Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics is not governed by all the people, but by

all those people who have all the guns.

The Mafia in Chicago in the 1930s might serve as a closer analogy,

save that their ambitions were limited to the more modest objectives of

personal gain. Therefore our efforts to achieve peace must be

reflective of an unillusioned understanding of our world situation. I

do not mean to suggest that our actions in the West can have no

positive influence on shaping new directions for change within the

Soviet Union — far from it. Rather, I suggest that we must recognize

the self-interest of those in power there to deceive us into seeing

them as they would have us see them. From this reflective

understanding, I believe that we should move to a new social consensus

which draws its inspiration from the universal concern which we feel

and which at the same time recognizes the need for unblinkered, highly

informed, strategic thinking in planning for peace.

I want to applaud the many community and church groups working long and hard to raise the priority of peace

[ Page 3256 ]

with our political leaders throughout the world. In my community I

was pleased recently to attend a meeting of our local medical

profession which was addressed by Dr. Dorothy Goresky of Physicians for

Social Responsibility, a group who very much believe that nuclear

disarmament is a health issue. The example of this group and many

others is refreshing in demonstrating the vitality of idealism in our

society, notwithstanding the rude shocks and heightened economic

concerns of the past year. There are some who might wish to discount

the peace movement because of the presence in it, as I have said, of

some regrettably naive spokesmen and the inevitability that the Soviets

would make every effort to twist its outpouring of genuine human

sentiment to their strategic advantage. But to do so, I believe, would

be as fundamentally mistaken as it would be for us to pursue a course

of unilateral disarmament.

I have spoken of building a new consensus for peace from the

elements of the public sense of urgency and the informed awareness of

the great difficulties these efforts face. Here, I believe, lies the

great middle road we must walk together if our children and our

children's children are to live in peace and freedom. Let us not

abandon our commitment to NATO or western defence any more than we

abandon the quest for a viable, mutually effective and verifiable

nuclear arms reduction which, I believe, must never stop short of the

ultimate goal of total elimination of nuclear arms from all the

arsenals of the world.

As British Columbians are reflecting on the new values of these new

times, I believe they expect us as their representatives to do no less

ourselves. I know that the members of the opposition are now going

through this process inevitably as they consider their future

leadership and direction. That is potentially an extremely healthy

development, Mr. Speaker, provided they are prepared to do so with an

open mind and a hard look at the new realities which the people of

British Columbia clearly recognized in giving this government a

strengthened mandate to deal with our present and our future. If not,

they must consider that by clinging to the outworn, albeit familiar and

well-loved, phrases of yesteryear they do so at the peril of forever

alienating the young of mind and spirit who demand a vision which not

only promises a brighter future but which provides a coherent and

legible roadmap of how to get there from here.

The government, for its part, must demonstrate to these same young

hearts and minds — of whatever age — that it has the flexibility to

accept constructive criticism from whatever quarter and to recognize

that we have already passed that part of the sea which is reliably

charted on existing maps. I want especially to congratulate the

government on its willingness to take a second look at the route to be

taken in a number of inherently difficult areas. The relationship

between the state and the citizen, as well as that between the various

individuals and groups within our community, requires at times forms of

mediation which are fair in fact as well as in appearance.

This is the year of reflection, as I have said. Let us hope likewise

that it will prove to be a year of conciliation. The Premier has

rightly proclaimed the past few months to be a time of healing. Our

role as legislators ought to be that of a responsible physician,

recognizing that the patient is not yet out of danger. The need for

restraint does not evaporate merely because we may grow weary of the

struggle from time to time. The fortification of the body politic is a

slow but necessary process to a sustained recovery. Let us attempt in

our deliberations to keep before us the vision of the greater good,

which is our trust. Let us not mistake treatments for the symptoms of

distress with care of the underlying disease. No amount of

old-fashioned physical medicine by way of more generous spending

programs will alter the prognosis one iota. We cannot spend our way to

prosperity any more than we can cure by adding more leeches to bleed

the patient. Medieval quack nostrums will not create a single permanent

new job in our province.

[3:30]

We live by trade — let us have no illusion about that. We are not

rich because of our natural resources but because of our knowledge and

ability to develop them at a price the world can afford to pay.

Switzerland has virtually no natural resources. Japan has no great

forests or comparable mineral reserves. All of these things and more

can be found in abundance in any number of countries which are

abysmally poor by our standards. The natural resource which is the

foundation of every real prosperity is a free people given the right

and room to grow and build, to follow their dreams and not the sterile

dictates of any elitist few, no matter how well-intentioned they may

be. That is not to say that government has no role to play. Rather, it

is to say that in a good play government is the set designer and not

the puppeteer. Government is a leader in providing the infrastructure

from which real prosperity can grow. I am amazed, as I reflect on the

history of our province, that so many still fail to see this essential

point and criticize government transportation initiatives as somehow

being at the expense of people programs, rather than recognize them as

the absolutely essential underpinning of a modern economy, which alone

can hope to finance a genuinely effective level of social needs

programs and other programs — health care, education and other

humanitarian designs. Our realism must be all-encompassing if we are to

meet the people's needs today, and in the future, in a certain and

comprehensive way.

An illustration must be our current need to re-examine educational

priorities. It is not very satisfactory either to the public or to the

student to spend the enormous amounts we do, unless we can be certain

of equipping our young people with the real skills they will need in an

incredibly rapidly changing and complex working world. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has moved towards re-establishing

standards of performance and consideration of greater emphasis on math

and science skills in our secondary schools. I want to applaud him for

that. It is no service to our young people to herd them forcibly into

well-heated, well-lit mediocrity. Our schools must not be allowed to

become overpriced day-care centres as a result of institutional

inertia. We must constantly challenge the assumption that the quality

and relevance of our educational system is as high as it needs be or

could become. I am very little impressed with comparative educational

studies, because I believe that the standard for which we should aim is

the potential of the human mind and not the relative position of those

jockeying within the status quo.

We must look, above all, in two directions: first, to providing

incentive to continuously increase the quality of teaching, which,

despite much rhetoric, is not necessarily in direct proportion to the

gross level of provincial grants to local school districts. The

question is far more complex than that. I believe that the vast

majority of those who enter the teaching profession in this province

have every desire, and the capacity, to provide our children with the

world's highest standard of education. I do not believe that the system

they

[ Page 3257 ]

enter is adequately giving priority to the quality of classroom

teaching. Accordingly, I believe that education students and teachers

are being given less than the scope and incentive they need to realize

their potential as individual educators.

I do not say that money doesn't matter. I do say that what you do

with money matters more. Many teachers would like to see alternative

approaches tried in our educational system, and so would I. As we

reassert the need to measure performance, let us keep in mind the

importance of diversity and innovation in educational techniques. Some

today look to the private sector for their educational alternatives.

Our government very much believes in the validity of that option. At

the same time, I recognize that a very great many people are suspicious

of what they see as educational separatism, or snobbism, which they

perceive in this field. To my mind, the private sector educational

option is a valuable one precisely because it offers parents an

alternative, and therefore offers teachers an alternative too.

In recognizing this very fact, there should be some consideration of

how alternatives can be accommodated within the parameters of the

public school system without compromising the essential value of

measurable standards of performance, both of students and teachers. I

believe that there may well be room in our educational system for

entirely new approaches which differ both from the traditional kinds of

private schools and from the public system. Many parents, students and

teachers would, I believe, be greatly interested in new schools which

are oriented to the simple pursuit of educational excellence and

affordability. I think, for example, of the possibility of co-op

schools, which might be set up with minimum emphasis on capital

expenditures by teachers who are currently unemployed or who wish to

pursue an innovative course. The adoption of a voucher system, for

example, which would relate funding of qualifying schools, private or

public, to their enrolment, would facilitate a much broader range of

educational options than is currently feasible. I would urge the

government to consider in its long-range planning some form of flexible

financing alternative to ensure equitable and cost-effective pursuit of

a diversity in educational excellence which meets the aspirations,

expectations and needs of parents, students and teachers alike. In

education, as in clothing, one size does not fit all.

The relationship between education and job-skills training for the

future absolutely requires a much more planned approach. I believe that

by creating an educational marketplace, in effect, we will meet those

planning needs better than through a unitary approach. We still import

skilled labour into Canada, and faculty into our universities, while

many of our own people are not adequately informed at the necessary

time of the likely prospects which attach to the various educational

and training options which are available. Let no one suggest that we

should turn our universities into trade schools and equate higher

education merely with marketable skills. I'm not suggesting that we

become educational philistines, merely that we take our heads out of

the sand and give our young people a truly informed basis on which to

make their educational choices. In our long-range planning as

government we must look to close consultation and cooperation with

labour, educational and business groups to ensure the adequacy both of

future labour market information and necessary skills training

facilities, targeting the areas of greatest future need.

Our province has expanded greatly in recent decades, and in my own

constituency growth has been noticable and promises to accelerate in

the future. This inevitability brings with it particular problems such

as the important current concern of my constituents with the provision

of readily available and affordable interurban transportation. The

matter of commuter rail transport, which I gave prominence to in my

maiden speech before this House, has become even more compelling in

view of the government's announced intention to divest itself of

Pacific Coach Lines. This facility is at the moment the only certain

and dependable alternative to the automobile which is available to my

constituents for interurban travel. Uncertainty concerning future

routes, schedules and fares under a private systern is understandably a

primary consideration for the quite substantial number of my

constituents who are entirely dependent on the present system for their

transportation to and from work. Loss of this service would be a truly

regressive step, entirely ignoring the natural growth pattern of the

metropolitan lower mainland into this area in the near future. I would

strongly urge the government to make these factors an integral part of

their transportation development strategy, including the terms of

divestiture of Pacific Coach Lines.

I would be more than a little remiss if I did not record in the

journals of this House the traumatic dislocation suffered by the

inhabitants of the Hatzic Prairie area as a result of the recent

flooding of Cascade Creek. I was very pleased that a minister of the

Crown was able to be on the spot very quickly to meet with those

affected and see the devastation for himself. I am hopeful that the

process of adjudicating claims will be conducted expeditiously, and

that the criteria for compensation will ensure fair and equitable

treatment for all those affected. No less importantly, I believe that

planning efforts now underway are vital to minimize the possibility of

damage and dislocation on a similar scale in the future.

Mr. Speaker, my first intention had not been to speak today at any such length,

since I have always operated on the premise that you learn far more by listening

to others than by listening to yourself, and I do not recommend lengthy speeches

to my friends opposite, whether or not they may be seeking a higher office.

I have been listening very closely to my own constituents for the past months,

and I really wanted to share with you my sense of their very real desire for

a period of reflective and less confrontational politics in our province. I

have been very pleased to note how courteously others have listened to my own

remarks in this chamber, and I plan on extending to others the same courtesy

and interest which they have so kindly shown me. While we owe each others courtesy

as fellow members, far more importantly, I believe, we owe our constituents

the duty to listen carefully to one another and to work together, so much as

may be possible with our differing perspectives and political philosophies,

to contribute our personal abilities in the cause of social reconciliation and

the formulation of realistic and achievable plans for the realization of those

higher values, goals and aspirations of all British Columbians, and our trust

for the future, which collectively are known as the common good.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset I'd like to say to my hon.

friend from Dewdney that I think that was an excellent speech. He put a

lot of work into that. I think one thing in particular showed the

amount of work and the fact that you

[ Page 3258 ]

believed in it, and that was when you were talking about nuclear disarmament. I thought that was excellent.

A little comment that some of us in this House might have missed was

when you were talking about listening to people in this chamber. I've

been here for five years, and in those years.... If we spend a

little more time listening to speeches like yours, or some of the more

thoughtful speeches in this House, maybe we could work out some of the

problems between us. I appreciate what I heard.

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not running for the leadership of the Social Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last member for Atlin did.

[3:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but I doubt if.... Let bygones be bygones. Those are pretty hard shoes to follow.

Today we're discussing the Speech from the Throne. Basically this

document, like all throne speeches, is just generalities and very

little concrete policy. When we get into the budget speech next week

we'll be able to put a little bit more emphasis on it.

I'd like to break it down into three areas of particular interest to

my constituency. The first area I'd like to discuss is the

section in

the throne speech regarding northwest potential. Representing the

riding in the northwest of this province, which is often referred to as

the last frontier of the province, I have a couple of concerns,

particularly the statements made in regard to the northwest's

potential. In the Speech from the Throne, the northwest's potential was

left to two sentences in reference to the last frontier in this

province. They talk about a study. In the last seven years this

government has put out two studies in regard to the northwest. Some

statements go back seven years. Nothing has really been done.

Looking at the specifics of these sentences, I just want to make

reference to a comment in the Speech from the Throne which says: "My

government has indicated it is prepared to respond to the need for

infrastructure in this region when the private sector comes forward

with specific development proposals." When we talk about infrastructure

in the north, I wonder why the government puts the emphasis on input

from the private sector. I would rather have the government say

"...from the private sector as well as from the residents who live in

the

area, who have grown up in the area and have devoted their entire lives

to the area." They should be able to have some input, instead, when

we're talking about the infrastructure in the great north, allowing it

to go to the private sector. I would hope that the government....

That may have been a slip of the pen where they said only by the

private sector. I would rather have seen it say by the private sector

as well as by the residents of the north.

When we talk about the infrastructure in the north, one thing that

comes to mind first is transportation. As many members in this House

are aware, we have one major road in the far north — Highway 37. When

the government talks about private sector involvement in the

infrastructure development in the north, we have to look at more than

just what the private companies are talking about when they build

roads. One of the issues in the area is a road built in the Nass area

which is not gazetted, which hundreds of people must use daily for

their transportation. The second one is a road in the Telegraph Creek

area, which is a gazetted highway going into Dease Lake, which

is.... If you ever get a chance, Mr. Speaker, get a four-wheel-drive vehicle and drive between Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek. It's an experience.

The government has responded to private concerns, and another aspect

of the throne speech I wanted to discuss was the statement that the

government made about the base metal potential. They used the word

"coal" in talking about the base metals in the great north. This is a

pretty difficult issue to banter around in the House right now,

particularly when we're looking at northeast coal and still don't know

exactly what is going on in the area. We know that some of the first

coal shipments have moved out through Prince Rupert. But the

cost.... Maybe it'll work out. Who knows, until we get all the

figures on that. But northeast coal is in direct competition with

southeast coal in this province, and I really wonder if the government

is serious in talking about the future of the north when they talk

about coal being one of the base metal products they're looking at.

What they're talking about in this area is the Groundhog coal-mine —

that's the only major coal deposit up in the area. It's a very isolated

rural area, with no roads into it at this time. I would certainly hope

that before the government starts a new coal development venture in the

northwest, they do the inner structure of the highways where the

residents live.

Another point is a major development that the government didn't

discuss. It's probably one of the largest mining developments that is

going to happen in this province in the next ten years. A company

called Falconbridge, in the far northwest comer of the province, with

the Yukon to the north and Alaska to the south, is going to be putting

in this major operation. A concern I had with what's going on in the

extreme northwestern corner of this province, when it comes to the

inner structure and roads, is that it wasn't British Columbia or Canada

who came in to develop the roads; it was the United States. Last year

Governor Sheffield of Alaska stated that he put out a tender on the

Haines road, to pave that 30 or 40 miles in that particular isolated

corner for the development of Alaska. I'm wondering why we have to have

the United States paving our highways.

Another issue I'd like to discuss, which is of particular concern to

my constituency, is the

section called "Moving People and Products."

The throne speech talks about the first-ever crossing of the Nass. I

think the government missed something here, because this bridge they're

building at Greenville — a bridge I have spoken about for five years —

is not the first-ever crossing of the Nass. There have been bridges

across the Nass before; there are bridges there today, particularly the

bridge that goes into Canyon City. I'm sure the 125 residents of Canyon

City are feeling a bit more at ease now, knowing that that bridge

they've had and been walking across for years never really existed,

because the government, through the throne speech, has said that this

is the first bridge that has ever been built across the Nass. I've

heard stories about walking on water, but this is not the first

crossing of the Nass. The second bridge was put in by private business,

a forest company, to cross the Nass north of New Aiyansh, where there's

the road that goes into the famous ghost town called Kitsault. That's

another crossing of the Nass. So really, when the government said that

in the throne speech, I think it was probably developed by somebody in

the south who had probably never been up there, and somebody just

told him what to say. This is really the third crossing of the Nass, so

we have to clarify that aspect.

In regard to the Greenville bridge, I'm 100 percent behind the government on that one. I've talked about the issue

[ Page 3259 ]

for five years. The children who had to attend school from

Greenville had to walk across the ice in wintertime, and in summertime

and spring, before school adjourns in June, they had to take boats.

Sometimes in spring, with the runoff and the ice coming down, the

children were unable to attend school or had to stay in New Aiyansh for

weeks and couldn't go home. This bridge will be a definite benefit to

the residents of Greenville as well as to the entire Nass.

Another issue of concern in the constituency is the

section called

"Traffic Safety." A concern that I have, as the critic for

Transportation and Highways, is that there was no mention of the

vehicle inspection branches which will be closed completely on March 9.

I would certainly hope that after the questions that have been directed

to the minister in this House in the last two weeks, and some of the

controversies and situations that have surrounded vehicle inspecting in

this province, the government might go back and take a second took

before they completely close the vehicle inspection branches on March 9.

The next issue I'd like to discuss in the throne speech is native

rights. I quote again from what was stated in the throne speech

delivered by His Honour: "My government will continue to take an active

role in representing British Columbia interest at these conferences."

All of us know that they will be taking an active role, because it is

stated earlier in the throne speech that they will be flying further

around the world in jets — cabinet ministers and so on. I'm sure they

will show up in Ottawa to take an active role. But my concern and the

concern of my constituents, particularly the first citizens of this

province and country, is whose interests this government is bringing

forth in these upcoming meetings and conferences in Ottawa. Is it the

government's interests — this government's position on aboriginal

rights and title is in the public record — or is it going to be the

interest of not only the first citizens of this country but all

citizens of this country? Year after year they have said: "Look, enough

is enough. Let's get on with negotiating the land claims, the

aboriginal title in this province and in this country." It was done in

Alaska in 1971. We're going to find a major settlement in the Yukon in

the very near future. We've seen other settlements across this country,

and when this government states British Columbia's interests at those

conferences, it's time that they become factual in representing the

entire aspect of aboriginal titles and land claims.

When it comes to decisions, we have to remember the famous supreme

court decision on aboriginal title, which did not go against the Nishga

people even though the vote did not guarantee.... We must remember

that the vote was split fifty-fifty and that the judge who made the

final decision did not rule against or in support of land claims. He

ruled on a legal technicality and not on a question of right or of not

having a right. We must remember the famous Calder decision that came

out. It's never been decided in our courts whether the first citizens

of this country relinquished their rights. Do they exist? Even though

the court case came out, we have not had a decision yet to say that

they do or do not exist. Hopefully that famous court decision will lead

to an eventual further court decision which will guarantee the rights

of the native people in this province.

One of the issues in the throne speech, besides the four or five

that I discussed, is on page 8, which states that mining is a major

economy in this province, even though many mines in my constituency

have been closed down. One of the statements which gives me concern is:

"to eliminate regulatory roadblocks." Any of us who have had any

concern with or been involved with the Amax issue know the importance

of having regulations in place by governments to protect the citizens

of this country. Certainly I would hope that by this statement they

would not throw away a regulation so that mining companies can come in

and do what they want to do. By the same token, if you look at small

placer miners in this province, which is one of the backbones of the

mining industry, there are some regulations placed upon placer miners

that are totally out to lunch. I will give a perfect example: a friend

of mine who has been mining in an area since World War II was told last

spring that he had to close down his mining operation, even though he

really wasn't starting yet. The snow hadn't completely melted off. One

of the regulatory agencies came up to his small placer operation and

said there was too much mud running into the river. He said: "Of course

there's too much mud running into the river — it’s spring runoff. It's

something that I have no control of." Because there was too much mud

through the spring runoff he was closed down. The regulatory agency

quoted some bylaw or licence number and was able to close his mine down

for two months.

Forest renewal. The government said a record 105 million trees were

planted in B.C. in 1982-83. That's excellent. But it's just a start,

because I'm sure all of us who are aware of the forest industry in this

province know that we need many more seedlings. If you look at the

State of Washington, for every tree that they cut down they replant

six. In British Columbia it works out almost the opposite: for every

six trees that we cut we replant one. We have to get in line with what

the State of Washington is doing: for every tree we cut we should

replant six. Hopefully, the 105 million seedlings in 1982-83 could be

200 or 300 million in 1984-85, because that's our future. We can't cut

down trees and not replant them.

[4:00]

The last issue that I would like to discuss is human rights. I'd like to

quote the Speech from the Throne on page 10.

Please don't bang that pencil against your forehead.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm just trying to stay awake.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, stay awake. That's never kept you from coming in here.

Mr. Speaker, on page 10 on human rights it says: "British Columbia

is entering a new era in human rights, where a greater emphasis will be

placed on individual responsibility for eliminating discrimination."

That's a very strange quote: "...individual responsibility for

eliminating discrimination," because that could be taken in many, many

ways. Is the individual to go out and make changes if he or she feels

that they are being discriminated against? Do they handle it as an

individual would handle it? I would certainly hope that this isn't

asking for that type of feeling to be presented by the public in this

province, because this could lead, heaven forbid, to violence. By

saying that an individual who feels that they're being discriminated

against handle it by themselves, are we going back to the old frontier

ways of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Government does have

a responsibility in human rights. It can't ignore that fact.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have a 13-page throne speech. It's a

document of intent. There is very little in it. It just gives

direction. Where we will find the real guts of the

[ Page 3260 ]

government's intent is when the budget is presented next week.

Old Bob saw this and he.... I usually send most of this stuff up

to Bob, because he finds a lot of use for it — besides reading it. He

tells me he always reads the material that the government or the

opposition, or whatever, puts out publicly, and I send it to him. He's

found many good uses for the material that's been sent to him. But he

has a particular interest in the use that he had for this throne

speech, since, as you know, we have very few stores up in the north,

and at times some items that you might need for daily living are not

available. Since corn does not grow up in the Atlin constituency, and

there are no corn cobs, Bob found a unique use for the Speech from the

Throne. I'll leave it at that. It's been a slice.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the

customary congratulations for your re-election to your eminent office.

We all count on your understanding and your good humour to see us

through our proceedings here. I think it's good news for the session

that you're back in the chair again.

I'm going to range rather widely in my remarks. I found the Speech

from the Throne perhaps somewhat less to the point than the Speech from

the Throne delivered last year in July. I agree with its general

thrust. I am critical of a few points made in the speech, but I very

much welcome others.

I agree with one of the lines which appears early in the Speech from

the Throne which states that: "My government will emphasize economic

recovery in 1984 within the context of continuing restraint." I think

that sets the tone of the Speech from the Throne. I think it's also

realistic.

The world economy has slowed down. It began to slow down in the

mid-1970s. Various nations have experienced depressions and some

simply recessions. What we've also seen, particularly in the last few

years, is that the Third World countries — call them the disadvantaged

countries which were recipients of global welfare statism, if you like,

and were running substantially on loans and credit advanced by the more

advantaged or highly developed countries — have had serious

difficulties. They're now seriously in debt. They are much less able

today to pay their own way than they were in the 1970s. That situation

will probably persist for some years. They've not been in debt to

anything like the present extent for generations. And because it will

be very difficult for them — I'm including countries like Argentina,

Venezuela, Mexico, as well as a number of African nations — to work

their way back to credit worthiness, to get to a condition where they

can again borrow in large amounts, world trade will not pick up to the

extent that many of us would hope it would in the short run — indeed,

in the mid-term. So through much of the remainder of the 1980s,

recovery is going to be slow. I'm talking globally.

Recovery in British Columbia and recovery of the Canadian economy,

at least to the extent that it's dependent upon exports, will similarly

be slower than what might otherwise be the case. So we cannot expect

a rapid turnaround, especially in an economy like our own here in

British Columbia, which is heavily dependent on international trade and

which relies on increased exports — higher prices and a larger volume

of exports — to improve the income of our people.

I think the signs are good; they are certainly pointing in the right

direction. I don't agree with some of the analysts who have recently

been saying that British Columbia, for obvious reasons, will lag behind

the rest of the country in the current upswing. They talk as if the

megaprojects — the Revelstoke Dam of B.C. Hydro or northeast coal —

were among, if not the principal engines of progress, at least the

generators of much of the employment in the construction industry; and

since they have come to an end, there won't be any more work or

activity on a comparable scale.

It may offend some of our local or even governmental sensibilities

to know that the work that is just beginning on our two

transcontinental railways — the CNR and the CPR — is of an order of

magnitude larger than northeast coal. It will last for some six to

eight years. There are some $6 billion of expenditures scheduled by the

CNR and the CPR over the next half-dozen years. We have the equivalent,

beginning now, of a northeast coal project every year for the next six

years, courtesy of the CNR and CPR — I should perhaps say courtesy of

the final demise of the Crow rate on grain. We have a megaproject or a

series of megaprojects to anticipate, and they are now beginning to

employ people — many of the same individuals who were working on

northeast coal development. Major rail construction will be a big

factor in construction employment in this province.

We have several other projects which I believe will in fact advance.

One is the Aluminium Company of Canada's development — call it Kemano

2. That's two large smelters and additional power generation in the

northwest portion of the province. That is a $3 billion development —

not as large as the CNR and CPR investments, but of a similar scale. I

believe it should go ahead. I hope it will go ahead. I hope that the

provincial government supports it — given, of course, the necessary

environmental precautions. Assuming that the environment is protected

reasonably and adequately, there is another megaproject underway.

A third one of similar scale, another $3 billion investment, is the

liquefied natural gas export proposal. Again, that's a project which, I

think, is sooner or later inevitable — the export of British Columbia

and Alberta gas overseas, principally to Japan via a port at or close

to Prince Rupert. Assuming that project goes ahead, it will mean a

revival of activity in exploration and development in the Peace River

area. The search for natural gas will make sense again. We have already

proven up enough gas for our own provincial requirements and, at least

for some years, export to the United States. Selling gas overseas as

well as to the United States diversifies our market for natural gas,

and will provide an incentive for much more and continuing activity in

the northeast corner of the province. So there is a third megaproject. I

believe the federal government will support it. I believe that Alberta,

assuming it is satisfied as to gas netback prices in Alberta, will

support it. British Columbia has already indicated in the Speech from

the Throne that the provincial government supports it.

So we have the CNR-CPR megaprojects, we have the Alcan megaproject

and we have the LNG overseas export project. There are three projects

totalling some $12 billion, all of which may well be in place before

1990. Consequently we have a follow-on from B.C. Hydro's big investment

program, from northeast coal and from other investments in the form of

some very tangible projects which should get underway shortly. I am not

pessimistic, as others are, about a serious slump in major construction

activity in this province in the mid-eighties and thereafter.

[ Page 3261 ]

There are some other developments which can go ahead — may go ahead.

We may see one or more fertilizer plants built at tidewater, perhaps in

the Prince Rupert area — if a major LNG project is built, if a pipeline

is built to Prince Rupert and liquefaction takes place there. I think

we'll see some more activity in the coalfields, although we have plenty

of capacity at the mines now, and we'll shortly have abundant capacity

to move the coal to tidewater. I would still like to see the provincial

and indeed the federal government supporting the utilization of waste

coal in the Kootenays — burning waste coal to produce a much better and

more usable form of energy, namely electricity, and for the time being

exporting that power. That may not be in the cards for a few years, but

I think it too will happen. We may have developments based on coal

which will add further employment opportunities, at least in the late

1980s.

There will undoubtedly be more developments in the forest industry,

although there's an abundant capacity now in our pulp mills. Mining

exploration activity has picked up somewhat, yet metal prices aren't

recovering at a rate which would induce much more activity there, at

least for the short-term future.

I caution the government that these projects that I've mentioned are

primarily projects financed either by the private sector or by federal

Crown corporations: substantially the private sector in the case of the

LNG project and the Kemano 2 project of Alcan. CNR is of course a

federal Crown corporation, but fortunately operating nowadays more or

less in the black; and CPR is a private corporation. Those projects, in

other words, are not funded by the government of the province of

British Columbia, as has been the case with hydro projects and,

substantially, northeast coal. We are entering a new era where the

megaprojects — the substantial ones — are funded by savings from

outside the province, at least largely from the private sector, not by

the taxpayer and not on the credit of the province. I think that's a

healthy development. I think it may well have been anticipated, but it

is certainly a welcome one.

[4:15]

1 don't expect that the government will have to put much more money

into railway development, at least for another decade or so — I'm

talking about long-distance railways like the BCR — or indeed, port

development. I think the port development will be financed either by

the federal government or, more likely, by private contracts relating

to the port of Vancouver, Roberts Bank, Ridley Island and so on.

Pipelining in this province, and, indeed, Canada-wide, has typically

been a private enterprise function. On receiving approval, private

groups have financed the construction of pipelines. I hope the province

of British Columbia doesn't get into the funding of a pipeline to

Vancouver Island which requires substantial provincial government

borrowing. I realize that the province will require the federal

government to move first; indeed, I cannot imagine a pipeline to

Vancouver Island being built unless the federal government gives the

nominated utility several hundreds of millions of dollars as an

outright gift or grant. I don't think that's likely to happen under a

Conservative government in Ottawa; indeed, I don't think it was ever

very likely to happen under a Liberal government, because with the

large deficits they've been running there, and the lack of electoral

prospects on Vancouver Island, they were unlikely, when the chips were

down, to make that kind of investment out here. Yes, the federal

government has put literally billions of dollars into pipeline

extensions into Quebec and prospectively into the Maritimes, but those

energy markets might just as well have been supplied by the private

sector much more efficiently. I don't really buy the argument that

because the federal government spent that kind of money in eastern

Canada it necessarily should be investing say a half billion dollars in

a pipeline to Vancouver Island.

I believe that if an LNG project goes ahead, a large-diameter line

built to Prince Rupert and a liquefaction plant built there or at Port

Simpson, the facilities exist to ship liquefied natural gas by barge

down the coast to serve communities en route as well as on Vancouver

Island, to build up a gas market on the west coast, in the more remote

and island communities. Perhaps someday — in the year 2000 or later —

it may be economical to build a pipeline to the Island when the markets

have been built up. But in the interim the economic thing to do is to

serve the modestly developing local market with efficient means of

transport, namely barges bringing environmentally safe gas down the

coast. I think that's the way to go, and again it doesn't involve the

provincial government raising large sums of money, making a very

substantial subsidy for a pipeline development in this province. I hope

it doesn't get into that.

I'd cut taxes, Mr. Speaker. In this province we happen to have some

of the highest taxes on business anywhere in Canada. We have recently

cut our taxes on small business. Our corporation income tax on small

business is average. But at 16 percent, ours is the highest rate on

medium and large businesses — I'm talking about corporation income tax

— anywhere in the nation. Our property taxes, as a big generalization,

are also higher than those in any other province. I'm talking about

property taxes bearing on business. So our corporation income tax, as a

big generalization, is the highest in the country. Our property taxes

are among the highest.

We still have a capital tax. I'm very much opposed to it. I realize

that it no longer applies to small business. I realize that the finger

is pointed more and more just at the banks and some financial

institutions — those with capitalization of over $1 million. But if we

aspire on the west coast to do as they've been able to do in California

— attract banking and industry, a set of financial institutions which

can serve not only our industry locally but also our export trade —

then we'd better get rid of this capital tax. We'd better welcome the

banking activity and tax that activity as any other. Don't have a

highly discriminatory tax, which, incidentally, impinges very

unfavourably on any small business, let alone medium and large

businesses, which has to have at any time during the year as much as $1

million tied up in an inventory or in any kind of investment or

operation. We should do away with it. It's a tax which the NDP brought

in. It's a tax which is aimed at accumulating plant equipment —

modernization. It's an unusual tax. It's not used in many other parts of

the world. Let's get rid of it. It doesn't generate much income. From

where I sit, I think it's the wrong kind of tax, and it ill-befits us

here in British Columbia.

I'd watch this prospective tax which might be brought in

retroactively on machinery and equipment in the process of being

installed and on buildings in the process of being built. I hope it's

not going to happen. We don't need that kind of thing in British

Columbia. If we're going to have taxes, let's have them out in the

open, up front, not retroactive. Let's not bring in taxes which

penalize people who took initiatives in

[ Page 3262 ]

previous years, and let's not penalize those have unknowingly

attracted a tax which will be imposed after the event. I think that's

wrong.

I spoke on the fuel tax for shipping in the last session. I intend

to continue to speak about it. It's an unwise tax. It's an unnecessary

tax. I think it's even a foolish tax. The tax on oil used for bunkering

ships and by our towboat industry, and so on, generated some $20

million of revenue several years ago. In 1981, I believe, it was $20

million; last year it generated less than $6 million; and at the new

high rate it's likely to generate something like $2 million. It's now

generating one-tenth of what it did. What is happening is that ships,

towboat companies, and whatever, will take their fuel on anywhere but

in a B.C. port. We've also substantially put an end to what is

admittedly a modest activity: fuelling ships.

Here we have on the west coast of Canada the busiest port on the

west coast of the Americas, one of the busiest ports in the world, and

yet the function of supplying fuel to ships there is drying up. The

fuel isn't being brought in from outside. The fuel generated by our oil

refineries is disappearing. The people who would normally have been

putting the fuel on board have been selling off their equipment.

They're disbanding the bunkering function. I think that's very

short-sighted. I can't see why the Minister of Finance continues on this

course, because it's certainly not industrial development. It's

generating unemployment rather than employment, and it is

counter-productive as far as revenue to the treasury is concerned. So,

Mr. Speaker, I hope that's not an indication of attitudes towards, say,

the capital tax, some of these other counter-productive taxes, which

over the long term drive away more business than they attract. I think

we have to watch that in British Columbia.

Restraint. We certainly have to contain government. Government has

been growing rapidly the world over. It's been growing in western

countries. A report recently put out by the International Monetary Fund

indicated that as much as 60 percent of the expenditures in Sweden,

Ireland and one or two other countries in western Europe was

expenditure by government; the private sector was, ergo, 40 percent. In

Canada today the figure is approaching 50 percent. In other words,

every second dollar that turns over in Canada is spent by government.

The other dollar is spent by you and me, by the private sector. In

British Columbia the figure is again in the order of 48 percent. The

federal government is responsible for about half of that, but a good

part of the latter half — in the order of 20 percent today — is as a

result of expenditures by this provincial government, and the

percentage is now higher in this province than ever before in our

history. I think we have to be concerned about the growth of

government, not just generally, not just federally, but also

provincially. For that reason I welcome restraint, and I would like to

hear that restraint is in fact operative, and that we are able to cap

some of our expenditures and to limit others.

The biggest single expense item, of course, is health. Health

provisions of various kinds are getting on to being a third of our

current budget. It's difficult to know how that rapidly growing budget

can be contained, because health care is so important to so many

people. When anyone is ill, price is no object, and regardless of

expense, service must be provided. So we have the substantial problem,

as does every other jurisdiction nowadays — certainly in the western

democracies — of trying to contain health-care costs. That's a major

challenge.

In periods of relatively high unemployment, of course, the Human

Resources budget is inordinately high, and it will continue to be high

for some years. That's another very difficult challenge.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Education is perhaps the only area in the so-called "people

programs" sector where costs can at least be contained. We have a

declining enrolment, at least at the primary and secondary school

levels, and for that reason we should be able to stabilize our costs in

primary and secondary education.

I've spoken about foreign students at our colleges and universities.

I still believe that foreign students — I'm talking about visa

students, not landed immigrants; and I'm certainly not talking about

Canadians — should pay average costs. If they did we would be in hand

by another $20 million or $30 million. I'd like to point out that if in

fact another $20 million or $30 million were available to our colleges

and universities this year or next, they would eliminate in their

budget any problem at least for the next year or two. I would propose

that if we're serious at all about helping students from other lands,

we should set up our own program — ideally federal, but let's say a

federal-provincial program — for scholarships. Let's bring people here

who have proven their ability and are genuinely in need of help. Most

of the foreign students who come here — and there are perhaps 6,000 in

British Columbia today — can afford to pay average costs. Their parents

certainly can afford to pay average costs. Surveys carried out by

Statistics Canada and otherwise indicate that 90 to 95 percent come

from homes where one or both parents were educated at North American

universities. So clearly they can afford it, and I personally see no

reason why the taxpayer in British Columbia should subsidize them to

the extent of perhaps $9,000 or $10,000 a year each to come here.

They'll come here anyway; because their universities are limited in

scope or they can't get into them, they'll come to North America. If

the quality of our education here is good — and I believe it's

excellent — they'll still come. So there's a partial answer in the area

of higher education relative to our budget problems.

[4:30]

There's reference to reform of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the Senate's

not going to be reformed in your lifetime or mine. It might be altered

by the year 2025, but not in the directions which have been indicated

by most of the politicians. I believe it would be better to keep the

Senate the way it is now than to have a Senate along the lines

advocated by this government in 1979 and advocated since. Can you

imagine, Mr. Speaker, this Legislature, this government, advocating the

setting up of a senior or other chamber here in Victoria, manned by the

mayors from the municipalities? We'd have Mayor Harcourt and all the

other mayors sitting there in judgment on the proceedings of this

chamber, having a veto over anything that touched on municipal

jurisdiction — property, services, you name it. It won't happen. There

is no way that members of the House of Commons, any government in

Ottawa, is going to agree to setting up a chamber manned by the

nominees of the Premiers of the provinces. So that should be forgotten.

What I think should be the policy of the government here is that it

should say: Do away with the Senate, but replace it by — call it an

institutionalization — the federal-provincial

[ Page

3263 ]

conference. The federal-provincial conference does perform a function. It has

been recognized. It has worked. It has done a number of important things in

recent times, including amending, finally, our constitution. I think we should

institutionalize the federal-provincial conference and have the Premiers and

the Prime Minister meet in the red chamber in Ottawa. Call it the House of Confederation

or whatever, and give it a small staff. Have that as our Senate. To the extent

that the provinces and the federal government can get together to amend the

constitution and so on, that would be the mechanism or the process or the sets

of tasks given to the upper chamber. So we would have a unique Canadian institution,

one which had evolved, one which suited our needs, one which got the federal

cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the Premiers together periodically

to resolve the differences which they had, at least to compare notes and occasionally

agree to make some change or other. That would be a very useful political institution.

We'd be sending people there who were elected. Every one of them would be

elected. That would be, as I say, an institution which came from the grassroots

in this country, an institution which would have an ongoing life and an ongoing

relevance.

I'm afraid that if you had an elected Senate, especially by

proportional representation, elected by the people of Canada, that

Seate would, over time, become another Senate akin to the Senate in the

United States; you'd have another House in Ottawa, which, because of

its smaller numbers and its longer term of office for each member,

would be much more powerful than the House of Commons. The Senate in

the United States was formerly an appointed Senate until around the

turn of the century, when it became elected. Since then it's become the

most powerful House in Washington, D.C. Do we want to create an

American-type Senate in Ottawa, which would have more power even than

the House of Commons? Can you imagine? It would soon have its own

bureaucracy. It would soon be a duplicate of the House of Commons in

Ottawa. It would soon have its powers-that-be there. You'd have

compromises negotiated periodically between the elected Senate and the

House of Commons; legislation would somehow get passed in an amended

form.

Worst of all, what you'd have is another power centre in eastern

Canada. In addition to the House of Commons and the cabinet, as we know

them now, we'd have another body there which would speak presumably for

the provinces and for the regions, which had validity, a meaning. But

those politicians would spend most of their time in Ottawa. They'd

become Ottawa-oriented. Indeed, the majority would come from east of

the Manitoba-Ontario boundary; in fact, half or more would come from

east of the Ottawa Valley. So they'll be eastern-oriented, eastern in

outlook. There'd be an eastern bureaucracy. It's more power for the

centre. I can't imagine an elected Senate, if it results in more power

in the centre of Canada, being good news for any of us out here. For

that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to anything other than an

institutionalization of the federal-provincial conference as a

replacement for the Senate.

There are some things the province should do and, in fact, is doing to help

prime the pump in this period of slow recovery: add to our hospital capacity.

It's doing that really in contrast to what's being done in most other

provinces, where they're closing hospitals. We're building new facilities

and bringing in a lot more new equipment. We're building a rapid transit

system in the lower mainland, which may be ahead of its time, but in future

years it will be well used. It's one, I think, which should be extended

sooner rather than later to the more rapidly growing municipalities in the lower

mainland, namely Surrey and Coquitlam, for a few more tens of millions of dollars

— 5 to 10 percent of the cost of the first phase. Surrey certainly can be connected.

I believe we should be doing that kind of thing as part of the ongoing process

of improving the infrastructure in the lower mainland.

Highways certainly must continue to invest now because, first, it

helps keep people employed in the construction industry and, secondly,

they're able to get work done at a much lower cost than has been the

case heretofore, because the construction firms and others are really

very hungry.

Those are my main messages, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to close on one topic of concern to me and I think to

many people in my riding, indeed I believe many people in the province,

and that's immigration. Whenever I raise this topic here or certainly

in other places among people who are generally well-informed in matters

of politics they say: "Well, that's a federal matter. You can't really

deal with it at the provincial level." That's not true, Mr. Speaker.

Under the constitution as it now stands, responsibility for immigration

is concurrent. That means parallel — federal and provincial. It's not

exclusively federal. I realize that the federal government

substantially makes the laws and controls the immigration flow, but

provinces can, under the law, have an influence. Provinces certainly

foot the bill when it comes to education, health care and many other

services for people. Various provinces, not just Quebec — Nova Scotia,

Ontario, Saskatchewan — for some years now have had a contractual

agreement with Ottawa about immigration and how to handle immigration.

Several of them send their own immigration officers overseas, as well

as the federal people, and they scrutinize people who come. They take

an interest in who should come, who will fit in and so on.

I think that British Columbia, perhaps more than any other province

in Canada, has an interest — must have an interest — in immigration

flows. We've only got some 2.8 million people in this province. Around

the Pacific Rim there are 1,000 million-plus in China, 500 million-plus

in Indonesia and Singapore, there are 700 million or 800 million in

India; not to mention eastern Europe and so on. We have — just looking

out across the Pacific — some 2,000 million people, the majority of

whom, if they had any choice at all, would come here. We've got the

minute number here, we've got a magnificent province, we've got great

resources, we've got great potential and we will see a lot more people

come to these shores. I think that any provincial government that's

concerned about the management of property, concerned about the

provision of people services, concerned about any people thing, has to

take an interest in immigration. How many people can w