1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3461 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of B.C. Place. Mr. Williams –– 3461

Lake Koocanusa water level. Ms. Edwards –– 3461

Verrin decision quote in Info Line. Mr. Sihota –– 3462

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 3462

Tabling Documents –– 3463

Throne speech debate

Mr. Loenen –– 3463

Mr. Rabbitt –– 3466

Tabling Documents –– 3470

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is my wife,

Sheila, and a friend of ours, a former resident of Burnaby, Dianna

Dobson. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to acknowledge that present in the

House yesterday for the throne speech was Mel Hurtig, a distinguished

Canadian publisher, a defender of Canada and founder of the Council of

Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to invite the House to join me in

congratulating the Coquitlam Centennial Centaurs, the girls' basketball

team that for the second year in a row has won the B.C. AA

championship. We would like to congratulate all the members of that

team, their coach, Steve Pettifer, and two members who were appointed

to the all-star team, Tanys Gerrard and Laura Betcher. Please join me

in congratulating them.

MR. DAVIDSON: I hope the House will join me in welcoming Mr.

and Mrs. Bill Dick, who are visiting from Ontario, friends of my

father. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr.

John Gilchrist, who is a director on our New Westminster Social Credit

executive.

Oral Questions

SALE OF B.C. PLACE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Because of selling off all of

B.C. Place as one parcel, you have effectively closed off the bidding

to all but the greatest economic powers in the world, Bell Canada and

Mr. Li from Hong Kong, with no opportunity for small- or medium-scale

entrepreneurs in British Columbia. Could the Premier explain if he's

reconsidering the decision of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to sell

off another $700 million in great land assets — Songhees, Westwood

Plateau and bank loans — all in one $700 million sale.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What we are seeking is the best deal

for the people of the province. What we hope to accomplish — and

certainly expect to accomplish — is an opportunity to create

investment, new development, many jobs, not only for this year but for

many years to come. It's a very positive program. That's the goal of

government, and we're making good progress.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's very clear that smaller-scale land sales return

greater returns throughout the private sector than large-scale land sales, and

you have exempted all small British Columbia businessmen, entrepreneurs and

developers by having $700 million sales. Are you not reconsidering, or have

you given up faith in the small businessman of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I repeat, if we were simply attending

to real estate I suppose we could piece things out over a long period

of time, but I believe we owe it to the people of the province and the

people of Vancouver to get the very best development possible, the

'greatest return not only in money and dollars over the long haul, but

certainly as well in terms of jobs, in terms of building a better

province.

MR. WILLIAMS: By selling this way to only a handful of

billionaires on a global scale. you are removing the opportunity for

small-scale British Columbians in this sector. Can you explain why you

would not sell parts of these lands separately? Can you explain why you

would sell $300 million in bank loans along with S400 million worth of

land as one package that excludes all British Columbians and all

British Columbia corporations" Can you give the House assurance that

the surpluses to be made off these great lands will be reinvested in

British Columbia when it will likely be an offshore owner who gets the

boodle?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously the member is simply attempting to phrase a question around certain assumptions that he's made for himself.

LAKE KOOCANUSA WATER LEVEL

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

Recreation and Culture. An all-time low level at Koocanusa Lake in

British Columbia and Montana this summer is expected to decimate the

recreational value of the lake in the highest kokanee spawning season

of its cycle. Has the minister decided what to do to offset this major

negative impact on the tourism industry and the recreational enjoyment

of 18,000 campers and fishing enthusiasts?

HON. MR. REID: Well. since I was not aware of the concern, I'll take it on notice and get a response back.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

The range manager has estimated a cost of $52,000 to be able to control

Crown range for domestic and wild animals during this single year of

low water in the Koocanusa Lake reservoir behind Libby Dam. These

improvements are unusable when the water level returns to normal. Has

the minister decided to protect the delicate, ever-diminishing range

resource by approving an expenditure for this range fencing?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment and Parks. Has the minister directed his staff to examine

the kokanee fishery to determine whether the excessive draw-down by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Libby, Montana. can be offset in this

banner kokanee spawning year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, I was going to give an answer, but I'll take it on notice, if that's what you prefer.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has the minister reviewed Hydro's

function, to ensure that B.C. ministries, agencies and the public are

properly warned of possible

[ Page 3462 ]

problems from Columbia River Treaty reservoirs being managed in Oregon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

Unfortunately, rainfall over the last several years in the Inland

Empire in the United States and indeed in southern B.C. has been below

average; it has been above average further north in the province. The

main problem is lack of rainfall.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the minister. The question

was: have you considered ways in which B.C. Hydro, which is the entity

in B.C., will contact and communicate with ministries, agencies and the

public about what's going on?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that B.C. Hydro has

been in touch with the other ministries and, indeed, I believe that the

chairman of B.C. Hydro and some of his staff will be here in the next

several days to describe the problem and further communicate with

members and, of course, with the public.

[2:15]

VERRIN DECISION QUOTE IN INFO LINE

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Premier. I have with me

in the House today the Info Line as it relates to the Verrin decision,

and I am sad to say that this is quite honestly deceptive and

misleading. On page 3 in boldface in that Info Line it says: "The

province" — and those are the operative words — "is not required to

keep these persons in exactly the same job they held before the

contracting out." That quote is attributed to Mr. Stephen Kelleher, a

labour arbitrator.

That quote is doctored. The decision of Mr. Kelleher in which he

made that comment has nothing to do with Verrin, and it has nothing to

do with the provincial government. Why has the government chosen to

mislead affected employees by boldfacing that quote and referring to it

in Life Line?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Since this is a matter under appeal, I will refer it to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I would just remind the member that that

case and that decision are not only under appeal, but there have been

now about four different decisions on the very point in issue that he

keeps belabouring in this House. An arbitrator reached one decision,

the new labour appeal tribunal reached one decision, the LRB reached

another decision, and the judge reached a different decision.

So rather than waving it around as some kind of final position in

this province, he should await the appeal process like everybody else

does in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: The government talks about the decision when it's

to their advantage to talk about it and tries to pass it off as being

in front of the courts. But what's not in front of the courts is this

Life Line. And the decision stands in terms of giving employees a

choice. My questions were not to the decision, but to this falsehood

that the government is passing about.

Again to the government document, not to the decision: the

government document Life Line says on page 1 on the left-hand column,

and I quote if the Premier wants to listen: "Arbitrators have ruled

that government does not have to place employees affected by

Article 24

in the same job they held before contracting out." The only decision

involving the government on this point is the December 20, 1985,

decision which held exactly the opposite: that employees had to go to

the same job.

Again to the Premier: why is this comment in Life Line a falsehood? Why are you misleading your employees?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I've not seen the information, but I will take it on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to get to his questions maybe just a little quicker.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll try to keep them as short as I can, Mr. Speaker. I'm just quoting.

The Premier says that he hasn't seen this document. It seems to me

that as a basic precept of government accountability the government

must be accountable for this document. The document refers to a Supreme

Court of Canada decision upsetting common-law principles. The decision

in Verrin says the people have a choice as to whether they should go to

the private sector or the public sector. The British Columbia Court of

Appeal has held that those very common-law principles that this

document rejects hold in this province. Why has the government again

chosen to mislead its employees? Will it now, in light of these

falsehoods, apologize to its employees?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

MR. SIHOTA: One final question, Mr. Speaker. Again, to the

Premier — and it doesn't relate to Verrin or this item. But without

even reading the Verrin decision, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) was quoted as saying that it would not halt the government's

privatization plans. Does the Premier not agree that this Info Line

serves only to reinforce the fact that the government will bully

through with its privatization plans, with falsehoods and deceptive and

misleading information? Isn't that really what the government is doing

here?

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CASHORE: A question for the Premier. The government

continues to refuse to kick in its share of funding for hungry school

kids. Does the Premier realize that his refusal is denying federal

dollars for the Vancouver School Board and hungry schoolchildren?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Any matter with respect to social services or a request for such should be deferred to the Minister of Social Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the member, I've made it very clear in

this House and through the media what our position is on the

schoolchildren in Vancouver. I will reiterate it, since he has brought

up the matter again: we choose to look after the well-being of all the

children in the province, not just those in six selected schools in

downtown Vancouver, Mr. Member. Our concern is for all the children —

the preschoolers at home — who may be going hungry. We ask

[ Page

3463 ]

again that the Vancouver School Board cooperate with us in this venture.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the Premier. That was a "let

them eat cake" answer. In view of the Premier's high-falutin talk of

family values and of his costly media hype supporting families, will

the Premier now do the decent thing, be consistent with the public

image he is promoting and kick in the provincial share to free up

federal moneys to feed the hungry children?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This matter is with respect to a

possible social services program, and I would therefore defer to the

Minister of Social Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, I would just like to reiterate

that our mandate is to look after the well-being of all the children in

the province of British Columbia. We take that mandate very seriously.

We have said — and I have said personally on may occasions — that we

will put whatever resources necessary into the well-being of children,

but we will put it in at the family level to support and strengthen the

families in this province, as is our policy — not only the policy of

the Premier, that the member referred to, but of every member on this

side.

We believe in the strength of the family, and that is where we wish

to direct our resources. On behalf of the taxpayers of British

Columbia, I will reiterate for the member that we will put the money

into the program at the front end but not at both ends. If the

Vancouver School Board determines that they must enter into a program

to feed children in six selected schools, then that is their decision.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the eleventh annual report of the business

done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year

ended March 31, 1987.

Orders of the Day

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is with great

pleasure that 1, the second member for Richmond, present the following

motion, seconded by the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), on

behalf of the people of British Columbia and the government of our

province: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour

has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

It is indeed a singular honour for me to move the Address in Reply

to the Speech from the Throne. I do so with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The Speech from the Throne is optimistic. It is forward-looking. It is

challenging. It sets the tone. It provides great leadership. It is

visionary, yet realistic. It encompasses the hopes, the dreams, the

aspirations of the people of this great province. It allows us to move

forward, and to face the future with a great deal of confidence.

Together we can do it.

On behalf of all members assembled here, Mr. Speaker. I wish to welcome you

back to this second session of the thirty-fourth parliament. We all appreciate

the dedication you have shown in performing your duties.

The legislative agenda before us is vigorous and strong. Why?

Because it springs from a will to make things better for all. It

provides a realistic basis of hope for the unemployed, security for the

elderly, support for single-parent families, increased educational

opportunities for young British Columbians and strong support for

families and our children, because they represent the future.

The government's message to the people of British Columbia is that

golden opportunities await us — opportunities which can be ours if we

show drive, initiative, determination, zeal and, above all, the will to

work together. We, the government of this great province, challenge all

to cooperate, to acknowledge our dependence on each other. Building a

better society is a communal undertaking. The different geographical

regions throughout our great province need each other. The different

sectors of the economy need each other. Employers and employees, trade

unions and employer organizations need each other. Men and women,

government and opposition, professional and client, consumers and

producers all need each other.

Mr. Speaker. the Speech from the Throne is full of vigour and vitality, because

our government believes in people. We trust people. People are our greatest

strength. our finest resource. Government is not the expert: people are. Ordinary

British Columbians within the context of the shop floor, the office, the small

business. their sports and other voluntary organizations. are the experts. They

know the problems, and they know the solutions. The so-called professional experts

are not the answer. Victoria is not the answer. Government bureaucrats are not

the answer. It's the ingenuity, the drive, the dedication, the skills and

the abilities of ordinary British Columbians. Our legislative program has one

aim, and one aim only: it is to unleash that boundless reservoir, that tremendous

resource, people power.

British Columbia has a people's party. It is called Social Credit. I

am proud to be with this Premier and this government. The promise was

open government, and we have delivered. Someone once wrote: "There is

one thing better than good government. and that is government in which

all the people have a part." Open government means not only accountable

government — it certainly is that — but also pooling everybody

together. It means creating a structure which allows everyone to make a

contribution. That is democracy at work. Mr. Speaker. that is why I am

pleased that this second session of the thirty-fourth Parliament will

continue the privatization. decentralization and restructuring of

government initiatives.

In addition, I support the activities of the numerous advisory

bodies. the active participation of this Legislature's standing

committees. and the various task forces. If we were to list all the

various task forces and the commissions and the advisory bodies, it

would fill more than a page — almost a page and a half. In fact. the

degree of citizens' participation in this government is absolutely

unprecedented.

A well-thought-out plan for the future is essential. I look forward

to the White Paper which will chart a plan for economic development and

the provision of social services during the next decade. I am

especially pleased that this plan will be taken to the people for

public input. Mr. Speaker, through you I commend the Premier for

setting such a positive tone and providing such strong leadership.

I now wish to address some particulars.

Our record of creating jobs, of increasing employment opportunities. is absolutely the best in the country. British

[ Page 3464 ]

Columbia's employment growth rate was 7.3 percent

between January '87 and January '88. That compares with a national

growth rate in jobs of 4.1 percent. However. the seasonally adjusted

unemployment rate of 10.1 percent is still very high. Our number one

social problem remains unemployment.

[2:30]

There is nothing more devastating, for young people particularly,

than to be told there is no place for them; that after all their

schooling and training they are unable to obtain a job. The

psychological effects of that are immense. We are committed to

increasing the job opportunities. We are committed to providing all our

energies, all our output, to creating those jobs so necessary for our

young people.

When we think about that number one social problem of creating jobs

for those members of society who have the abilities and the talents and

the resources to make a productive contribution, we should also think

about what wage increases can do to meeting that problem. Because wage

increases have an effect on the jobs, the number of people who are

employed. We are a trading province, and high wage increases and labour

unrest impede trade. We know that.

Recently I was confronted with this in a very graphic way. I came

across a book of pictures about British Columbia. This excellent book

was published in North Vancouver. It was typeset in Connecticut, in the

U.S., and printed in Korea.

That is the reality we face. We are in a global village. We compete

not just with our own industries; we have to compete with the world

that is all around there, because modern means of communication and

technology mean that those jobs can be placed anywhere in the world

today. That is the reality, and when we talk about wage increases and

the number of union contracts that fall due this year, we have to

remember what it does to our employment picture and to our ability to

compete with the various economies of the world. We have to be mindful

of the fact that we still have an unemployment rate of over 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that we have to be creative; that we

have to be a caring society; that we have to look at job-sharing; that

if we want to meet the needs of those who do not share the good life,

we have to look more creatively at the kind of union contracts we

conclude. Because wage increases can truly be justified only if there

is an increase in productivity. That's the only rational basis for a

wage increase. We ought to be aware of that.

We have a very large sector of our economy, the public employees,

who somehow are exempt from that fundamental natural law, because how

do you measure the productivity of the public sector? In that case, the

only justification is where wage increases are tied to productivity

level increases in the private sector. I think it's relevant for us to

remember that, because for the last two years public sector wage

increases have been double those of the private sector. I'm quoting

here from some statistics prepared by the Ministry of Labour and

Consumer Services and Statistics Canada. In '86 and '87, public sector

wage increases amounted to 5.4 percent,

whereas private sector wage

increases during the same time period amounted to 2.6 percent, which is

exactly half. The question remains: are we pricing ourselves out of

world markets? Do high incomes for some mean no income for others? The

low-income sectors, which include the women of our province, will be

watching to see whether we have justice in the way we apportion the

benefits that accrue from our economy.

Many of the people across the way will talk about equal pay for work

of equal value, and that's a wonderful concept. It's motherhood; we all

love it. But how do you implement that? How do you measure that? Be

reasonable about this. You would require a machinery; you would require

a Big Brother bureaucracy that is worse than anything George Orwell

ever dreamt of in the brave new world. What we need instead is equality

of opportunity for all. I just hope, as we look forward to concluding

many very important labour contracts, that we keep in mind that our

demands ought to be responsible over against those sectors of the

economy that do not participate in the good life.

I hear the IWA talk about two-dollar-an-hour increases. That's very

substantial. Such an increase would have a very unsettling effect; it

would put a squeeze on the small operators. Yes, the big operators

might be able to handle it. It would increase the disparity between the

low-income and the high-income wage earners, and it would largely be a

function of sheer muscle power. At-the same time, we ought to remember

that whenever we increase the cost of the labour factor, it becomes

that much more enticing to buy a machine to take the place of those

workers. It's self-defeating to keep pushing for these kinds of

increases, if indeed that is a serious proposal. If within the forest

industry there are those kinds of benefits, those kinds of profits,

they ought to be redistributed to all the people of British Columbia,

not to a select few who have a lot of muscle.

That leads me into another topic that I'd like to speak about for a

few minutes: the employees' stock-ownership plan which was introduced

last session by the Ministry of Economic Development. These employees'

stock ownership plans will promote a lot of good things. They will

promote more cooperation and harmony between employer and employee;

they will raise productivity. All of these are good things. But more

significantly — and most importantly —they will give the workers a

piece of the action. That is fundamentally important, because what is

happening....

When I was a kid I used to be told that if you work hard you'll do

well, and in some ways that's true. But the fact is that in today's

highly technological society, wage income, income from earnings,

salaries, are insufficient to meet all our needs, never mind all our

demands. Most income in our economy is produced not by hands and brains

but by machine. It is capital income that produces most of our income.

Because of that, because people's wages are insufficient to buy all the

things they need, we have to have free education, free health care,

etc. — all that infrastructure that government supplies. What it means

is that we see the need for government, through these welfare state

programs, to forever redistribute income in a massive sort of way. I

submit to you that it would be fundamentally far more sound if we

allowed the working men and women of this province a piece of the

action, and that is what this employees' stock ownership plan aims to

do.

If the labour unions and our loyal opposition across the way were

truly interested in the well-being of the working class of this

province, they would support this, and we wouldn't have Georgetti

standing up and throwing cold water on these very good plans. There's

nothing more important, upon having completed your productive years,

than that you can look forward to some security in addition to

government state-supplied pensions, and that is what this plan will do.

I know that there are a lot of problems with it as well, and we can

learn from the examples in the U.S., because there have

[ Page 3465 ]

been some problems, but this is a very fundamentally important program.

If we want to downsize government, if we want to give more choice to

people, we have to give them the ability to purchase what they need and

what they want, and we cannot expect to have political democracy unless

there is a great degree of economic democracy. I think the members

across the way would agree with me on that. The way to implement that

is through these kinds of plans, whereby the working men and women of

this province can get a piece of the action.

I want to talk about free trade. When I was a kid growing up in

Holland in the early fifties, there were raging debates about whether

or not tiny little Holland ought to join with the other European

Economic Community leaders. And here was tiny little Holland; they had

just gone through a war; think of the emotional appeal that the

nationalist forces could muster. Big bad Germany is going to do to us

during peacetime what they couldn't do during war; why did our boys go

to war? — etc., etc. We were going to be swallowed economically; we

were going to be swallowed politically. Did any of that take place? No,

Mr. Speaker, none of that took place. We should listen to history. We

should look at the examples of history. Because it has been an

unmitigated success. Who today in Europe would deny that it has been a

great improvement, particularly to those small countries?

When I hear people say that we're going to be swallowed by the U.S.,

and that they are simply going to make us a branch plant, and even that

it will lead to political annexation, etc., that simply is a scare

tactic. This kind of free trade agreement is forward looking. It's

progressive. It has worked out between New Zealand and Australia; it

has worked out between Israel and the U.S.. In fact, the small

countries are usually the greatest beneficiaries of these arrangements.

For years and years — as long as I can remember — we know and we've

talked about the need for secondary industries in the manufacturing

component for British Columbia. We know how important that is, because

that's where the jobs lie.

[2:45]

Why is it that with our well-educated, highly skilled workforce and

with all our natural resources, we have been unable to really take hold

of that secondary industry? It's because we don't have the markets.

that's why. But in California there's a market that's as large as all

of Canada. California is the fifth-largest economic block. By the year

2000, it will comprise some 30 million inhabitants. We need those

markets. We need the challenges that those markets provide for our

people. I support the free trade initiative, and I hope that the

members on this side will as well.

I'd like to talk about integrated health care for seniors. Quality

health care, particularly for our seniors. is a priority of this

government, and I am happy to see that the Ministry of Health is

looking at a pilot project that seeks to integrate the services we

provide to our seniors — a one-stop seniors centre. Right now what we

have is all these divisions. We have personal care, intermediate care

and extended care. But there's nothing more disruptive than for a

senior to have to be moved from one facility to the next. Those kinds

of facilities ought to be combined and put under one roof.

We have some examples in the province already, but I'm glad that the

Ministry of Health is looking into that more fully, because any time

those seniors need to be moved to a different facility, it's extremely

disruptive. You cut off the ties they have been able to create with

people in the communities in which they were housed. I'm looking

forward to that with a great deal of anticipation. I know that the need

for extended care is extremely severe. In our Richmond situation,

there's a shortage of over 100, and the extended care beds are clogging

our Richmond General Hospital.

My experience is — in the case of our community, for sure that the

private care operators provide a better product at less cost than do

the non-profit ones run by community boards. Why is that? Well. it's

very simple to see. It's simply that there is no accountability in the

case of the non-profits.

If the government has a contract with a private operator, and the

private operator does something that he ought not to, all we have to do

is tell him and break that contract at any point. Have you ever tried

to break a contract with a community based non-profit society? It is

impossible. I would urge the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to

take a good look at private operators for these kinds of care

facilities. I hope that the Ministry of Health will be able to

implement a true free enterprise philosophy because it hurts me to see

that time and again the Ministry of Health picks the side of the

non-profit operations.

Recently in Matsqui we had an example of that. The Ministry of

Health gave out a contract to a facility, and I was told that there

were private people interested in it. But no, it was given to a

non-profit organization. I don't understand that. I believe that we

should make sure that our free enterprise message will penetrate into

our ministries, particularly the Ministry of Health.

Our colleague. the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), recently

brought to our attention the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

which spoke in glowing terms of how, in many instances in Alberta and

Ontario. privately managed hospitals are producing excellent results.

The key is accountability. I'm not talking about a two-tiered medical

services plan. What I'm talking about is the need to tighten up the

management practices in our hospitals and health care facilities.

This government supports equal economic opportunities for all

British Columbians: young and old, rural or urban, male or female. Our

government recognizes the need and the importance for women's

initiatives. Women earn 60 percent of what men earn, and I want to

hasten to point out that this is not because of discrimination. It is

because women are, on the average, in the low-paying jobs. The answer

to this is for us to provide the facilities necessary for them to

upgrade their education and their abilities. The answer is emphatically

not that we enforce, through some kind of quota system, equal pay for

work of equal value.

Our government aims for equality of opportunity, not enforced

equality of results. There's a big difference, and that is why the

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training has a whole host of

programs, such as the women apprentices program. the women's

non-traditional employment programs, women as business owners,

self-employment trends for women, as well as increased student aid.

I am happy to see that our government is committed to providing more

affordable and higher standard day care centres, and that we will

continue the subsidies to low-income parents so that they can exercise

their choice of where they would like to purchase the day care they

need for their children. We are committed to providing 20,000 more

spaces over the next seven years and 6,500 of those in the first two

years. In addition. the Minister of Social Services and Housing is

promoting an accreditation program to ensure that we have the kind of

quality necessary.

[ Page 3466 ]

In addition, the government proposes comprehensive programs to

strengthen our families and to support them. This is so important,

because at the root of a strong, healthy and vibrant society are

families that are caring, compassionate and secure, and good families

produce well-adjusted and stable members of society.

I would just like to remind the House that investing in families

pays big dividends. That's why I support the marriage preparation

program. We must also recognize and take note of the fact that a

two-parent family with one parent at home to care for the children is

no longer the norm, and we must adjust to that. Forty-two percent of

our workforce are women. There are 89,000 single-parent families in our

province, most of these headed by women.

This government is committed to ensuring that employment practices

are fair and just and that support services are sufficient and

adequate. I also believe that we need to do all we can to provide the

necessary support services to provide alternatives to abortion. We must

try to find alternative solutions; this government is committed to

providing them. Through education, public awareness, proper

counselling, adoption services, support services and the provision of

shelters for women facing unwanted pregnancies, we will do all we can

to provide those kinds of alternatives.

I would like to talk about the federal-provincial relationship. The

message needs to be heard — and I hope that our media can help us —

that we are putting more into Confederation than we are getting out of

it.

I would just like to read from these statistics regarding the

federal procurements: "B.C. received 4.1 percent of all federal

contracts issued through the Department of Supply and Services in

1986-87." This is a decrease of nearly I percent from the 5.3 percent

procurement rate in 1985-86. The 1985-86 per capita procurement rates

by province show that B.C. gets the least of all the provinces in the

way of procurement contracts. We receive $114 per capita,

whereas

Ontario receives $388 and Quebec $391 per capita. We're talking about

hundreds of millions of dollars. They are our taxpayers' dollars, the

dollars of the people of British Columbia, going into Quebec and

Ontario.

What is really worrisome, and what ought to worry the members

opposite as much as the members on this side, is that the trend is

getting worse — as I've shown from the stats. It's getting worse

instead of better.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to treat this with seriousness. For years we

used to blame it on the wicked Liberals and the Trudeau administration.

Now we have Mulroney and the Conservatives. It is not the people who

are at fault; it is the very system under which we operate, under which

we are partners in Confederation. The city of Toronto has more

representatives in parliament than all of B.C. does. The system is

designed to favour central Canada. We ought to carry that message

across the Rocky Mountains, and I hope that the media people will help

us, because this is very serious.

The relationship between the federal government and the province of

British Columbia is a two-way street. As the Speech from the Throne

mentioned, in many instances we've gone out of our way to make

Confederation work, to help the federal government and the Prime

Minister. But we ought to recognize that a relationship between

provinces, as between people, is a two-way street. It's high time we

get not an extra consideration, not special treatment, but simply what

is our due, what is equitable and right.

In the minutes that remain I wish to talk about our debt and

deficit. Often it's not popular, and people don't like to be reminded

of it. But it's absolute foolishness if we keep closing our eyes to the

tremendous public debt that has arisen not only here in British

Columbia but particularly in Ottawa. I'm delighted we have a government

that's committed to doing something about this. Our direct public debt

stands at nearly $5 billion; the per capita is $1,710 for every man,

woman and child in this province.

I used to be a small businessman — in house construction. No matter

how hard you work, there is no force that affects people in small

businesses more than the rise or drop in interest rates. The effect of

that is absolutely astounding.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: I'm talking about the debt.

As long as governments are in the money markets securing their

financing, it drives up the price of money. What happens is that we,

the small business people of these communities, are the victims. In

1982 the Canada Savings Bond rate — money the government was paying out

— was 19.5 percent. I knew small businessmen who simply packed it in,

put their money into the bonds, sat back and collected the interest.

That's extremely unhealthy.

We ought to recognize that every time we create another inflationary

period, followed by a depression, it takes longer to get out of it.

It's so short-sighted for us to overlook this, to take the easy way

out, to not talk about the debt, to just roll that over onto our

children and their children.

We are committed to doing away with the government debt, and I

admire our Premier for taking that tough stand. We have had the

President of the United States promise that he was going to do

something about the debt. We've had the Prime Minister of this country

promise that he was going to do something about the public debt. We all

know that it's right. We all know that it's necessary. But we are doing

something about it.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain I'd like to say a word

about decentralization. I believe in open government. I believe that we

have to create channels of communication, that there must be a way in

which we can put our ear to the ground and listen to the people of this

province — and that is what this initiative is all about.

Looking at my own region, region 2, there is a great need to not

only listen but also look at, for instance, the transportation needs of

that region. The transportation corridors and needs require the

cooperation of many ministries, of many levels of government, The

minister of state for our region is uniquely situated to bring together

these people and to tackle a big problem such as transportation.

There is much work ahead of us. There are great opportunities for

us. I am proud to be part of this government, and I am anxious to help

and to get on with the job, and to build a better society for all.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an

honour for me, as the elected representative of Yale Lillooet, to

second the Speech from the Throne, just moved by the second member for

Richmond.

I would first like to note that my dear wife, Eileen, has journeyed

from the riding to join us in the opening of the second session of the

thirty-fourth parliament and is seated in the gallery today.

[ Page 3467 ]

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in

the House for appointing me as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole. I will do my best to fulfil the role in an honourable way which

will meet the expectations of this assembly. I would like also to

mention that I'm very pleased to be part of this great tradition.

I offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his reappointment as Deputy Speaker.

I'd like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate both

you and the Deputy on the fine job you have done. Your impartiality and

adherence to the rules of this Legislature have added immeasurably to

the quality of the debate that takes place in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech offers British Columbians a vision

for the future. It is a blueprint that details our government's plans

to ensure the long-term well-being of our province.

Ours is a government of action, not one of empty promises. British

Columbians, regardless of where they live or their political

viewpoints, are concerned with the economic and social future of this

province. In the throne speech our government has charted a course that

will successfully steer British Columbia into the twenty-first century.

We are not only planning for today, but we are also planning for

tomorrow and the many tomorrows that are to follow.

Planning for the future, I believe it is important that we also take

stock of the past. As someone once said, a person without a past has no

future. I'm proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that Social Credit governments

can be proud of their past.

I am also proud to say Social credit governments in our province

have always been concerned with this province's future. The present

administration, along with previous administrations — whether under

Bill Bennett or W.A.C. Bennett — all were concerned with securing a

prosperous future for all British Columbians. The W.A.C. Bennett vision

brought forth many of the programs and services that we enjoy today.

People programs, such as medicare, hospitalization and a first-class

highway system, and two universities, namely the University of Victoria

and Simon Fraser, were all established during the senior Bennett's

regime. Bill Bennett continued the vision for British Columbia. He

brought forth and undertook many innovative projects, such as shelter

for elderly residents, Pharmacare, the Knowledge Network, B.C. Place

Stadium and Expo 86, and he continued to expand upon our first-class

highway system.

Our government, like previous Social Credit administration, has a

long-term plan to ensure a prosperous future for British Columbia. For

while we have the same goal for British Columbia as the previous Social

Credit administrations, we are also cognizant that new times bring new

challenges. Our Premier realizes this. We have a Premier who is

dynamic, who has a vision for British Columbia. We have a Premier who

is not afraid to challenge the status quo. We have a Premier who has

the courage to fight for his convictions. Political debate has been

enlivened under our Premier. He is willing to test our basic

assumptions. I believe our Premier is not only concerned with the

challenges of today: he is preparing our province for the challenges of

tomorrow. Our government's plan is built around economic realities of

the eighties and designed to meet the challenges of the twenty-first

century.

Our government's resolve to eliminate the deficit is an initiative

of our concern for the future. As the leaders of today, we cannot in

good conscience saddle future generations with public debt which, if

remained unchecked, would eventually threaten the quality of life that

all British Columbians enjoy. By eliminating the public debt, we will

build a more stable province in British Columbia, providing social and

economic security for all British Columbians, both young and old.

Our government's emphasis on privatization and regionalization are

two important steps that will help ensure a prosperous future for our

province.

I am very proud to be a member of this government, which in the last

year has shown strong leadership and initiative. I am proud of the

effectiveness of this government, and our economy is continuing to

improve. Traditional resource-based industries like mining, pulp and

paper and the forest industry are showing continued growth,

particularly in the area of added-value products.

Our job creation is second to none in Canada. Between January 1987

and January 1988, 95,000 new jobs were created in this province. and we

are confident that 1988 will bring continued growth to British

Columbia. This confidence is not based on a false hope; rather, it's

based on solid economic indicators. For example. economic forecasters

believe that the real GPP will rise 4 percent to percent in 1988 — the

strongest gain since 1981.

The B.C. average unemployment rate may fall to 9.5 percent by the

end of 1988 and 8.5 percent by 1989. Retail sales could be up by up to

5 percent in real terms. These figures are not from government data;

these are not from Social Credit research. but from a newsletter

produced by Pemberton entitled "Western Commentary." The newsletter

goes on to say that British Columbia's economy will out perform the

national average. I believe our province's unemployment rate will

decline, and that employment growth will continue.

As well, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada said that

capital investment in our province continues to far exceed the Canadian

average. up 21 percent to $6.2 billion in 1987. This compares with a

national increase of only 8 percent. Clearly. our economic record in

the past year is one that our government can take pride in.

In January 1988. our employment level was 6.6 percent higher than

when the government took office in October 1986. This is considerably

higher than the national average of 4.7 percent. Economic growth is not

only taking place in our mainstay industries of forestry, miring and

pulp and paper. but many other industries continue to grow. I am

pleased to see that our throne speech mentioned that high-tech industry

now employs more than 10,000 people and has an average growth rate of

20 percent since 1983.

With over $11.2 billion invested in our province last year, investor

confidence is clearly on the increase. While economic growth and

diversification has taken place, we as a government do not believe in

standing still. By increasing funding for education and increasing

post-secondary support, we are laying the groundwork for tomorrow's

economy.

I'm especially glad to see that our government has made a commitment

to further improve financial assistance to students. It is important

that we as a government provide equal access to our post-secondary

institutes for all British Columbians, regardless of where they reside.

Students outside the lower mainland and a greater Victoria face a much

greater task in attending a post-secondary institute, especially a

university, than do students who reside in a major urban area. I hope

[ Page 3468 ]

that this increase in student aid will lead to larger numbers of rural students attending post-secondary institutes.

[3:15]

Increasing the number of computers in our classrooms is indicative

of our government's concern for our province's future. To all those

teachers in my riding who contacted me urging this initiative, I say:

"Your government listened and acted." It is important that we as

legislators realize that by investing in education, we are investing in

our future and our children's future. Further, I am positive that the

Royal Commission on Education will come forth with recommendations that

will serve to further enhance the quality of education in the province.

Education is the launching pad of our province's future.

I am also pleased that our government is preparing to put into place

a long-term strategic plan for our province. Ours is the only province

that is venturing in developing such a longterm plan through a process

of public consultation. In developing a long-term plan for British

Columbia, we will seek input from all residents, be they cabinet

ministers, senior citizens, university students, employers or

employees. All will have input in developing this plan. This is a plan

for British Columbians by British Columbians. Not only will we develop

long-term objectives but as well we will develop a strategic plan to

meet these objectives. We will also monitor and evaluate our goals and

objectives in order to ensure that they are being met. Ultimately, our

long-range planning initiative will lead to planning determining

budgets, not budgets determining planning. Our long-range plan will be

built around the concerns and needs of three million people who reside

in this province.

As part of our commitment to the future, I am pleased that our

government supports the free trade agreement with the United States.

British Columbia is a trading province. Our economic livelihood depends

on our ability to sell our goods in the international arena. As a

province we cannot afford to isolate ourselves from economic reality.

In today's interdependent global economy, it is imperative that we have

access to open markets. Since British Columbia is a world trader, we

must also seek to enhance our trade ties with other countries,

especially those in the Pacific Rim. I am pleased that our government

will make British Columbia known around the world and is concentrating

on the Pacific Rim. By profiling our people and our products, we will

be able to take advantage of our strategic position and economic

diversity.

I am pleased to see that our government will back up words with

legislation that ensures our province maximizes our trade with the

United States and our Pacific Rim neighbours. We will also be providing

assistance where required so as to help business adjust to the free

trade agreement. We will ensure that the needs of our agricultural

community are met. My riding of Yale-Lillooet is aware of the

advantages of free trade, and I have spoken of the benefits of free

trade to our province. Yale-Lillooet will directly benefit from free

trade. Mining, ranching and the forest industry will all be winners

because of this agreement. These are all industries which have been of

historic significance to my constituency.

Yale-Lillooet and its pioneers played a major role in the

development of this great province. The Hudson's Bay Co. recognized the

potential of this area early on and dealt in both fur and gold. News of

the rich gold fields in Yale, Tulameen and Lillooet traveled fast. In

1858, 25,000 people came to Yale to pursue their fortunes and their

dreams in the gold fields. Later many more adventurers traveled along

the Gold Rush Trail through the Fraser Canyon on their way to the

Cariboo fields. Both the beauty and the rich agriculture and economic

potential of my constituency lured many of these early travelers to

settle in this area. My family is one that came and stayed.

The livelihood of the pioneers in the early days of our area is

still reflected in the type of economic activities which dominate our

economy today. Mining, forestry and ranching continue to be the

mainstays. Today copper and moly mining are a major employer in our

region. The Highland Valley copper mine is currently the largest base

metal mine in North America and ranks in the world's top three when

considering total tonnes mined and milled each year. It is essential to

the mining industry that we remain competitive in the world market. Our

government's commitment to examine and review taxes on profits in the

mineral industry should be a positive step in the right direction.

The early settlers recognized the agricultural potential of the

areas of the Nicola Valley. The historic Douglas Lake Cattle Co. is

still one of the largest ranches in the world. Yale was on an important

transportation route, and that role has continued today as a historic

tourist stop. In today's world of fast and efficient transportation,

people are traveling for pleasure as well as for business. Travelers

can choose the fast and efficient Coquihalla or the scenic Fraser

Canyon or the Hope-Princeton, or they can take one of the less traveled

routes and enjoy some of the unsurpassed scenery on routes like the

Duffy Lake road.

Yale-Lillooet has tremendous tourism potential. We must continue to

promote the historical Gold Rush Trail. After all, there is still gold

to be found by those willing to follow the footsteps of those early

pioneers. We must also develop the area's destination resort potential.

Whitewater rafters have already discovered the excitement of

whitewater rafting on the Thompson. I am pleased to say that the throne

speech proposes to bring forth legislation which will place commercial

river rafting under provincial authority with increased safety.

Just as the people of Yale-Lillooet are concentrating on newer

industries such as tourism, our province as a whole must realize that

we can no longer just rely on the traditional sectors. Our government

recognizes the importance of diversifying our economy. Though we will

undertake initiatives to develop and diversify our economy, our

government will also work with the federal government to ensure that we

receive a fair share from Confederation.

Historically the federal government has viewed British Columbia as

the spoiled child of Confederation. I believe this is unfair and a

biased view. The very nature of the federal system in Canada has hurt

our province. Despite the best intentions of our legislators in Ottawa,

the fact that representation in parliament is based on population

ensures that the interests of central Canada will take precedence over

those of British Columbia.

Our province contributes significantly more to the federation than

we save in return. To an extent, it's due to the fact that, compared to

other provinces, we are a wealthy province. Nevertheless, on a

proportionate basis, our share of federal resources and spending

remains low. While other provinces receive considerable grants and

subsidies. our province is far too often ignored by the federal

government. We must remind the federal government that Canada is a

confederation. By its very nature Confederation implies equality

between the regions that comprise the country.

[ Page 3469 ]

I believe the Meech Lake accord is a positive step in the right

direction. It will offer the provinces an opportunity to have a greater

voice at the federal level. Our government has programs and initiatives

that we would like to undertake, but these require federal assistance.

Kaon and the Vancouver Island gas pipeline are two areas where federal

assistance should be offered. Both projects are worthwhile; both

projects are needed. No one can doubt that if these projects were in

central Canada, funding would have already been committed.

As the representative for Yale-Lillooet, I am supportive of the

initiatives outstanding in my riding and those that occur on the lower

mainland and on Vancouver Island — such as the Island Highway. While my

riding does not benefit directly from projects in Vancouver or

Victoria, I know that the province as a whole benefits, and that's why

I support them. Likewise, on the federal level, we must make MPs in

other sections of the country realize that while a particular project

may not be in their province, it should still be supported because it's

in the best interest of Canada as a whole. It is only by pressuring the

federal government and making MPs from other provinces aware of our

provincial needs that we will receive our fair share.

Our government's commitment to ensuring British Columbia's economic

well-being is pivotal. It is not only through the existence of a strong

economy that we are able to afford these first-class social programs.

Social Credit governments have always placed a high emphasis on

maintaining top-quality social programs. We enjoy a health system

second to none. In order to maintain our health care system, I am

pleased that the government is undertaking an innovative approach in

dealing with health care, particularly as it relates to the promotion

of healthy lifestyles.

Our government is deeply concerned about the importance of family in

our province. The family is the backbone of society, and I cannot

overemphasize the value of that family. Our commitment to a new family

support initiative will serve to promote the interests of the family.

Over the past few years problems at the family level have steadily

become the responsibility of the state. Despite the best intentions of

government, government cannot replace the family. Therefore I am

hopeful that our government's emphasis on the family unit will enable

the family to again take a more effective and responsible role in

society.

Increased funding for day care and increased flexibility in

adoptions are two initiatives which I personally welcome. The economic

and social realities that our government is addressing will provide for

a better future for all British Columbians.

In closing, I would like to say that those of us who have been

elected to sit as legislators are at a political, economic and social

crossroad. The throne speech we heard is probably the most significant

throne speech in the last decade. We are in a transition between

yesterday and tomorrow: we are building today, learning from yesterday

and planning for tomorrow. Previous administrations undertook to build

all infrastructure for our province. Today British Columbians enjoy

first-class transportation routes, social programs and health

facilities. I believe our job as legislators is to build a new

infrastructure, an infrastructure that does not replace the one already

in existence; rather, this new infrastructure will be constructed

around our future needs.

I believe we have set attainable and realistic goals. We have looked

at our strengths and our weaknesses. We have put the challenge to the

people of British Columbia, and I am confident they will meet that

challenge. As one man who led the province for 20 years once said, that

which is physically possible, desirable and morally right must be made

financially possible.

[3:30]

As British Columbians we have a record we can all take pride in.

There are those who undoubtedly remain skeptical. There were cynics on

every major project. There were people who criticized the building of

the domed stadium. There were people who criticized the building of the

Bennett Darn and those who criticized the building of the Mica Dam.

There were those who called SkyTrain a pig in a poke. Then there were

those who said Expo would never work, and after Expo was a success they

said our province was headed for post-Expo recession. But we know the

benefits to British Columbia. British Columbians can and will do the

job.

British Columbia is in a transition from an age of natural resources

to an information and communications age. I want to emphasize that our

natural resource sector is not a sunset industry. We will still rely

oil the natural resource industries to build on that sector, for

example, through the emphasis on value-added products in the forest

industry. Emphasis will also be placed on advanced technological

sectors, particularly those linked with our natural resource sector.

I believe the key factor in planning for tomorrow is educating our

citizens for high-quality jobs today and tomorrow. This will require

closer links between our educators and our business sector. We must

train British Columbians for jobs in British Columbia. In building this

new infrastructure, we will put emphasis on private enterprise to take

the lead in ensuring that our economy grows. and I am confident the

private sector will take up and meet the challenge.

Employers must invest in their employees. Both must take up the challenge and work with our government for the benefit of all.

Small and medium businesses are the backbone of our economy. Our

government realizes this. That is why, through the Ministry of Economic

Development and the Enterprise Centre, we offer entrepreneurs the

opportunity to develop their ideas, regardless of where they reside in

this great province of ours.

We must remember that while government provides the social programs

we all enjoy. it is only private enterprise that creates the wealth

that enables government to perform.

As I said in my opening remarks, Our government is a government of

action. not of empty words. Neither is our government a government of

empty promises. Our government is planning for Our future. Our Premier

is giving us the initiative and the direction. I believe in our future

and I have a dream. I see the opportunity of every individual. every

man and every woman. every boy and every girl, no matter where they may

live in this province, to participate, to contribute and to share in

the future of this great province we call British Columbia.

I will conclude: this Social Credit government has been given a mandate to deliver and, let me tell you, deliver it well.

MR. ROSE: I regret that this exciting afternoon has to

conclude: however, I would like to move on behalf of the Leader of the

Opposition that this exhilarating debate be adjourned until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3470 ]

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the following annual reports: the B.C. Board of Parole

annual report; the sixteenth annual report of the criminal injury compensation

fund; the report of the official Administrator's annual returns for the

calendar year ending December 1986; the annual report for the Legal Services

Society; and the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney-General, completed

to April 31, 1987.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to see that the hon. Leader of

the Opposition will be speaking to us tomorrow — and, of course, he

will be afforded the same courtesy that our members were afforded today.

I would like to advise the House of the sittings for the next couple

of weeks, because there are going to be some differences. We will sit

next Wednesday, which by standing order is when the question to the

Address in Reply is put. The budget speech, as we know, is March 24. On

Friday, March 25, will be the response from the hon. first member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to the budget. At that point, following business

of the budget, we will adjourn for the spring break until Tuesday,

April 5. Because of the standing orders and the speaking requirements

for the budget debate, we'll be reconvening Tuesday, April 5, at 10

a.m.; it works out better that way.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada