1986 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7385 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Nuclear power in B.C. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7385

Canadian Commercial Bank. Mr. Stupich –– 7386

Gifts to pharmacists. Mr. Cocke –– 7386

Social assistance rates. Mr. Barnes –– 7386

Sparwood Library board. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7387

Ministerial Statement

Native land claims. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7387

Mr. Skelly

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7388

Mr. Lea –– 7391

Mr. Mitchell –– 7395

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 7397

Mr. Lockstead –– 7400

Mr. Strachan –– 7403

Mr. MacWilliam –– 7406

Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7409

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the day after the wearing of

the green, it gives me great pleasure and joy indeed to welcome to

British Columbia, which we consider to be the best part of Canada, His

Excellency the Ambassador for Ireland, Mr. Sean Gaynor, and his wife,

Mrs. Gaynor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome to

this chamber 26 students of the community social service program at

Douglas College, that great college in New Westminster, the Royal City,

along with their instructors: Loma Kirkham, Sally Nordman and Bob

Shibib.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to

welcome to the House the members of the University of Victoria Vikings

Canadian basketball champions. The team is here, and I am going to read

out the names of each of the members here today so they can stand up

individually. As the House acknowledged yesterday, they have won their

seventh straight national Canadian basketball title.

So would the members just stand in the gallery as they are

recognized: Vito Pasquale, Graham Taylor, Geoff McKay, David Sheehan ––

who has had five seasons with the team –– Rob Kreke, Sean Kalmovich,

Wade Loukes, the famous centre Cord Clemens, Jerry Divoky, assistant

coach Joe Weisbrodt, manager Allen Duddridge and, last but not least,

Ken Shields, the coach –– and honorary mascot Pat McGeer.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, today we have visiting with us five

interns from the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada: Michel

Sarra-Bournet, Denis Robert, Leslie Toope, Shelly Gilmour, and Barbara

Arneil. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: I would suppose that you understand, Mr. Speaker,

that a great many of us in this House are a little jealous about not

having any sports teams in here from our tidings. I'd like to introduce

to you from the gallery a senior citizen from Prince Rupert, who is

down here to see the Minister of Housing. He played great basketball in

Prince Rupert years ago, I can tell you that. I'd like you to join with

me to welcome a former alderman from Prince Rupert, a long-time

small-business person, Mr. Art Murray.

MR. STRACHAN: I join with my colleague the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the other buddy MLA for

Comox, in welcoming 18 students, and Donna, from the

Comox-Parksville-Courtenay area. They are sponsored by the Comox Socred

constituency association. Would the House please give them a nice warm

welcome.

MR. PARKS: Perhaps my colleagues in the House are jealous

that they don't have very successful amateur teams to bring to the

House's acknowledgement, but in Coquitlam we happen to have an

extremely gifted athlete. This past weekend a constituent of mine, one

Andrew Lenton, a student at Centennial high school, competed at the

North American invitational track meet for high school athletes, in New

Haven, Connecticut. Andrew won the 3,000-metre race and was but one

second off the world record. That's an extremely fine accomplishment

for one of our B.C. students.

But not only did we have Andrew winning that race, but a young

fellow from Port Moody, one Allan Lewis, came third, and a young fellow

from Prince George, Kevin Robinson, came sixth. So B.C. athletes are

excelling throughout this North American continent.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm very pleased to stand up in the House

today and introduce a group of real winners, members of the British

Columbia Social Credit Women's Auxiliary: Lillian Winter, Crofton; Pat

Guest, Duncan; Mary Milino, Duncan; Rita Kipot, Saanich; Barb Anshelm,

Saanich; Clasiena Atsma and Harmine Wikkerink, Duncan; Annette

Hawrylenko, Victoria; Aggie Flett, Nanaimo; Helene Aagaard, Crofton;

Rhoda Scott and Dorothy Gray, Esquimalt; Jean Kinney, Duncan; Betty

Raye, Ladysmith; Doris Andrews, Crofton; Jean Valcourt, Nanaimo; Pam

Dyke, Crofton; Evelyn Allen, Duncan; Kay Wiersma, Crofton; Etta Murray,

Victoria; Barbara York, Victoria; Sheila Owen, Duncan; Johanna

Frumento, Duncan; Flo Anslow and Inez Ridley, Esquimalt; and Donny

Redding, Duncan. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

NUCLEAR POWER IN B.C.

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

Just over six years ago the government declared a moratorium on uranium

exploration and mining, and for many years British Columbia has had

public policy opposed to the development of nuclear power in British

Columbia. On December 27 last, under the Power Engineers and Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Safety Act –– the Minister of Labour's jurisdiction ––

cabinet signed a new set of regulations. In those regulations the

following words are included: "Nuclear power plant component means a

nuclear power plant component, etc." Further on in the regulations is

the fee

schedule for inspection of nuclear power plants in British

Columbia: "Class I inspections are $3,100 per inspection." My question

to the Minister of Labour is: why has the policy in British Columbia

changed from being a non-nuclear province to one which is now prepared

to develop nuclear power?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I want to thank the member for North Island

for his question. The regulations are regulations governing boiler

vessel safety in British Columbia. The fact that they're in regulations

has not changed the government's policy with respect to nuclear mining

and development.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to be more specific then. Why would it

be necessary to go to the extent of including in these regulations

schedule C3, nuclear power plant component minimum construction

inspection fee: class I components, $3,100 each; class 2, $1,850

each; class 3, $800 each? If the policy of the government is to

continue to have British Columbia a non-nuclear province, why would it

be necessary to develop regulations, which are now the law of this

province, which govern the inspection of construction of nuclear power

plants in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I did answer the question earlier on. There

is currently a moratorium on nuclear mining in

[ Page 7386 ]

British Columbia, and that question would be more appropriately

addressed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Brummet). But I do sense a typical approach on the part of

the NDP in British Columbia –– to instil fear in the minds of British

Columbians with respect to the regulations that have been developed.

CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Sometime early in 1985 the British Columbia government participated, on

behalf of the taxpayers, in the ill-fated bailout of the Canadian

Commercial Bank. Some months after that the minister said he was still

hoping to get that money back. I'm just wondering whether he's had any

success in his negotiations with Ottawa.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not as yet. However, I have had ongoing

discussions with the Minister of State for Finance, the Hon. Barbara

McDougall –– as recently as a few weeks ago –– with respect to the money

which was placed by the province of British Columbia, along with the

stated to the member the last time he asked the question remains. I

think Hansard would show that I indicated I did not expect an early

resolution, but certainly I have not abandoned that quest.

GIFTS TO PHARMACISTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Human Resources. It has been brought to our attention

that B.C. pharmacists are getting subsidized trips to Paris, getting

silver ingots as gifts....

MR. CHABOT: You read the paper, too.

MR. COCKE: I read the paper, too.

Mr. Speaker, these gifts cost a lot of money, and the people of

British Columbia reflect...having to pay that money. I'm just wondering

if the minister has decided to intercede using the muscle of Pharmacare

to do something about this.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite concerned about the

report and

article in the Vancouver Sun today. The first thing I would

like to ascertain is if it is correct. I've been in contact and will be

in contact again with Pat Tidball, who is responsible for the

Pharmacare program, to have him determine the validity of the stories

and what part of this is correct and how extensive it may be throughout

British Columbia.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to ascertain if we're

speaking of illegal activities or whether we're speaking of activities

which are not of a criminal nature. I would also want to determine,

most importantly, whether it is having a detrimental effect on the

Pharmacare program or is costing the people of British Columbia greater

costs through Pharmacare because of these alleged incidents. If such

proves to be the case, then I will instruct Mr. Tidball to take such

action as may be required through suasion or other methods if necessary

to see that we are receiving the greatest cost benefit for our

Pharmacare program for the taxpayers of the province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're not suggesting that this may be

an illegal act; we are suggesting that it's costing the government

money because the government pays much of the pharmaceutical bills in

this province. It strikes me that even if the government had to resort

to legislation, it would be worth it with respect to this question. Mr.

Speaker, the people have been quoted as admitting that they're doing

it. Is the minister prepared to go the full length of his office and

put a stop to this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying

that if action is occurring in the province which is detrimental to our

Pharmacare program, and which is detrimental to the taxpayers' capacity

to fund that program, yes, I will recommend such action that brings

about a cessation of that activity. I will ask the people who will be

able to get the answers –– including the college, if they're involved in

any way –– if they are aware of that. I expect them to play a role as

well. If this type of performance is having a negative effect upon the

Pharmacare program, I will take such action as we are capable of doing

to see that it does not.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Human

Resources. Mr. Speaker, it has been well established that social

assistance rates paid by the Bennett government are insufficient to

provide the minimum needs of recipients. Has the government decided to

increase income assistance rates to adequate levels?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member has, I guess,

carefully constructed his question. I simply cannot agree with his

conclusions, because he has not provided me with the necessary

information. He said "well established" and used words such as

"insufficient" and "certain standards." I'm not sure who has developed

those standards. He made no reference to that. He's offering, I

presume, a personal opinion, which may be very valid.

Mr. Speaker, we have a variety of amounts which are paid to people

under social assistance. The most common is that paid to a single

employable mate under 30, or whatever the age may be. That's the money

that the member who asked the question attempted to survive on during a

well-publicized

article in a few newspapers in Vancouver. That's what

is often mentioned as the income assistance level, and I'm sure that's

what you're speaking of. But there are a variety of levels of income

assistance. The member has not mentioned that there is a modification

for that individual as time goes on, should he stay on. There are

different amounts for family units and others in different

circumstances.

The base level is as it is at this moment, and I have not made an

announcement, nor has the government made an announcement, that that is

about to be changed. Obviously, when the government considers that

matter, and if a decision is made, everyone will be notified. But at

the moment that decision has not been made.

[2:30]

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your response. Just

a brief supplementary. I wonder if the minister is familiar with the

Social Planning and Review Council of B.C.'s study that was recently

issued –– this month, in fact ––

[ Page 7387 ]

which deals with the question of the inadequacy of the ministry's

rates. If not, I would suggest that he review that. It has also been

well established by the greater Vancouver regional United Appeal. Stats

Canada, for instance, has suggested that the minimum poverty level is

twice as high as what people receive on income assistance in this

province.

So I am just wondering if the minister is suggesting that the rates

are adequate. I presume that if he has no knowledge of the problem, he

is suggesting that the rates are adequate. Are the present rates

adequate as you know them, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would think that there are

many people earning considerably more than that paid to a person on

income assistance who do not feel they have an adequate income. So

that's very subjective. What is adequate? There are many people who

feel they can survive reasonably well for a short period of time, which

is the intent of that type of assistance. There could be a magic

number. You can look across the country and see the different rates

province to province, and they vary.

It's easy for SPARC to come up with idea of increasing the cost of

social assistance by $400 million a year, because they don't have to

come up with the money. Why they exist I'm not quite sure and who funds

them I'm not quite sure, although I think it's still the federal

government. But it's easy for them to make these recommendations based

on their own internal inquiry. One of the terms they apparently use is

to determine the average rent paid in Vancouver, and they use that as

what should be paid for rent. Well, that takes in a lot of rental

situations that you normally would not associate with people on income

assistance. The Ministry of Human Resources has reviewed SPARC's latest

report and has issued comments, including comments such as that we

simply do not agree with their base formula. At one time the United

Appeal handled this. There were some negative comments about them being

involved, so the same person apparently went somewhere else and

produces the same report each year, and has certain attitudes about it;

but they have never been able to work with Human Resources in

developing some type of formula base for these projections.

So it's an independent report. It's their opinion. They don't have

to come up with any money so it's easy for them to be very generous.

But to call for a $400 million increase in one year doesn't seem to be

terribly practical.

SPARWOOD LIBRARY BOARD

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Premier. The members of

the Sparwood Library board were told recently by the member for

Kootenay that he will not recommend who gets Expo legacy funds until

after the election, and only in the areas where he's elected. What

action has the Premier taken to stop the abuse of taxpayers' money to

coerce citizens in terms of how they should vote?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The statement attributed to the Minister of

Labour, the member for Kootenay, isn't true.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to make a short statement on the

native land claims issue, and at the end of the statement seek leave to

table constitutional correspondence between myself and Mr. Crombie.

Just prior to Christmas I commenced correspondence with Mr. David

Crombie, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on

the question of who has the responsibility in the field of native land

claims, and what the position of the federal government is in respect

of the number of issues. Mr. Crombie's response to me was received last

week, on March 6. In his response he said, among other things, that

there likely were in British Columbia.... "Aboriginal title likely

exists in various areas in British Columbia," number one; number two,

he urged the province of British Columbia to negotiate those claims;

and number three, he said that the federal government did not have the

constitutional responsibility under the terms of union or the British

North America Act for compensation and costs involved in settling

Indian claims in British Columbia. That was the

summary of his letter.

I sent to him this afternoon the following reply. It was sent by a

FAX machine, not by Canada Post; we want it to get there before Expo.

"First of all I must tell you that at the time of

receipt of your letter we had not received copies or details of the

comprehensive land claims which have been submitted to your department.

These were finally delivered to us on March 14.

"Secondly, and more important, your letter

aboriginal title likely exist in this province. The government of

British Columbia, in keeping with all previous governments of this

province, takes the opposite view. The question therefore will be up to

the courts to decide.

"Finally I come to the issue of financial

responsibility: that is, who has the obligation under our constitution

to satisfy aboriginal land claims, should they be found to exist. You

appear to take the position that the federal government is not

responsible for the compensation and costs involved in settling Indian

claims in British Columbia. At the same time you wish British Columbia

to be involved in a process of negotiation on native land claims. Our

original constitution provides specifically in

section 91(24) that the

federal parliament has exclusive authority over 'Indians and lands

reserved for the Indians.'

"In the terms of union between Canada and British

Columbia which are now entrenched as part of the

schedule to the

Constitution Act, federal responsibility was confirmed for the 'charge

of Indians and the trusteeship and management of lands reserved for

their use and benefit.' In turn, the province was required to set aside

reserve lands, which obligation was faithfully carried out.

Acknowledgement of the fulfilment of this obligation was made by the

federal government in 1924.

"If the courts were ever to hold –– as we sincerely

believe that they should not –– that aboriginal title was not

extinguished but still exists in parts of British Columbia, they can

only come to such a conclusion

[ Page 7388 ]

by finding that Indian title existed when British

Columbia entered Canada in 1871. That being the case, aboriginal title

represented a liability or charge upon the colonial government to which

"Term I of the terms of union reads as follows:

'Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of British

Columbia existing at the time of union.' We are therefore both amazed

and shocked to read in your letter what amounts to an attempt by the

native land question; or, to put it in your language, you deny

responsibility '...for compensation and costs involved in settling

Indian claims in British Columbia.' We know of no instance during our

115-year history as part of Confederation that a federal minister has

made such a statement.

"In conclusion, we must urge you and your colleagues

to reconsider this matter and to assume your proper constitutional

responsibility in relation to Indians. Negotiation meetings at this

time would be pointless until such time as the federal government

acknowledges its sole responsibility to satisfy Indian claims in this

province, just as in every other province."

That was signed and sent today. I would ask leave to file the three

letters of constitutional correspondence.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately we did not have the courtesy of

receiving the documents in advance, nor were we aware that the minister

was planning on making a statement, as I suppose is typical of the way

the government operates in this House. The manner in which the minister

has been dealing with his federal counterpart, and in which he has been

dealing with this correspondence, I suppose is indicative of a deeper

problem with this government and their seeming inability to negotiate

in good faith with anybody in the province of B.C.

When it comes to negotiating with the government's own employees,

they seem to be unable to do that in good faith across the bargaining

table. When it comes....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his seat.

Hon. members, while we have not spelled out in detail the rules that

guide us in response to ministerial statements, clearly when a person

goes beyond the ministerial statement and reflects upon other matters

that are currently under debate in this House, then the Chair has no

alternative but to remind the member that he must at least stick to the

parameters that are mentioned in the ministerial statement. Otherwise,

hon. member, we go into a very lengthy debate on a variety of subjects.

I would commend that to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister seems to

be having a bit of difficulty negotiating with his Tory counterpart in

Ottawa, when it would seem a much better approach to these types of

policies.... It's no wonder that it has taken 150 years to deal with

this issue. We're sending letters back and forth between ministers

rather than sitting at the table and negotiating these kinds of issues

and reaching solutions –– rather than to exploit the failure of

communication for political reasons.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, we're looking forward to an

opportunity to review this correspondence, and we will undertake to

comment after we've seen the contents of the letters.

MR. LEA: I ask leave to reply to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, one Social

Credit member is enough discussing this question.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35. In

view of the fact that the letter from David Crombie, the Minister of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is full of untruths and

misleading statements, and in view of the fact that the matter of

Indian land claims is an important issue in British Columbia, I would

move under standing order 35 that the House adjourn for the purpose of

discussing this definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the usual practice, the

Chair will undertake a review of the matter and bring an opinion back

to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. Not that I particularly care

how we reflect upon Tory members in the House, but there is a rule of

practice in legislatures that that kind of statement, unless put in the

form of a substantive motion, should not be made on the floor of any

House, reflecting upon the honour and motives of Members of Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, our standing orders do not permit

the Chair the same latitude in dealing with our federal counterparts as

we have with our provincial. That is spelled out in standing order

40(

l) and (2) on page 13 of your little green book, hon. member.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the throne

speech, I'd like to make a few comments, much in line with many of the

comments we've heard in the past few days.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The theme of the throne speech offered to the House this year is

based on the word "renewal," particularly with respect to renewal in

the economy. Without renewal in the economy, of course, we simply do

not have the opportunity for renewal in other areas, particularly in

areas of services to people. We've had comments from the opposition

with respect to the throne speech and the economy, and they have

[ Page 7389 ]

acknowledged that the economy is improving, not necessarily to the

extent or with the speed all would like to see; nonetheless, it is

improving. When an economy is improving, it's good news, and good news

is bad news for an opposition party.

We expect to hear emphasis placed on the negatives by the

opposition, it being their role to do so and them being so familiar

with negatives. But I think, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the people

of the province of British Columbia are seeing the positive effects in

B.C. They are proud of the positive effects in our province and are

looking to the future with a very positive attitude. It's fine to talk

about generalities, with references to certain attitudes, theories,

policies. When we come down to it, we're talking about individual

citizens of British Columbia and how they are viewing the province.

It's been pointed out recently by a certain number of surveys, and

by other authors, that a problem with British Columbia seems to be one

of attitude, for whatever reasons may be common to our society. Mr.

Speaker, if there were some possible way of getting all people to

develop a more positive attitude, many of our economic problems would

be far less than they are. Nonetheless, the economy is improving, and

we are in a period of renewal.

I'm very distressed when I hear comments from the opposition and

some of their folks who work in various parts of the media –– some of

them –– when they talk about these various projects, which are

megaprojects, for want of a better term. They speak about these

projects as though they have no benefit to our economy.

We were on the Annacis bridge the other day, and it was amazing to

see all of the workers there who apparently are not working, according

to the critics. According to them, the Annacis bridge hasn't created

any employment; it's of no value; it's a megaproject. Well, the people

who are working there apparently haven't heard about that. You drive

down to downtown Vancouver or other cities, and you see construction

projects underway –– new construction, new development –– and you see

people working there. But according to the critics, they're unemployed;

they're not working. Someone sure is, and a lot of people have been

working for a long time in the new developments in British Columbia.

We had some mild chuckling from the opposite side yesterday when one

of the members was speaking about the municipal partnership program and

the effects it's having in municipalities. I believe the member for

Coquitlam mentioned a couple of specific projects which have come on

line since that partnership program was introduced, and there was some

chuckling. I can't understand why it's funny that suddenly 50 people

who were not working yesterday are now employed. It certainly isn't

funny to them. They're very pleased.

Remember B.C. Place. Remember, we weren't supposed to go ahead with

the stadium. We weren't supposed to go ahead with the ALRT. We weren't

supposed to go ahead with the Annacis bridge. We weren't supposed to go

ahead with the Coquihalla Highway. We weren't supposed to go ahead with

northeast coal. We weren't supposed to go ahead with all of these

various programs because they were megaprojects, and megaprojects meant

bad.... I remember the former leader of the NDP in the last

election said were they elected, there would be no further

megaprojects. I suppose later it could be defined as to what a

megaproject is.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen the people working on the Coquihalla

Highway, and I've talked to those who supply, the contractors. They're

all working. these people. That's the nature of their employment: they

have to have such projects. The Annacis bridge is the same thing.

The ALRT. With great pride the people in Richmond manufactured the

great majority of those concrete beams for the ALRT. That was a

megaproject, and the people working in Richmond producing those

concrete forms and beams were very thankful that there was a project

capable of utilizing their skill and expertise. They developed a whole

new technology. Those people were working. They still are working. They

don't worry about megaprojects.

When I was in Tumbler Ridge and Chetwynd speaking to the people

there about northeast coal, they told me that 40 percent of the economy

in Chetwynd is directly attributed to Tumbler Ridge and the coal

deposits in that area. But according to these.... The MLA over

there used to call it a rat's hole. Another MLA runs around and says

the hole is in the wrong place and they're not getting any coal out of

there. They're getting coal. People are working there. Thousands of

people are employed in that area of the province. That wouldn't have

gone ahead, according to our critics. Neither would the Coquihalla

Highway, the Annacis bridge, the ALRT, B.C. Place. or even Expo. None

of it would have gone ahead. They had some vision of people being

employed doing nothing, apparently: probably advising each other how to

continue working but doing nothing,

The opposition has never said what they would do other than bow to a

person who one day could be their leader –– the mayor of Vancouver, Mike

Harcourt. His idea of renewal is to get the city off the hook and have

provincial and federal funds put forward to take care of the

infrastructure within the major cities. The cities have not kept that

up, so bail them out with hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up

their infrastructure. That goes over very well in Kamloops, Prince

George, Penticton, Cranbrook and other cities, where they're not even

being considered. Oh, no. You'd take care of your own, but if you're in

a major city –– Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and so on –– then bailout

from the federal and provincial governments. That'll get everyone

working, apparently. According to them, everyone who's out of a job is

suitable for working in that type of endeavour.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did CUPE have to say about that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Don't talk.... CUPE or Kube?

AN HON. MEMBER: CUPE.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I thought you were talking about my

neighbour, Mr. Kube.

In the last two or three years in the municipality of Richmond, with

a population of approximately 105,000, there has been an immense

transformation in the economy. A very large

section of what is referred

to as the downtown core has been completely redeveloped, with new

projects, new retail outlets; thousands of jobs in construction, and

employment now. But in the industrial sector of my municipality of

Richmond, over the last few years....

A state-of-the-art electronics company, one which employs 600

people, was not even in existence four years ago.

[ Page 7390 ]

It's an international supplier of digital equipment

and all that

fancy electronic stuff. Industry upon industry has been locating in

Richmond. One company produces international standard high-speed boats

–– inflatable craft. They're used by the Canada Coast Guard, the U.S.

Coast Guard, the RCMP, the U.S. Navy, and they're exporting them around

the world –– a company which has been assisted by the government of

B.C.

Another company in Richmond is producing heart valves, which are

exported around the world. They produce a couple of hundred a week. All

of this so-called high-tech industry is happily located in Richmond,

being encouraged by the ministries within this government, receiving

some assistance when circumstances require and permit.

When I speak about the economy, particularly as it is associated

with Richmond, one company that always gets a big laugh is Health Care

Diaper Inc. They're producing 150,000 articles a day. People think

it's kind of funny, but the 65 people working there, who were not

working there a few months ago, think it's marvellous. It's a $50

million market in the province of British Columbia, and until that

plant started we were importing every one of those articles. Sixty-five

people are now employed at that plant, and doing extremely well. And

yes, Mr. Speaker, they've been assisted by the provincial government,

and they look toward expansion.

I know Richmond is not typical of every area of the province. It has

a certain number of features which make it very attractive for certain

levels of industry, including climate, access to transportation and

some other benefits. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the economy has changed

dramatically in the past few years in my municipality of Richmond. We

hear about high-tech technology. We hear about these various new ideas.

In Richmond you see them, and they're looking to expand throughout

British Columbia. Some of the investors who come to our province can

feel some reluctance when they pay too much attention to some of the

rumours or myths about British Columbia.

I understand information was released recently –– last year, I

believe –– that said we had the lowest number of lost employee days in

21 years. People are talking about the problems, for some reason, in

British Columbia as though it's true about labour management discord.

There is a lot of sabre rattling, a lot of noise and a lot of words

exchanged between parties. But at this moment, I don't believe there

are any major strikes at all in British Columbia or work disruptions

none that I am aware of.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Canadian Tire?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's an ongoing thing. It has been going

on for five years, I believe. It's an ongoing thing from Prince George,

I believe. PWA was on strike, and it has been settled, thankfully, but

I believe that really is more of a federal situation, being an airline.

Sure, there are going to be some disruptions, but B.C. does not in fact

have this reputation that we seem to have around the world, that we

have an unstable labour force. The facts would suggest otherwise, but

the myths and rumours certainly are there.

A major investor visited British Columbia a few years back, and they

were looking at Vancouver as a possible site for a pretty extensive

investment development. He arrived on the day the buses were on strike.

He turned on the television and found out how bad everything was in

B.C. He couldn't get a taxi in Vancouver. When he got back to Los

Angeles, his recommendation was it may not be the most suitable site

for investment because of the impression he got simply being here.

That's unfortunate, because the truth does not suggest those

conclusions should be reached.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech speaks of renewal, not only economic

renewal but I would suggest a renewal of positive attitude in our

province. I was speaking with some people last Friday evening in

Langley. One was a bus driver with B.C. Transit. Another fellow worked

as a truck driver for a company supplying the Coquihalla Highway.

Another fellow was a mechanic and one was unemployed. He had been

working on a Highways project. These were relatively young people, and

it was most interesting to hear their comments about B.C. One said: "We

should be far more proud of our province than we are. We have

everything going for us in our province." The mechanic said: "If you

want a job, you can get a job." He said: "I've never been out of work."

The other fellow said: "Well, you're a first-class mechanic." He said:

"That's not the point. I go and I find a job."

[3:00]

All of them suggested that one of the great missing factors in our

society is a positive attitude about what we have, instead of all of

the attention paid to what could be, what might be and what never was.

We heard opposition critics saying: "Well, what's going to happen after

Expo?" Why don't we ask ourselves: "What would have happened without

Expo?" We're always talking about what we're going to do next time.

Sure, that's a fair question, but it's not the only part of life. We

pay attention to the past. We have to pay attention to the future. We

can't forget today. There is tremendous activity taking place in our

province, all of it intended to give us a better opportunity for the

future, not something unto itself and the game is over after that.

Critics to the government understand that. We're getting far less

criticism about some of these major projects now than before, because

all the surveys indicate the people are very positively behind them.

Going throughout the province we see proof of renewal. Some events may

not seem to be too important to those from the major metropolitan

areas, but in the interior and other parts of B.C., where you see

airport expansion or even lights for night flights, you see new

construction in hospitals and other treatment centres, a very important

part of a small community, and an important part of a community not

only for the service it renders but for the service it provides for

those who may wish to settle there and improve the economy by

establishing some type of operation.

This is happening throughout the province. We are servicing the

people very well in B.C. If we are to continue to maintain that type of

program, we must continue to see our economy grow. I was most pleased

in reflecting upon the message from the Lieutenant-Governor when he

spoke of what has happened and what will happen, and he made reference

to some of the modifications made in tax laws in B.C. to give people

the opportunity of getting something started by permitting them some

relaxation from this onerous burden of taxes, particularly property

taxes under certain circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a new idea, but it's an idea that came around

once more in the cycle and was the right idea for the right time.

People are shopping around the world when it comes to investment.

Capital is international. They are looking for the best deal. We are

looking for employers. We want them to locate in B.C., provided they

are not going to do damage to our province. But we need that

employment; we

[ Page 7391 ]

need that investment. We must welcome these people to our province.

What is the point of not collecting taxes from a nonexisting industry

when you might be able to get the industry and provide the employment

simply by relinquishing a portion of those taxes for a specific period

of time as an inducement to get the factory in gear. We have all those

beautiful bureaucratic words, the buzzwords that are used, like

"forgone revenue" –– revenue that's forgone but never existed and never

will. And then we have people complaining: "Why didn't we get that

plant? Why is it located in Washington state?" –– or Alberta or Ontario

or wherever it might be. Some people have a very strange attitude about

what it takes to encourage people to invest their capital at any

location. We're trying to get them to do it in B.C. We've had some

success. We've had many disappointments, because sometimes we're simply

outbid by other jurisdictions who can either respond more quickly or

already have their tackle and gear ready to get that person

immediately. That's the competition we face worldwide. We are dependent

to a very large degree upon that which is permitted in Canada and that

which we permit in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Unemployment is, I'm sure, the number one concern of most people in

the province, and if you as an individual are unemployed, obviously

it's the number one important problem. There is no point in attempting

to suggest there is any better form of income assistance than

employment. There are those on income assistance who simply cannot be

employed –– cannot function –– and they are categorized as such and there

is assistance available. But for those who can work, who are

employable, there is no better form of assistance than finding them a

job or working on conditions which will allow them to find a job. And

most of them do. Most of them eventually find employment of some kind.

Most of them after a couple of months, on average, find some form of

employment.

But what better way to offer a person income assistance than to set

the scene so the economy is such that people are going to be employed,

whether it's full time, part time, seasonal or whatever? The

construction workers are a great example. We hear that they work on a

major project. Then the project is over, and they're unemployed. That

doesn't come as a surprise to the construction workers. That's the

nature of their job. It always has been. Many of them move great

distances as well –– project to project. That's not new.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity of developing parts of

British Columbia, and we could do more. We could do a great deal more

if we had a little more cooperation from certain segments as well. We

could do a great deal more, and I think British Columbia's record is

very, very good. And more must be done, of course. With a positive

attitude we can do a great deal more.

One comment I'd like to mention, because I don't think British

Columbia is fairly treated by the federal government with respect to

procurement. The federal government spends an enormous amount of

Canadian tax dollars in providing themselves with supplies, goods and

services, some of it for military but also for many other areas of

federal government. British Columbia represents approximately 10

percent of Canada in land size, population, economy and so on ––

approximately 10 percent. We receive about 3 percent of the federal

government's expenditure for goods, supplies and services. That is

simply not fair. We have shipyards in British Columbia. There is no

reason why we cannot receive a fair amount of whatever federal work is

done and whatever vessels they may have. I know we get the opportunity

once in a while to build a ship, but we should be receiving our fair

share. And if we can't do it with shipyards then we can do it in some

other area, but there is no reason in the world why, other than Ontario

and Quebec, the balance of Canada receives about 19 percent –– B.C.

about 3 percent. It's not a matter of calculation. It's a matter of

fairness. The people of British Columbia through their taxes are

that we get a reasonable return. It doesn't have to be precise, but

double from three would be a good start. We can provide those services

in British Columbia. We can provide the goods and the materials. We

have the expertise. We should not have to relocate an industry closer

to Ottawa simply to receive what would be a reasonable benefit for the

taxpayers of British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, it's difficult

sometimes working with other levels of government to achieve what you

might feel is an equitable and fair arrangement, but we will continue

to do so.

I'm very encouraged by the attitude of the people of our province ––

the positive attitude of so many people in B.C., the attitude of those

people who have come forward and taken on challenges such as I

mentioned: the new technology necessary for those concrete beams for

the ALRT SkyTrain and the Annacis Island bridge –– a massive

undertaking. In fact, some of them said, "You simply can't produce a

beam that size out of concrete," which they did. This is what people

in B.C. can do. We have to have investors, we have to have confidence,

and I think we have to have a very positive attitude.

I look forward to 1986 as being a great year for British Columbia. I

do not share for one minute the attitude that when Expo is finished,

B.C. Is going to go down the tube. I think Expo is going to be a

tremendous boost to our economy and to our people. It will give the

people of B.C. –– more particularly, I'm sure, the people of Vancouver ––

great pride in their city and their province and their country. That is

an intangible that is extremely valuable. So I think 1986 is great. I

think the throne speech is excellent, and I'm certainly going to vote

for it.

MR. LEA: The throne speech is not what you could call a great

document, but then they never are, regardless of government. Throne

speeches are basically, as we all know, written by the government and

read by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. But they are written by the

government, and the government in its throne speech says: "Boy, we have

been good. We have been a good government." The Lieutenant-Governor

says "my government and my ministers," but we all know that speech was

written for him by the government.

The throne speech has very little in it that's new. It's a public

relations document. But there is one good thing about the throne speech.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening.

MR. LEA: I was listening. Look. I've got it memorized; I've

heard it before.

The throne speech does do one thing. It allows members of this House

a wide-ranging latitude in the topics discussed

[ Page 7392 ]

during debate. In other words, it gives back-benchers on both the

government and opposition side the opportunity to talk about concerns

of British Columbia that they wouldn't normally have any access to

during legislative debate or budget debate.

Today we started out by talking about one of the issues that affects

us in British Columbia, and that's Indian land claims. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) rose in his place and read

correspondence from Mr. Crombie of the federal government and replies

from this government to the federal government. The Attorney-General is

correct in saying that every government preceding this one has taken

the same position on compensation for Indian land claims, should they

be negotiated, and that is that it is the responsibility of the federal

government. This is not a time for this House to divide into parties.

This is a time for all British Columbians, regardless of political

party, to say to the federal government: "We will not accept that kind

of a deal." It's not a time to go after the government or to go after

the opposition, as I saw in the House here today. This is not a time to

divide ourselves; this is a time to join together as British Columbians

against the federal government on this issue.

Let's talk about the federal government because it, in many ways, is

not our government. It is the government of central Canada, and it

doesn't matter whether it's Liberal, NDP or Conservative. We all know

where they get their marching orders from. It's where all the seats are

–– in Toronto and Quebec –– and they are going to do as they are told.

During the last federal election campaign we had three federal leaders

of three political parties talking about alienation in western Canada.

Not one of them, though, had the intestinal fortitude to talk about

what we're alienated about, because if they even talk about it they're

afraid they could lose votes in central Canada. They didn't mention the

tariffs that plague us in the west; they didn't talk about the freight

rates that plague us in the west.

A few moments ago the Minister of Human Resources, the member for

Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), was talking about the unfairness of not

getting our share of supplying the federal government with the material

they buy. Well, it goes further than that. I'm not sure we could supply

many of those items, because federal policy in the past has made sure

that we don't have an industrial complex in western Canada. Let me

explain one brief thing, and that's about freight rates. A great

portion of the freight rate between western Canada and central Canada

is not based on weight or volume of goods. It's based on whether that

product is finished or unfinished. You can ship an unfinished product

from western Canada to central Canada much more cheaply than you can a

finished product.

[3:15]

So you can see what happens. The cheaper freight rate takes those

raw commodities from western Canada down to central Canada, where they

go into their industrial complex. It's designed to do that. To add

insult to injury, not only do we ship our raw goods to central Canada

to be processed, we send them the energy to do it. And if you just look

at the plain economics of it, if you're going to ship your raw material

and energy to central Canada, which is an expense that has to be added

onto the final product, how can we turn products out that are going to

be competitive in the world when we have artificial impediments put in

by the federal government, at the behest of central Canada and the

Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who want to keep it all down

there, and the banking community of central Canada? No matter how you

face it, we are poor cousins to central Canada.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

Are we finally going to say we want full partnership in Canada or no

partnership? Because that's what it seems to take. When Quebec says it,

they get everything they want. We're out here acting like Goody

Twoshoes. We watch our first minister and our Minister of Finance go to

the table, sitting down with first ministers and Finance ministers ––

never a word about the freight rates, never a word about tariffs. It's

always some airy-fairy thing that'll look good –– they hope –– to the

press

back home.

But when are we going to put it on the table that we in western

Canada are getting a raw deal from the federal government because of

the distribution of votes in this country? Those are the kinds of

things that British Columbia should be taking to the federal-provincial

conferences. If we don't do that, there will be no industrial

development to speak of, and we will be a dying economy instead of a

growing economy. The problems the federal government and central Canada

give us are not the only problems we have, but they're a big part of it.

We've also had in this throne speech some arguing back and forth

about who has the best public works program going. When I listen to the

New Democratic Party talk about economic renewal, I hear about public

works programs. I hear about taking taxpayers' dollars and spending

those dollars to build water and sewer lines and infrastructure

throughout our province. The only party I hear that does more of that

than the NDP say they would do is the Social Credit. When it comes to

public works programs and spending the taxpayers' dollar, nobody has to

take a back seat to the Social Credit. Whatever dreams they had of

anything resembling free enterprise have gone by the board a long time

ago.

That's what the argument is every election. The Social Credit says:

"Vote for us because we're free enterprise." And the NDP say: "No, vote

for us because we like people better than they do." Now I know some

people in the NDP who don't love anybody. I know some people in the

Social Credit who are humanitarian. I don't think it goes by party who

are nice, humanitarian people. However, on the other side of the House

these free-enterprisers....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The ex-Minister of Agriculture is speaking now. How

in God's name can you be a free-enterpriser and keep the agricultural

marketing boards –– the supply managing boards –– here? How can you be a

free-enterpriser and keep the liquor control board passing out licences

creating monopolies? How can you be free enterprise with a Motor

Carrier Commission that won't let the little guy take a crack at the

big guy? There are members over there who applaud that; they just don't

have the will to change it. They like the ring of it, because it sounds

good. It's sort of cliché conservatism. However, they don't practise

it. Have you ever seen a more regulated economy than that in British

Columbia?

The hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was talking earlier

about not getting our fair share of government spending out of Ottawa.

Well, I'll have him know that his government, through the Minister of

Agriculture, just signed

[ Page 7393 ]

a new agreement on industrial milk that pretty much cuts us out. We

signed that. We're up to about 5.5 or 6 percent of the industrial

supply of milk, when we have 11 percent of the population.

MR. SCHROEDER: You didn't read it, Graham.

MR. LEA: I read it, and I know where the farmers are in this

province, and I know where your seat is situated. We got a raw deal on

industrial milk. I know who asked you to do it. It was those farmers

already with quotas, who had their licence for monopoly already in

place: they were the ones who asked you to do it. But don't try to

compete with them, because they'll take your milk and dump it in the

ditch. They won't even let you give it to the food bank, because they

say it's part of marketing. I'm going to tell you that if we had our

fair share of supply of industrial milk in this province....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. I don't blame you, Harvey. You signed

an agreement with the federal government that did British Columbia in

on industrial milk. Do you know we could put about 300 farms into

production in this province if we only were allowed to produce the

industrial milk that we consume? We could do that, but no, we decided

not to. Why? We decided not to because the two major political parties

in this province cater to vested interests instead of catering to the

province as a whole. You've both got your pet vested interests. What we

have to ask ourselves is: are we going to be legislators and a

government for all of the province, or just our friends –– the ones who

pay money for our election campaigns, the ones we owe, the ones we're

afraid of? They may have too much clout.

Take the milk marketing board. Last year the consumers of this

country paid over $1 billion in subsidy on milk alone. That's taxation.

That's giving people monopolies by licence, to have a non-competitive

system of supplying commodities. Every time you buy a litre of milk,

you're paying 25 cents towards quota, and that goes to pay the interest

to the bank. We talk about single mothers. When they have to go out and

buy milk for their children, they're subsidizing a litre of milk a

quarter, and it's going directly –– not directly, but in two easy steps –– into the coffers of the banks.

Talk to the banks. They don't want to get rid of the quota system in

milk, or the agricultural boards, because they make a lot of money on

it. You can't go to the bank, with all your equipment from your farm

and your land, and get a loan. They'll only lend money on the quota.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank God for forgiveness.

MR. LEA: I'll tell you, you signed a bad deal.

This government talks about free trade. We don't even have free

trade across our own interprovincial borders when it comes to things

like cheese and milk products. We don't even have free trade with

Alberta, never mind with Ronald Reagan. Who signed the agreement

stopping free trade between provinces? That government. Who is free

enterprise around here and who isn't?

The liquor control board is another beauty. It seems to me that if

you want to have competitiveness in the liquor industry in this

province, you would say: "Here's some requirements you have to meet if

you want to sell booze. You have to meet the health standards, you have

to meet the building code standards, and the community that you're

going to operate in has to give you a licence to run that kind of

business in the community. If you meet all of those requirements, then

you should be able to go into business." Not in this province. Who pays

to make sure that the monopoly is maintained? We'd have to open up the

books of certain political parties to see who they pay to make sure

that monopoly stays in place.

It's the same with the Motor Carrier Commission. When I was in

cabinet and sat on the review panel of cabinet for motor carrier

decisions.... Here would come some poor little guy who saw a niche,

with a truck; he could make a few dollars by hauling some freight,

maybe around Surrey. The business opportunity was there. He had the

equipment. If he could get the licence, he'd have the financing. So

he'd apply to the Motor Carrier Commission to haul some freight. The

Motor Carrier Commission would say no. They'd say: "Here's how we

operate it, folks. Here's a geographic area, and within that geographic

area there's only so much freight to be handled. Once we've issued

enough licences to handle that volume of freight, then we'll quit

issuing licences." Thereby you arrive at a monopoly.

What would happen when this small businessman from Surrey wanted to

get a chunk of the action and compete with the big boys? They'd finally

come to cabinet on an appeal, and in would come Canadian Freightways

with a battery of lawyers and advisers –– Charlie Locke, QC; they'd

all be there. Nothing but the best hired against this poor little guy

who wanted to do nothing more than compete with Canadian Freightways.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's gone to his reward now. He's a judge.

MR. LEA: He's a judge? I hope Canadian Freightways don't come

up there.

They came into that cabinet room, with all their lawyers and their

help –– to do what? To stop competition.

While we're at it, let's take a look at the Canadian Standards

Association. What are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against everyone.

MR. LEA: I'm not against everyone, but I'm sure against

people who form monopolies, by licence, to gouge the consumer.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association owns Canadian Standards. Did

you know that? There's provincial legislation that says that before you

can sell an electrical item, for instance, in the marketplace, you must

have a CSA sticker, Canadian Standards Association.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I had always assumed that that merely meant safety, that somehow or

other if I had that sticker on there, I was guaranteeing the people of

the province that they weren't going to be electrocuted by the

electrical gadget. So now I and some other people were in a

manufacturing business, and we were making lamps. So we took the lamp

to the Canadian Standards Association in Richmond, the subsidiary of

central Canada. So we applied to get a licence for a sticker. We wanted

the lamps tested to see whether they were safe, and, boy, the red tape.

It went on and on, and every time there was more red

[ Page 7394 ]

tape, you had to pay more money, and still no sticker. So finally I

went in there one day really angry, and the guy said: "Look, you may be

angry at us now, but you get your sticker and you'll love it." I said:

"Why is that?" He said: "It stops competition."

So I thought, who are these birds? I started checking. Sure enough,

they're a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian Manufacturers'

Association of central Canada. Now there is something this government

can do something about: take us out of that system and have our own

under B.C. Hydro, or farm it out. I don't care how you do it, but let's

have something in B.C. so that we test new products to make sure

they're safe but we don't stop competition by using that tool. That's

what they're doing.

When you take the Canadian Standards Association, you take all of

the monopolies that are set up in our economy by licence, and you take

the freight rates and you take the tariffs. You know, we in western

Canada should be proud that we survived and continue to survive,

because they're all in there. Everything you can do to stop economic

growth we have done by regulation and licence one way or the other.

We've done it all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The CSA are worse than you say.

[3:30]

MR. LEA: I know they are, but if I say it, I'm afraid even

this House won't protect me. But you have the authority, Mr. Minister,

to do something. It's provincial legislation that sets up the Canadian

Standards Association to practise in this province. Throw them out. Get

rid of them, because they're holding us back. But are we trying to deal

with the real problems in this province, or aren't we? I don't think we

really are.

Let's talk about education and health care for a minute, which are

real problems. I get the feeling –– and I'll probably be answered before

we get out of this session –– that on this side of the House, the New

Democratic side, they feel that it's a problem that money could solve.

More money would solve the problem. I get a feeling on the other side

of the House that if only they got less money, it would solve the

problem. I don't think either is the correct way to look at it.

Obviously, we need a good, sound, appropriate education system in this

province, and it's a need that I think is different than it was a few

years ago.

So what do we have to do before we fund anything? We have to first

of all come to a consensus of what is the appropriateness of the

educational system we're going to fund. That's what we have to do, and

you can't play musical chairs with the ministers because that just

means another study. So more money or less money isn't necessarily the

answer. What is the answer is that by talking with one another as

British Columbians, we have to establish the correct, appropriate

educational system for now and to take us into the future. I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, when that appropriateness is found, we can't afford

not to fund it because our future depends on it, both socially and

economically.

I get the feeling that we are playing games with education –– one side

promising more because there's a constituency out there that says we

should have more; another side saying no, it should be less because

there is that other constituency that says it should be less. But it

doesn't matter whether you put less money into an inappropriate

educational system or more money, it will still be inappropriate, and

that's what we have to look for. We have to start talking about

process. If we're going to find the appropriate health care system and

educational system, then we have to talk with one another about the

appropriate process by which we, if we are lucky, might find the

answers. I say if we're lucky, but we sure have to try. That's a

process that has to happen.

Health care –– we don't have a Ministry of Health in this province.

We have a ministry of sickness. That's its sole function. When people

get sick, that's when you see the health care system, but preventive

health care is almost nonexistent. Again, we have not taken a look at

health care to see what the appropriate health care system would be for

now and to take us into the foreseeable future. So we end up talking

about nothing more than funding –– the restraint side and the spend

side. But when are the issues going to get discussed? When are we going

to talk about the need for a changing education system and a changing

health care system? You know, we give it lip service. We talk about our

economic future being more proportionately tied to education today than

at any time before in our history, yet we don't seem to take that lip

service and put it into a process where we can come up with

appropriateness.

I guess the question comes down to: are we all playing games at

everybody's expense? Is everybody in this House a person who wants a

better British Columbia? I think so. Is everybody in this House willing

to work with others in order to bring it about? I think so. But then

what stops us? Is it merely the quest for power, Mr. Speaker? Is it

that the Social Credit want to hang on to power so badly that they

can't see the forest for the trees. They look across to this side and

they see evil people sitting here? Because if that's the case –– and

conversely, if it's the case on this side of the House to look over

there and see evil people –– then we are in real trouble, because surely

in a democracy the fundamentals of it are that we can differ in our

opinion of how we reach a better British Columbia, but surely there

must be respect for each other's ideas and there must be a way that we

can communicate with one another and sift the best of ideas from each

other. But do we do that?

I'll tell you the real danger of polarization: it all becomes a

system of evil. You see, if you're in government and you think that the

opposition represents evil, then it allows you to do things you

wouldn't normally do –– even immoral things, because even that's better

than letting the evil in. And it's the same on this side. View each

other as evil and you make this province evil. I don't believe citizens

out there think of each other as evil.

It might surprise people to know that when you sit in Margaret's

Cafe in Queen Charlotte City, Socreds and NDPers can sit down and have

coffee, go out and tow each other out of the ditch if that's necessary.

They have to get along in a community. They would probably be shocked

to find out that you people hate each other so much and that you think

each other is so evil. But that evil starts to go through society, if

in your legislature or your parliament it's the order of the day.

That is the evil of polarization. You start to see each other as

evil. Pretty soon your followers in your political parties start to see

each other as evil, neighbours start to see each other as evil,

brothers and sisters in the same family start to see each other as

evil, and all for what? Surely to god not a pension. Is that what it's

all about –– a paycheque and a pension? If it is, we're in real rough

shape in this province. If it's retaining a cabinet seat at all costs

regardless of your own

[ Page 7395 ]

personal morality, that's evil. If you want to seek cabinet with

that in mind, that's evil. But, you know, one of the biggest evils in

this House is the fact that the back-benchers of the Social Credit do

not speak up. That is evil.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you haven't heard us?

MR. LEA: No, I have not heard you. The only time I hear

back-benchers talk is to tell the government how good they are and to

say they agree. Even when they don't agree, like the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis), they vote with them. And our whole

system is predicated on the fact that every back-bencher in this House,

whether it's government or opposition, is here in a sense to keep the

government on its toes and honest. When that breaks down, Mr. Speaker,

you have dictatorship –– you have one man who will ruin the whole caucus

by using whether you go into cabinet or whether you don't as a lever of

power. You shut back-benchers up that way. You shut cabinet ministers up

that way.

Mr. Speaker, if that's where we've ended up in this province, then

we've got a long way to go. I listen to the platitudes in this House,

but I'll tell you, actions do speak louder than words. When you are in

the back bench of a government and you don't speak up and then act on

it, you're not doing your job for the people who elected you.

On the other hand, and in conclusion, I think it's just as bad to

stand up in the House as the Leader of the Opposition and not take a

stand for British Columbia against what the federal government has just

told us about land claims. That's just as bad. That was not a time to

attack the government. That was a time to say: " What can we do

together to bring this federal government to its senses?" But I guess

it just ain't politics in this province.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when you go through the throne

speech –– which I have numerous times –– trying to pick out something

that I feel should be in a throne speech and that has been laid down by

the traditions: that a throne speech indicates to the Legislature and

to the public in general the particular direction the government is

going to go for this coming year. The throne speech should contain the

new ideas, the new programs, that are coming in. But when I go through

this throne speech, and when I talked to some of the veteran reporters

who work around the parliament buildings, they all said that this

throne speech, in the majority, is just a rehash of press releases, of

announcements that have been made over and over and over again.

I think the one that leads the pack as far as being repetitious is

the proposal that we are now going to embark again on a natural gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island. I believe it was in the late 1960s that

it first appeared, and at least once or twice between elections and at

election times we continue to get: "We're going to have a natural gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island." Maybe there is some validity and natural

gas should be on the island, but all those who have studied it –– those

in the energy business, those in the federal government, all the

municipalities of Vancouver Island –– have said there is a better and

more economical way than building a natural gas pipeline, which I don't

believe this government really intends to start on. If the electricity

that we claim to have a surplus of in British Columbia is made

available to people living on Vancouver Island, or to other people in

British Columbia who are not in the natural gas network, at the cost to

the Americans when we export it out of the country, we could heat homes

on Vancouver Island at the same cost, or a comparable cost, that the

people on the lower mainland are paying for natural gas.

These are the facts that have come out of various studies, and I

think this is the important part we should be looking at from a

Legislature and a government position. We should be looking at how all

issues are going to affect the community, the region that we live in,

and not use throne speeches, political announcements or press releases

to hand out another carrot if we do not intend to make that a solemn

commitment.

I think it's important that we review what the Leader of the

Opposition proposed last year: that we look at economic development not

solely on the basis of megaprojects that the government seems to like

rehashing and rehashing, but look at the economic investment that this

government and this community can involve itself in. Look at it

throughout British Columbia; look at how it will affect the various

regions so that people will not have to continue to pull up roots and

move somewhere else, hoping to find a job at the next megaproject. We

should look at it on a general principle that British Columbians do

live in every part of B.C., and in every part of B.C. there are

resources, people, energy. Let's develop the best out of that region to

build in some kind of a stability, which each one of us as an

individual, and each one of us who represents a constituency, really

wants.

[3:45]

I would like to go over some of the issues that affect my own

riding. When I go through the throne speech I read the great work that

the critical industries commissioner did with one particular mill in my

riding, Sooke Forest Products. The critical industries commissioner did

put it together to get the jobs and the mill back in operation. If you

go over the Hansards and the many speeches that I've made in the last

seven years, you will see where I predicted that if the government, the

banks and the Ministry of Forests did not take a positive look at the

situation that was developing in Sooke, that mill would go under. There

were two main reasons. They weren't a secret to anybody. They weren't a

secret to the Ministry of Forests. They weren't a secret to the banks.

That mill did not have an assured log supply. That mill was

overcapitalized, and paying 19 percent interest. These are simple facts.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to have a critical

industries commissioner, he should be looking at the facts as they are

right now and should not continue to wait until companies go broke and

cause an awful lot of unemployment. When you have one community like I

had in Sooke, with 200 people out of work, that community suffered.

Everything that the critical industries commissioner did.... He

restructured it. Unfortunately the Toronto-Dominion bank took a bath on

it. But these facts were known. That situation could have been

corrected three years before it went under. The government should have

sat down with the banks and said: "Okay, what is the situation to date?

How can this company continue to operate and be viable?" We can't

afford the pleasure of waiting to see companies go down. We can't

afford the pleasure –– if some groups feel there is a certain amount of

satisfaction in it –– of seeing people unemployed. We can't afford it.

Governments, society and communities must be looking at how we can

preserve the economics within the region. The surplus power that is now

being made available to that company could have been made available

three years ago. The tax deferments that were made could have been made

three years ago. The financial restructuring could

[ Page 7396 ]

have been done three years ago, and we would not have had a

community suffering economically, with 200 people out of work.

All we in the opposition have been trying to get the government to

do is take off their rose-coloured glasses and look at the hard facts

locally and at how we can maintain jobs.

I can't help but think that we had another situation, when Victoria

Plywood went down. It was restructured as a co-op. I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that all the information that went into making that a viable

operation that created jobs again should not be made a political

gimmick to throw around. When a company realizes that they are having

mechanical problems with a mill, or economical problems with a mill, or

that there is going to be a dislocation of employment, a hard, serious

look should take place before it happens.

Right now we have the VMD in Victoria. It's not for me to make

comment on how Frank Hertel ripped off the federal government in some

tax scheme and then put the money and bought the VMD and then mortgaged

it. I'm not interested in that situation. But I am interested to know

that VMD has all the equipment. It has the technology; it has the

people who can go to work. But today we have a series of lawsuits, we

have a series of liens, we have a federal government saying they won't

renew an agreement on a piece of land that the company has built on and

has a lot of their equipment on. In the meantime what happens? There

are 50 to 100 people out of work, there are jobs that are not being

done, and the government is doing nothing. Both federal and provincial,

they continue to wait until it's an opportune time that we can dangle

some piece of legislation out and make political Brownie points.

We must start looking at jobs that we have. We have an internal

economy; we have the equipment. We can't keep talking about foreign

money coming in. A lot of the problems we have right now could be dealt

with locally. They could be dealt with immediately instead of

continuing to wait for some opportune time. In the meantime there are a

lot of unemployed. There are a lot of businesses that are not getting

the spinoff that you get when people are working and spending. If we're

going to look at employment, if we're going to look eventually to full

employment, we have to deal with it on a regional, local basis, and

there has to be input from all levels –– from the municipal governments,

the provincial government, and the unions and the businessites continue

to take a positive look at it.

I go through the budget and see statements: "We're going to minimize

the tax burden on the citizen." But, Mr. Speaker, you know as I know

that each year the taxes of the provincial government.... They have

them all indexed so gasoline prices go up. They're all indexed:

cigarettes, tobacco. The taxes go up. But still we have this.... I

would say it's kind of stretching the truth a little bit on a lot of it

when they have in the throne speech that we're going to cut taxes.

We're not. The statement that we have the second-lowest income tax in

Canada.... If we're going to make statements like that, then we've

got to compare apples with apples. It has been pointed out by a good

friend of the government, Michael Walker, when he says that if you look

at what happens in our tax system.... In every other province

except for three the health care is added in as part of your income

tax. When you add in our personal income tax and what we pay in health

care and premiums and co-insurance, we are the second-highest payers of

personal income tax.

Now I believe that the throne speech should have facts. It shouldn't

have a rerun of a lot of political propaganda that is not really

altogether true.

Another thing that it did say in the throne speech is that we must

be working together. I've said time after time in this House that we

must work together not only at the local level but at the business

level and at the workers' level. We must work together to continue full

employment, or work toward it. If we don't do that, if we don't take

that positive approach, we're going to have the continued ups and downs

within our province.

When I was on a forestry conference up in Nelson before

Christmas.... The same problem that I'm faced with continuously in some

of the

local mills, getting an assured timber supply, is faced by small mills,

small worker groups that are trying to put together new businesses up

in the interior. The government does not look at the small industry

that is trying to get established. They don't make some of the timber

available. Up in the interior Westar has large areas of timber that

they are not using. One of the small companies that I talked to had a

small job where they were salvaging wood and making beanpoles for the

agricultural industries. There was timber going to waste in stands, and

the availability was denied to that company. It was allowed to rot.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

I feel that if we going to have projects, we have to have a lot of

small projects. We have to keep people working in the areas where they

have their homes, where they have their investments, where we have the

schools, the libraries and the hospitals. We can't keep allowing areas

to go down without any input.

I have another area in my own riding, Port Renfrew. For years Port

Renfrew was a kind of a centre of the forestry industry, but because of

overcutting and changes in the logging operations, the main centre of

that industry has moved farther north. Port Renfrew does have the

ability to produce more jobs, but it takes a little bit of cooperation

with the government and with the local community to start these

operations up. One of the needs of that particular community is a good

access road.

Madam Speaker, we need some input from the government. One

attraction that is in every brochure put out by the tourist industry

and by other private companies is that people should go out to Port

Renfrew to the botanical marine gardens, which is under park status

through the government. It is an ecological reserve. But what happens

to the road going down to it? You know, you put out all these

brochures, and people get in their cars, and they drive the 40 miles

over those logging roads, and they have about three miles to drive down

to the beach. The original road was a logging road, but for many years

the government maintained that road. They graded it and ditched it and

put in the important things like culverts, and they looked after it.

But the last few years they have shut down the Highways yard in Port

Renfrew because they said it was going to be more efficient to move it

out of Port Renfrew. That road has deteriorated to the state that last

week when I went in there with a heavy-duty, four-wheel truck, we still

couldn't get within a quarter mile of that particular site.

Of all the millions of dollars that are spent in Highways, the

government is not listening to the local people. All they want is a

secure, safe road so people can encourage tourists to

[ Page 7397 ]

come out there. That is a potential tourist destination area. It has

a potential for commercial fishing that is going to be unsurpassed for

an area that you can drive to. You drive out to Port Renfrew, you're

just inside the blue line of Juan de Fuca Strait, and it has a

potential for commercial and recreation salmon fishing second to none.

[4:00]

The people who live there know the potential is there. People are

starting up little guide services. They are starting up bed and

breakfasts, but you can't keep encouraging people to come out there,

because once you travel the road, you'll never come back. A few of us

who have a kind of vested interest in going out to some of these areas

do it. But with tourists, not only foreign tourists but tourists from

the rest of B.C. who are spending money in all the communities they

travel through.... When a government gets a plea for help from an

area, they should look at it from what it is going to be able to do to

that region.

Money is spent on TV advertising saying what great projects we have

in tourism and great projects we have in Partners in Enterprise. If

just some of the millions of dollars that is spent were spent on real

work, then you would impress far more people than you would impress by

TV propaganda. I'll put it straight, Madam Speaker: these are the

things that we have to look at, because we have to build toward an

economy of full employment, and it's only going to be built if we look

at it at the smaller level, not at something that looks great on TV. We

have to look at every part of British Columbia to build on our internal

economy, because as the Minister of Human Resources stated, the most

important thing that people want is a job. They don't want welfare.

They don't want handouts. They want to be able to do something

meaningful and they want to be able to know that when they build a

home, when they work, they are going to produce something and they're

going to have some security. It takes cooperation from all levels of a

society.

You talk about the proposals that have been made by the opposition.

Last year the Leader of the Opposition filed with this House

an Act to

Rebuild the British Columbia Economy Through a "Jobs First" Employment

Strategy. You go through that bill. I know, Madam Speaker, you have

read it all and you have maybe added some amendments that you know from

your own community could create some positive work in your area or that

could give an opportunity to secure the continuity of some company that

is working and maybe having some financial problems or needs some

restructuring and some tax breaks or cheap electricity –– I don't know

what it is. But every one of us who represents British Columbia....

We all have our individual suggestions, and I feel that if the

government had given that particular bill serious thought and if they'd

written that bill into the throne speech, that throne speech would have

been something that all of us could have had some confidence in and

felt was going to be positive.

You go through the bill.... And I keep hearing this repetition

from the government side that the opposition never says anything.

There's one here: number 6, "A program of regular highway maintenance

and construction" –– just a simple thing like that, regular maintenance

and construction in every part of the area, and a few million here and

a few million there to maintain the roads that we need to give access

to potential tourist destinations. It's a simple thing, but maybe it's

not political. Maybe it doesn't show up on some TV ad as some great

project. It's basic, it's simple, it's logical and it's common sense,

but I guess the unfortunate

part is that it was brought in by the

Leader of the Opposition, and the government immediately rejected it.

The second one: "Jobs through energy development." There is a

potential of developing new work, new uses of energy. It's laid out ––

some of the suggestions that are going to create employment and are

going to create a better community, a better society and give us some

stability in our country.

Rail electrification. It's easy to say: "Oh, we can't do that. We've

always burned either coal or oil or diesel or something." But there are

many modern countries in this world that don't have the surplus

electricity that British Columbia has. That type of utilization of the

resources we have would make British Columbia a richer province.

We've talked about housing. We've talked about a housing development

program, and I know the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

has gone through the problems in his riding of the mismanagement of the

government. I think that can be pointed out in 1972 to '75, when the

NDP established in British Columbia the Housing Corporation that was

going to look at social housing, housing for seniors, housing for the

various sections of our community. The one thing that they had was

providing the housing for senior citizens. In 1977 the present Social

Credit government wiped out the Housing Corporation. The only thing

they kept solely in their jurisdiction was housing for senior citizens,

and they didn't even accept that one job. If they had provided the

housing for senior citizens that is needed in the Vancouver area, they

wouldn't have forced people to live in those flea-trap hotels that they

are now getting evicted from.

That is our responsibility as members of the Legislature. It's a

bigger responsibility for those who sit in the government that they

never looked at providing the needed housing. In 1977 the minister, who

is now Minister of Finance, said: "The private sector will always

provide sufficient housing. We have vacant rental accommodation

available." What it was in that centre part of Vancouver was a lot of

cheap, flea-ridden hotels that were the only ones they could afford,

and we never provided homes that people can live in, in the area they

have chosen, in some kind of dignity.

I know it's easy to say, "Well, it's too late to do that," but if

we're going to build a better British Columbia, we have to build for

the future all the time. Today is the beginning of the future for the

next five years. I know we can't go back to 1977 and redo the mistakes

that we made then, but we can't keep defending those mistakes. We must

look at it, and I know I will be discussing a lot of these issues in

the estimates. I thank you very much.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's always a pleasure to stand and take my

place on the floor of this House in response to the Speech from the

Throne. Even though this is the third time I have undertaken to do

this, I do remember very clearly that very first time in 1983 when so

many of us were new at the job and stood up and did our best to respond

to the Speech from the Throne. Believe it or not, I can even remember

the things that I talked about at that time, when I was all starry-eyed

and new at the job. I remember talking about cooperation, and about my

belief that cooperation throughout our society was a thing that is

intensely to be desired. So my first reaction on hearing this year's

throne speech was to sue somebody for plagiarism, because they took all

my lines. But I don't mind, really.

[ Page 7398 ]

Even the Leader of the Opposition managed to say some nice things

about Art Phillips and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom), showing that cooperation can and does work. I must

say, however, that the Leader of the Opposition did spend an inordinate

amount of time being quite critical of our government's efforts. I

would have hoped that at this particular time he would have tried

rather harder to add more constructive suggestions for additions to His

Honour's speech. But on reflection, I recognized that, obviously, he

must have shared my belief that it was an excellent speech, expressing

a very positive vision which would be exceedingly hard to improve upon.

Some people would hold all politicians in relatively low regard.

These people may be surprised to learn that I do listen to the

opposition. I listened very carefully to the previous speaker, and I

have listened to many of the others, and I don't just listen to them to

find a way to criticize them. In fact, while I have less and less time

to read for pleasure, I did read the book written by the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I must say that I enjoyed it.

It was a pleasure to read it. You know, institutional memory is

something which I believe in, and I certainly commend the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) as well as the member for

Vancouver East, for they both wrote what I consider splendid books. I

must say that in reading them I could more clearly understand why, with

the greatest of respect, I could never embrace the politics of those

sitting in the official opposition. Mind you, I do not believe I have

any less compassion for people than they do. Tommy Douglas was a great

man of the people, and he was a pioneer of medicare. But so was W.A.C.

Bennett. I believe the difference which separates these people is one

of philosophy, and it comes right down to their views of human nature.

[4:15]

In my view, unlimited paternalism towards adults is no favour. The

notion that people should bear no personal responsibility whatsoever

for their own poor decisions is not going to help society in the long

run. Perhaps a few people are born winners and a few born losers, but I

suspect, Madam Speaker, that the vast majority of us are neither. We

can be encouraged or we can be discouraged. We react to incentive and

so do we react to the lack of it. If we remove, through the state,

every penalty for failure, we cannot help but multiply failure,

whatever our intentions may be.

king by the name of Canute to resolve all their ills. They thought he

could resolve everything, and he had to prove to them that not even a

great king could alter nature. To prove this to them, he had his throne

moved out onto the seashore. When the tide was coming in he told the

tide not to come in, but of course it came in anyway. This is how he

proved his point.

I say that the great king couldn't alter nature, and no more can we

alter human nature. The socialists see us all as social animals. The

laissez-faire capitalists see us as naked individuals. Social

Crediters, I hope, take a broader view, Madam Speaker, recognizing that

we are far more complex than either of these simplistic notions would

suggest.

Every man is an island, yet all men are brothers, or sisters –– I

wouldn't want to be accused of being sexist. From this paradoxical

reality, we must adopt a set of rules and conventions or customs which

allow us to live together without robbing anyone of his uniqueness or

precious identity. Like the skins of an onion, each of us has many

identities: ethnic, religious, cultural, professional, physical and

spiritual. We are remarkably complex beings, and our society is too

complex by far for any one theory to be universally applicable or

sufficient to explain us or to govern us. Neither the marketplace nor

Marx is satisfactory to encompass man.

Some of the great changes in our lives have come deliberately as a

matter of collective decision-making: extension of the franchise,

development of the social safety net. These are clear and salutary

cases. But others have not –– whether economic change flowing from

inventions such as the automobile, or social change flowing from

inventions such as the pill, or sheer population change flowing from

the discovery of antibiotics. We must learn to accept, as politicians,

that we are not the font of all benevolence on this earth, and that we

would be pathetically foolish if we pretended to be so, whether as a

big brother or a big uncle. We are only a few dozen individuals out of

millions.

Grant us the humility to accord to our fellow man the right to be

different from us and the opportunity to achieve great things in free

and voluntary association and in natural association through the

family, the community, the trade union or the small business enterprise.

I was very pleased, Madam Speaker, that the throne speech recognized

that it is the people and not the politicians who will ultimately make

life better in the future. With us, we hope; but in spite of us if we

fail to see the handwriting on the wall and adapt to the real world

around us. Even with the best of intentions, this is often difficult.

As Minister of the Environment, I have been given a particularly

good opportunity to see the truth of this. The capitalist United States

and the communist Soviet Union have both been equally wed to ideas of

the supremacy of heavy industry and, indeed, much of it heavy military

industry. Yet people all over this world are questioning those

priorities and looking towards a future of different priorities: clean

air and water, respect for nature and a desire to banish nuclear arms

in a secure and a balanced way. British Columbians are in the forefront

of those whose agenda is different from the Cold War, and increasingly,

I believe, from the class war model which we inherited from Great

Britain. We are not looking at events or issues or ourselves in

isolation any more. That is why the government appointed the Wilderness

Advisory Committee to look at the broad range of environmentally

sensitive areas in our province, rather than single issues in

fragmented isolation.

We understand too that money resolves some problems but not others.

Few people seriously believe any more that our deliberate efforts to

solve all social problems through the infusion of cash are necessarily

appropriate. I wish that the members of this House could read a little

more science fiction. Madam Speaker, there is a lady named Ursula

LeGuin, and she wrote a book. It was a good book, and it's called The

Lathe of Heaven . This book has been shown a number of times on the

public television broadcasting systems. It deals with a psychiatrist

who tries to use the unique power of a patient to change reality to

match his dreams, in an effort to eliminate all of the world's

problems. Unfortunately, in the end the psychiatrist ends up himself in

a straitjacket, because try as he will, he manages only to solve one

problem by making other problems very much worse. The dreamer survives

with the reassurance of an old Beatles' song, "I get by with a little

help from my friends." We have to recognize, I think, Madam Speaker,

that sometimes that's the best we can do.

[ Page 7399 ]

I think that the parallel to government is a striking one. As modern

researchers in the field of physics now suspect: "Everything is part of

everything else." Ecology and economy are intertwined in innumerable

ways, some obvious and some much less so. Cutting down trees has a

whole range of impacts, and so, too, does not cutting them down. Making

it easier to be unemployed may also make it easier to stay unemployed.

Government houses built for the homeless may not be the homes that

those people want, and there may be cheaper ways of providing them with

the housing they desire.

Regulations which make the marketplace a fairer place can add to its

strength, far from weakening it; yet, on the other hand, Madam Speaker,

we have seen how rental increase ceilings have often become rental

increase floors. What I'm getting at is that in government the obvious

answer is frequently wrong.

People calculate to their advantage and act accordingly. Some of

that advantage is economic and some is not. Some of their motivation is

wholesome and some is not. I believe that the doctrine of the golden

mean is applicable: "Be moderate, encourage the best in people, and

provide also for the worst."

Some people would accuse me of standing in the middle of the road,

and I don't mind that a bit. But I also know that if all you do is

stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over. I

believe, rather, in building bridges, both literally and figuratively,

and I believe that the Speech from the Throne provides for just that. I

was very impressed with the member for Atlin's (Mr. Passarell'

s) observation that Expo is a positive statement we are making to the

world, both economically and in terms of international understanding

and world peace.

We understand that the world is changing and that new approaches are

possible, and I notice with great pleasure a press report that the

Reagan administration is expected to endorse the call of the

International Joint Commission for action on acid rain. That would be a

terrific breakthrough, and I must say that it is instances such as this

which so richly reward the efforts of all of those concerned citizens

who worked so hard and so idealistically to make our world a better

place and a safer one in which to live.

I don't believe that human beings are beyond changing for the

better. I take pride in the successes and I'm not put off by the

difficulties. In my own constituency of Dewdney, Madam Speaker, I'm

pleased with the initiatives that have been undertaken, such things as

improvements to the Albion ferry system and complementary highway

improvements in that area. Eventually, of course, we hope to see a

bridge across the river in that area, and I happen to know that the

land has already been acquired, at least on one side of the river, so

this is not too far down the road.

The recent establishment of the Mission Heritage Park has preserved

these historical lands for the enjoyment of those in our community.

There have been municipal and school building improvements that have

been undertaken, and a major diking improvement to control the flooding

problems, which annually plague this area, has been provided for.

Last, but certainly not least, we've seen the establishment of Moli

Energy in Dewdney, a project which will provide needed jobs for our

citizens.

We all recognize, Madam Speaker, that while our duties in Victoria

are of prime importance, we must never forget our responsibilities to

our constituents. I listen to them when they tell me that their first

priority is job creation, not make-work projects but lasting job

creation, primarily through the private sector, but with the

encouragement of government, which is precisely what this government

does.

I listen to them, Madam Speaker, when they tell me that they want

continued progress in providing new and improved health care facilities

and programs. I listen to them when they tell me that they want

adequate funding and efficient programming in our education system. I

listen to them when they ask for increased emphasis on reforestation

and on our small business potential. I hear them when they praise our

partnership with municipalities and with the federal government. They

want to see cooperation between governments, management and labour.

The Leader of the Opposition told us the other day that this throne

speech has something for everyone; that the Premier was going to

cooperate with everyone in sight. Then he turned around and was trying

to find some way of being critical. In essence, he said he didn't

believe us. He also said it was –– and I quote ––

"all too good to be

true." I prefer to take the opposite approach, Madam Speaker: not to

fear the worst, but to work for the best. Fear and suspicion are

self-fulfilling prophecies. Those who trust no one are trusted by no

one.

Those who, head down, continually stare at the mud, never see the sky

above. This is a blue sky throne speech, and that is what we need in

British Columbia today.

I'd like to congratulate Mike Pearce, the mayor of Quesnel, who

recently declared a "Good News Day" in his city. We all need a lot of

good news days. That is my annual challenge to the opposition. Let's

have some good news, some good news days from the opposition.

Enthusiasm can be contagious. Reasoning together would be far more

productive than squabbling together, and I'm sure everyone in the House

is aware of that. We have our own environmental problem in this

chamber, and we are the only ones who can do anything about it. I'm

going to continue to do my share, as critical politicians commissioner,

and I hope my remarks can provide an incentive to some preventive

mediation of our own.

I'm delighted that a high priority is being given to more

cooperative labour-management relations in our province, as it's vital

to our efforts in attracting new job-creating investment. I welcome too

the improvements being made to our workers' compensation system, which

is a vital social program in our province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I confess to being a movie fan, and I'm very much pleased to hear

that recognition is being afforded to our arts community and our

domestic film industry. "Hollywood North," once a term of derision, is

increasingly an emblem of pride and of international standing. We are

even in competition for the Oscars, believe it or not. Who would have

believed that, even five years ago?

[4:30]

This is going to be an extremely important year in our history.

Indeed, we will never be the same again. The opportunity for

self-confidence on the world stage is unparalleled; let us use it well.

Let us recognize the talents we have, whether young or not so young,

male or female, native or immigrant. Let us accept the vision of the

throne speech in good faith, and work and reason together for the

common good. This year will be remembered as an opportunity lost or as

a future gained. The choice is ours.

[ Page 7400 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries and the precincts this

afternoon is a former member of this Legislature, a former mayor of

Nanaimo, the man who started the world-famous bathtub races. I'd ask

the House to welcome Mr. Frank Ney.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's indeed a pleasure to once again take my

place in this throne speech debate. I think it's a pleasure.

I have read through the document delivered by His Honour but written

in the cabinet chambers, of course, or in the office of the Premier,

and the comment I want to make is that there is absolutely nothing new.

In fact, all of the items mentioned in this document had been announced

previously by the Premier or various government ministers. In all my

years in this Legislature, this is probably the thinnest throne speech

I have seen.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this document offers no hope whatsoever, in

my view, for the state of the economy, for the unemployed, for the

people on social assistance in this province. To reiterate very

briefly, at the moment we have 237,000 people on social assistance

in this province. That figure has been used quite frequently in this

Legislature. And as pointed out again yesterday by our leader, 83,000

of the people receiving social assistance are children. We have 192,000

people on UIC in this province, after 10 years of Social Credit

government–– employable unemployed. We have the highest rate of

business failures in all of Canada. Business failures increased by 166

percent over the last five years, as opposed to the rest of Canada,

where business failures decreased by about 9 percent, according to our

statistics.

However, as I say, we can go through statistics and figures for

hours and hours –– I might just do that –– but this really doesn't tell

the whole story. All of us, at least most of us, have had the

opportunity over the past several years, but particularly in the last

year, to travel to many smaller communities throughout British

Columbia. There is where the mismanagement of this government can

really be seen: empty storefronts, small businesses closing down, more

people becoming unemployed....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member says "businesses starting up," and

I ask him: where?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mowing lawns.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, and selling hot dogs.

But as I started to say, in these small communities is where we can

really see the devastation that has taken place –– even in your own

community, Mr. Speaker, as in mine; as in Port Alberni, Campbell River,

Kamloops, anywhere we've been throughout the province. It's very easy

to see when you're talking with the local residents what is happening

to the employment situation in these communities under this government.

In my constituency, and I'm going to talk a bit about my

constituency, it has been estimated overall that about 22 percent –– and

I think that figure may even be a little low for the district of Powell

River –– of employable people are currently out of work. This includes

employables on social assistance, of course. It includes people on UIC,

young people not included on anybody's statistics but living at home,

women living at home but who would like to find a job, women who would

ordinarily be in the workforce, and last, but certainly not least, the

unemployed native Indian people in my riding, who comprise, by the way,

nearly 10 percent of the total population of my riding. These are not

included in the federal government statistics.

Our party –– our caucus members and leader –– have put forward

numerous proposals that would create 50,000 new jobs a year over the

next ten years. These programs include –– and I think the previous

speaker mentioned some of them –– jobs in the forest industry,

particularly in silviculture and added value to our forest products;

jobs in municipal infrastructure, much needed; jobs in road and highway

projects to be carried out all over the province and to employ local

people.

On that topic, I was going to briefly discuss the megaprojects in

terms of highways that this government has initiated. Perhaps these

projects are needed and were needed, and some of these projects are

still under construction. But what I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, is

that the government, in terms of the Coquihalla, for example –– let's

just use that one example for the moment –– passed a bill in this House

some two years ago.... First of all they announced the project and

put the project on hold for about two years. But they decided, for

whatever purpose –– and the reason given by the minister was, I believe,

Expo –– that the project would proceed, and it did proceed. A bill was

passed in this House authorizing the ministry to spend $375 million on

that project.

Now I'm making two points here: first, if that particular project

was postponed for two years by the ministry and the government as it

was, why could it not have been postponed perhaps another two years?

That $375 million could have been spread around the province to create

employment all over the province on the badly neglected major highways

and roads all over this province.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Roads and highways have been neglected by this

government, and you know that. Part of your riding is rural, Mr.

Speaker, so you know that. I'm thinking of Highway 101 in my riding,

where no real reconstruction has taken place since 1975 –– just band-aid

work. We could have employed hundreds of people in my own riding just

on that reconstruction job alone. We have the Vancouver Island bypass.

Certainly a portion of that highway from Parksville to Campbell River

required improvement. I know –– I travel it every weekend, as many of

the other members here do as well. But the Vancouver Island bypass must

be a priority project with this government.

But the other thing about the Coquihalla, and I know that we'll get

into this topic in estimates.... It's my information, Mr. Speaker ––

and I wish the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)

were in the House today, but I'll certainly be talking about this

matter in detail in estimates –– that it is going to cost considerably

more than the $375 million allocated by this House for that project,

for the following couple of reasons. The minister is aware of this.

First of all, some of the construction, it is my information,

[ Page 7401 ]

was not carried out properly. Some of the bed for that new highway

was built when the highway was frozen, and the paving was improperly

applied. It's very likely that much of that paving is going to have to

be redone within the next two or three years. I have this from a very

reliable source.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

asked me if I am an engineer. Well, what kind of an engineer is he

talking about? But I want to tell you that that project could end up

costing the people of this province $500 million, and perhaps more.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Other positive proposals that have been put forward by our caucus

and our leader, aside from the projects I mentioned, were new home

construction, older home remodelling and upgrading....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that government scrapped the programs

that were in place, and now he says one of them was our idea.

This government has abandoned local and community projects, care for

local people and job creation, and has decided to go the megaproject

route. And what are they? Northeast coal? That's $700 million of

taxpayers' money down the tube. Right? Light rapid transit in

Vancouver. The Annacis Island bridge in the lower mainland. Expo, a

monster project which may be a good thing for British Columbia in the

long run. I hope it is a success, and I am going to attend; I am going

to take my children. I hope it is a success, but nonetheless we're

looking at $400 million to $500 million of taxpayers' money going into

that project at a time when this government cut back on education

programs, health programs and what have you.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker. Guess what we find in this document. Once

again, since 1960 another megaproject, the Vancouver Island natural gas

pipeline. I cannot believe it. Here we go again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the twenty-fifth anniversary.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, we should have a celebration.

In the last provincial election, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that

nine cabinet ministers came into my riding during the campaign. Nine ––

count 'em. Oh yes, there they are, and at every meeting, every

gathering, to every little community newspaper. What did they say?

"Vote for us and you've got the pipeline. But right now, of course, we

have a commission looking at it." So the commission did look at the

viability of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. They did, and

they brought in a report after the election. Guess what they finally

recommended, after hearings all over the coast of British Columbia?

That the gas pipeline go the southern route. Thanks a lot. So there we

were. No fertilizer plant that would have created some 500 to 600

direct new jobs in Powell River and a number of new jobs on Vancouver

Island. But here we go again: natural gas line mentioned in this

document, throne speech debate. It will be an issue in the next

election. They'll come in there, the cabinet ministers, whoever is left

in cabinet –– some are out, some are in –– and promise: "Vote for us and

you've got the pipeline." Nonsense. People don't believe it any more.

It's just incredible.

[4:45]

One final item on this. I'll just quote this one line out of the

throne speech: "My government will assist in efforts to extend natural

gas service into rural areas of the province, and efforts will continue

to have the federal government fulfill its commitment for the Vancouver

Island natural gas pipeline." Well, I want to tell you, Madam Speaker,

that the federal government, as far as I am aware, has never made a

commitment to finance that $553 million natural gas line to Vancouver

Island. Well, he says he should, but this document says that the

federal government had made that commitment. We called an

all-candidates meeting on the Sun shine Coast during the last provincial

election, and the candidate got up and quoted the present government as

saying that the federal government had in fact made a commitment.

Luckily I had a document in my pocket, signed by the then Minister of

Energy under the Liberal government, Mr. Jean Chretien, who stated to

me in that letter that there had been no commitment made to finance

that natural gas line to Vancouver Island.

Over and above that, just two weeks ago the present Minister of

Energy, the Hon. Pat Carney –– with the Conservative government, of

course –– stated very clearly and publicly while here in British

Columbia that, yes, the federal government believed that all people in

all parts of the country should have access to natural gas, but that

the asking price by this current provincial government was far too

rich. In other words, they wanted the federal government to pay the

whole $553 million, and the federal government could not consider that

proposal.

They haven't changed from their position, but they'll go out in the

next provincial election and say: "It's the feds' fault. We're all for

it; we want you to have natural gas" –– and so on and so on. If they're

re-elected, which I doubt, once again we'll probably have a line in the

next throne speech: "Natural gas line to Vancouver Island." What utter

nonsense! Well, they're not going to win an election this next time on

that one, I can tell you that.

AN. HON. MEMBER: We want Gargrave.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You can have him. No, I don't mean that. I

withdraw that. Mr. Gargrave was a very fine MLA for 14 years, and he

represented the riding that I now represent very well.

However, back to business. Another item that I want to.... I'm

sorry to see that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Kempf) is not in the House at the moment. He was here a short....

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He's back in the co-op, right.

What I'm on about is quite a new and budding industry all over my

riding, and that's the aquaculture and mariculture industry. I don't

intend to go into a lot of detail on this during the throne speech

debate, but there is one.... That industry is facing a number of

problems and causing a number of problems for residents, particularly

in the Sun shine Coast area of my riding. One of the major problems....

I should inform you that there is a major meeting taking place on

this

[ Page 7402 ]

subject tomorrow in Sechelt on the Sun shine Coast. I expect about

200 people will be there. The major problem is the way this government

is issuing these leases to these people applying for mariculture and

aquaculture sites –– particularly for fish-farming, to put it in a

nutshell. What this government is doing and has done over the heads of

regional districts, and against the recommendations of the local

regional district –– over the heads of local ratepayers' and citizens'

groups, and without consultation with these groups –– is issue I don't

know how many leases. I would guess that throughout the riding it's by

the hundred, without consultation and against the recommendation of

local governments.

I want to tell you that this is causing a great deal of grief in the

area. Two sites that come to mind very quickly are the operation called

Scantech at Halfmoon Bay –– more specifically, Woods Bay –– where a

ten-acre fish farm is now in operation in a residential area, part of

it on land....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, believe that or not, the processing end

of that ten-acre site is on land in a residential area. That minister

laughs. He doesn't know what he is laughing at; he hasn't been there.

If he owned a home next to that processing plant and next to that fish

farm, the value of his home –– he has probably got a $500,000 home, or

more –– would drop by about half.

People are selling their homes, or have their homes up for sale, in

these areas. Another area is an area up in my riding called Earls Cove,

where the very same thing is happening. This is when we have literally

thousands of miles throughout that whole Jervis Inlet and Porpoise Bay

area which would be just as suitable. But this government, against the

recommendations of locally elected governments, is arbitrarily issuing

these licences here from Victoria.

Rumour has it –– and it's only rumour, but if I can ever pin this

down, believe me, you'll hear from me in this House –– that some of these

leases are going to friends of the government. At least, that's the

people who are making these accusations are saying. I'm very upset

about it.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You have a right to be.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're darned right.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Would you like a fish-processing plant on your

front lawn? I wouldn't.

Anyway, I am serving the minister who is responsible for issuing

these leases — and I hope to meet with the minister responsible, and

with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland), as well, who is

responsible for administering funds to these operations...to look

at this matter. There have been petitions. Letters have gone to the

minister and to the previous minister responsible for issuing these

leases, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm now serving

notice that hopefully, before that minister's estimates come up, he

will address his staff to this issue and that he will meet with members

of the regional board when they come to Victoria very shortly, and also

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) to hopefully

change the zoning for some of these areas.

Another serious item — and I'll be brief on this one, Madam Speaker

— involves, I suppose, mainly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A court decision was handed down

some three or so months ago in favour of the large pulp and paper mill

in Powell River, stating that the municipality would have to rebate

$10.9 million to the government or to the company. In other words, the

B.C. Assessment Authority has said, on appeal and by court order, that

the property was overassessed by the Assessment Authority. That small

community of some 14,000 residents, more or less, will have to repay

$10.9 million of that assessment back to the company, even though the

company itself pays nearly 90 percent of the assessment in that

community. In my view, the province should be liable for that money.

The municipality made its tax decisions based on assessments provided

to them by the B.C. Assessment Authority. If the Assessment Authority

was wrong, as a B.C. Crown corporation, then it was not the

municipality that wasn't operating in good faith; the error was on the

part of the government, and they should address the problem.

I understand that the mayors, the councillors and others may be

having further discussions with the Minister of Finance and