1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5817 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. a nuclear weapons free zone. Mr. Macdonald –– 5817

Cottle Hill transmission tower. Mrs. Wallace –– 5818

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5818

Tabling Documents –– 5819

Private Members' Statements

Belcarra Park highway. Mr. Rose –– 5820

Hon. A. Fraser

Canadian disarmament. Mr. Stupich –– 5821

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Cocke

Immigration. Mr. Davis –– 5822

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Barnes

Peace march. Mrs. Dailly –– 5824

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Davis

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act –– 1985

(Bill 26). Committee stage

On

Section I –– 5826

Mr. Cocke

Mr. R. Fraser

Division

section 3 –– 5827

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Lea

Division

Third reading –– 5828

Ministry Of International Trade And Investment Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5829

Mr. Williams –– 5829

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5833

Appendix –– 5834

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am greatly honoured today to

share with all hon. members a unique experience in our British Columbia

history. For the first time ever seated together on the floor of this

Legislature are four previous Speakers of our Legislative Assembly,

going back some 27 years. Seated on the floor of the House are Lorne

Hugh Shantz, Speaker of this House from 1958 to 1963; William Harvey

Murray, Speaker from 1964 to 1972; Gordon Hudson Dowding, Speaker from

1972 to 1975; and Dean Edward Smith, Speaker from 1976 to 1978.

It was my pleasure last evening to host a small reception in honour

of the contribution these men have made to the parliamentary process in

British Columbia, at which time a commemorative ring was presented to

each of our former Speakers.

Would members please join in giving our distinguished guests a warm, genuine and well-deserved welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: I see that only two members rose here

following your introduction of these distinguished former members of

the House, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and

myself, who are the only two members of the House who have served under

all of these four Speakers and two others. I can tell you that they

never had any difficulty from that member. Oh, they're giggling, Mr.

Speaker, if you could credit that.

It's a tremendous honour for our Legislature to be able to recognize

in this way the services of those who contribute so much to the

traditions and the decorum of our Legislative Assembly. Of all the

people who serve here, those who sit in the Chair, as you do, Sir, are

the ones who are most charged with the responsibility of maintaining

the traditions of the House and seeing that it serves the public in the

way the public intends. So it not only brings back many fond and

pleasant memories of those who have sat in the chair, but gives us

great pleasure to recognize the service that they have given to the

people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as the other surviving member who

has had the pleasure of sitting under all of the opposite quartet of

speakers.... Maybe I should say "gaggle of speakers," because the

minister and I are the only two members presently in the House who have

been brought short by each and every one of them — in my own case, in

spite of the fact of the lifelong study that I've made of May

Bourinot's book. [Laughter.] But you know how politics sort of slowly

eases out of the scene with the passing years. I look upon the four

across as friends and was very pleased to have had a chance very

briefly to see them last night.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same issue, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask one question: which one of you kept the hat? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, in our midst this morning is a retiree, and now for a few clues.

He first tasted journalism with the University of Victoria. He became editor

of the Martlet , and he apprenticed at the Victoria Colonist ; thence to the sunny

skies of Skaha Lake and eventually to the rarified ozone as city editor of the

Penticton Herald . But the lure of the sea and the love of the spud was just

too compelling, so this individual returned to Disneyland North to run a fish

and chip shop. You know, in retrospect, if he'd only just called it McDonald's!

But to make ends meet, Mr. Speaker, he represented five small dailies on the

side.

I think a banner year for him was 1977, when our mystery person

linked into national wire, joined the Canadian Press and headed to

Europe to cover an economic mission, and achieved a lifelong ambition

in Paris. He achieved the office of M. le President of la Gallerie de

la Presse. He survived four elections and yet is still finding the time

Today he's signing off — "CLV, Victoria, have a pleasant evening" —

for the last time, because on Monday it's anchors aweigh with B.C.

Steamship Company. Whether he intends to hydrofoil or Princess Marguerite it indeed remains to be seen.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's the gallery's loss, it's this assembly's loss

and the public's loss. I'd say with every sincerity that every member

of this House would thank him for his fairness, for his integrity, for

his pleasant demeanour and for his balanced reporting. Au revoir and

bonne chance, Charlie LaVertu.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same topic — notwithstanding a

little problem that Charlie and I had a minute or two ago — we on this

side of the House do feel that Charles has served this Legislative

Assembly very well, and we certainly wish him every good fortune. This

is the second time we've done it; Charlie, let's not have to do it

again. In any event, best of good luck, and we on this side share the

government's view.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a bit of a rare occasion,

today being a Friday and our Deputy Clerk is at his place. That in

itself is not a rare occasion, but I'd like to recognize his

long-suffering spouse, Louise, who is in the gallery.

[10:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, several people who have come to

British Columbia and then gone away in difficult circumstances have

chosen to come back again. In the gallery today are two executives of

Conoco Canada Ltd.: Mr. Simmons, the president and managing director,

and Mr. McKitterick, vice-president of exploration. As a result of

changes in government policy, Conoco Canada has decided to come back to

British Columbia.

Oral Questions

B.C. A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the fact that tomorrow, April 27,

is Peace Day and that most members will be marching — it’s a matter of

great moment — will the government House Leader consider calling Bill

M203, which is a private member's bill to make B.C. a nuclear weapons

free zone, for debate today?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair at this time would have

to indicate that such a question placed at question period generally

exceeds the scope of question period. I think

[ Page 5818 ]

the member is well aware of that. Therefore the question is out of order.

COTTLE HILL TRANSMISSION TOWER

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, responsible for B.C. Hydro. There is a

hill just behind Nanaimo known as Cottle Hill, which houses

transmitters and communications equipment for various groups, including

B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether or not he is

aware of the transmitter that has recently been installed on Cottle

Hill by the U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I mustered out from the Royal

Canadian Air Force in 1964, and that's the last I had to do with the

military. I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. I'll find out for

you if you like.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Then I might try the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. Cottle Hill is partially owned by B.C. Tel,

and they have communications equipment on Cottle Hill. I wonder if the

minister is aware of a transmitter recently installed on Cottle Hill by

the U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't there.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll try the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, seeing that this involves the United

States. I might advise him that there is such a transmitter installed

by the U.S. Navy on Cottle Hill for the purpose of transmitting to

nuclear subs in our waters. Is the minister aware of this, and if so,

has he taken any steps in this regard?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't know.

MRS. WALLACE: A very facetious answer, Mr. Speaker. The

agreement allowing.... Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how facetious the

government benches seem to think this question is.

The agreement which allows those nuclear subs to come into Nanoose

expires in June of next year. Has the minister notified the federal

government that British Columbians do not wish that agreement renewed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to whom was the question directed?

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

Has he notified the federal government that British Columbians do not

want that agreement renewed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, I think you'd better address yourself to my last response.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister aware that if that nuclear sub base were

converted to peaceful purposes, for every dollar spent on military funds...?

You can create 25 percent more jobs in construction and nearly 2½ times more

jobs if you spend the money on education. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am not aware of that, nor am I aware of the correctness of your premise.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of International Trade and Investment. This week in the Financial Post ,

which I am sure the minister reads assiduously, a director of British

Columbia Resources Investment Corp. said: "As a result of northeast

coal we've had three price cuts and two volume cuts from the Japanese."

Is the minister aware of this statement, and does it cause the minister

to reflect on the quality of contracts with the Japanese, and the

matter of excess coal supply relative to demand and how this has hurt

the industry in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question, I have not seen the remarks made by the president and chief

executive officer of BCRIC.

AN HON. MEMBER: The director.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The director.

However, I would like to think, and I am of the opinion, that the

high prices in the contract for northeast coal helped to bring up the

prices for the coal in the southeast. Indeed there have been and are

almost on a monthly basis additional contracts being signed for the

coal producers in the southeast. Last year we shipped some eight

million more tonnes of coal out of British Columbia than we did before,

and I anticipate that in the very near future we will be shipping

additional tonnes of coal out of British Columbia as the market grows,

providing that we are looked on as having a stable government in

British Columbia.

The policies of the opposition, should they ever become the

government of British Columbia, would change the policies so that we

wouldn't be a reliable supplier. The greatest threat to the economy of

British Columbia and the coal sales today happens to be those members

of the opposition, who are sitting over there and undermining our

efforts in the international marketplace to bring stability to the

province of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's pretty clear where the stables were yesterday, Mr. Minister.

With respect to the question, the director of British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation — if the minister is listening — said,

in fact, that they have had three price cuts, not increases, and two

volume cuts from the Japanese. Doesn't that make the minister

reconsider his previous naivety in terms of dealing with the Japanese,

when he said: "Six inches of contracts are firm and can never be

changed. Prices can never be changed. Volumes won't be changed"?

Doesn't he have some kind of reason to reflect on the decisions the

government has made in the last couple of years?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the naivety on behalf of

anybody in this Legislature rests on the other side, who completely

misunderstand the international marketplace; they always did and they

always will.

[ Page 5819 ]

As I have said, the province of British Columbia and this government

do not control the international price of commodities; they don't

control the price of two-by-fours; they don't control the international

price of copper; they don't control the international price of pulp;

and they don't control the international price of coal. If there have

been any price reductions in coal, it's been due....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, shut up and listen, will you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're always yapping over there.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly when the

scope of question period goes well beyond what was intended and we

begin to enter into debate, we then lose all value and intent for that

question period. I would commend that both the questioner and the

responder bear the rules in mind that guide us during this specific

period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, British Columbia does not

control the international price of commodities; they haven't in the

past and I doubt if they will in the future. The sooner we realize that

people are no longer beating a path to our door to buy our resources,

that we have to be competitive, and we have to be looked on as a

reliable supplier, the sooner we'll get on with the job of building the

economy of British Columbia and the sooner we'll put our people to

work. That's what the whole policy of this government is for, and

that's what the opposition are trying to undermine. They're doing a

pretty good job of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Denison Mines Ltd., the major

owner in Quintette Coal Ltd., this week announced that it has no

further financial obligations with respect to northeast coal and

Quintette; that in fact it could abandon the operation. There have been

secret meetings in Toronto between representatives of the 56 banks —

the consortium that provided the lending funds with respect to

Quintette Coal Ltd. Can the minister advise whether he has had any

consultation with the representatives of Monenco, the consultants for

the banking consortium, or the other parties involved?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's

question is no, but I'm quite prepared to listen to Stephen Roman, the

chairman and chief executive officer of Denison Mines Ltd., which is a

truly Canadian company with operations in many other countries in the

world. He says that the Quintette operation and Denison's exposure in

the Quintette operation will continue and will be a success. A lot of

the doomsdayers, like the member opposite, who are going around

badmouthing the project will be eating crow, and I'll take his word for

it and not yours.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. Because

senior ecologists within this administration were not listened to, and,

in fact,the hole is in the wrong place with respect to the Quintette

mine, it is now clear that an additional $300 million in funding will

be required to relocate the hole. Can the minister advise us whether

there has been any consultation in terms of additional money from the

provincial government for this project that has already cost $3 billion?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, that's

socialist arithmetic. The figures that I have heard for relocating the

mine, if it is necessary — and as I have told this House before, the

government didn't tell Quintette Coal or the Japanese steel industry or

anybody else where to put that hole.... As I've said. the bankers

involved before the project went ahead certainly hired a consulting

firm and everybody went over the plans, and this sometimes happens.

The figure I am given to understand is somewhere in the vicinity of

$100 million. If the private sector and the banks have to come together

and put up the additional funds, that's a private sector to private

sector operation, as I have told the member opposite, and certainly has

nothing to do with the provincial government. We won't be putting any

more money into the relocation of the mine.

But I do want to advise the House, so that all the negativism that

seems to be centering around this.... The main investment in the

Quintette mine, which is in the silos, in the coal screening and

cleaning operation and indeed in the drying operation, is quite capable

of processing approximately 30 percent more than the contract, and it's

in good shape. It's merely at the mine itself that there is some

difficulty, and I understand a number of people are looking at that. I

would hope that the banking system, because interest rates have come

down since the project was put together, would come to the party.

[10:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister aware of quotes that I've seen

on some Japanese telexes that it has been the equivalent of mining

dirt, so the relocation clearly is necessary?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there again we have more

facetiousness on the part of that member. I certainly have never seen

any telexes that talked about the things he's talking about.

I say again, the problems at the mine are private sector problems.

The project is continuing, and the Japanese have advised us and are

standing by their commitment. So I would think that we would be better

advised in this Legislature to start talking about some positive

things, and stop undermining our image in the international

marketplace, because it certainly doesn't help those in the private

sector who are out there trying to sell their goods and services.

Hon. Mr. Pelton tabled answers to two questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report under the Trade Practice Act for the fiscal year 1984.

[ Page 5820 ]

Private Members' Statements

BELCARRA PARK HIGHWAY

MR. ROSE: I'll probably tread water for a minute or two while

everybody makes a graceful exit. That usually happens when I stand up

to speak, but I understand that I only have....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Gone back to Golden to get some more snow. I almost adjusted my set when I saw him.

Mr. Speaker, my statement today has to do with a very local matter.

It has to do with a highways project in the very beautiful part of my

riding called Belcarra Regional Park, which is the largest regional

park in.... It's part of the GVRD. For those of you who don't know

where it is, it's really on the eastern shores of Indian Arm, or just

opposite Deep Cove. It's extremely beautiful. It's a picturesque marine

and land park, and it's also, though, the home of the village of

Belcarra, in which a number of people reside. I'm not certain of the

precise population, but it was enough to allow this government to allow

for the formation of the village status about five years ago. In

anticipation of that, there were some highway funds allotted by the

government to upgrade Bedwell Bay road. That grant was gratefully

appreciated, but that is now at an end.

The representation that I'm making on behalf of the residents of the

village of Belcarra is that they would like their Bedwell Bay road to

be declared a secondary highway. The reason that they want it declared

a secondary highway is that by changing its title it would then qualify

for continued provincial government assistance — approximately 50

percent in capital development and about 40 percent provincial for the

sharing.

The classification is everything here, just as the classification of

our new riding boundaries is everything in determining whether you get

one or two members, which doesn't really have much to do with geography

or population — but that is another story.

They have been turned down on previous requests for a classification

on the grounds that the highway really doesn't go anywhere. It merely

dead-ends at Belcarra Park, and that is the main reason for the

turndown. However, the argument against that is that Belcarra Park

attracts approximately 100,000 visitors each year, who are really of no

benefit to the residents of Belcarra but put a severe strain on the

road network within that community. They maintain that they are too

small a community to keep up their share of an investment which is

really not theirs since there is no gain to them, there being no

commerce in the area. They feel justified by the fact that some 100,000

people or 30 percent of the traffic over the year is generated not by

the villagers themselves but by a lengthy list of visitors who attend

that very popular resort area each summer. I have here a list of some

of the groups that have used it over the last year, and it's immense.

The RCMP sends people there; the Power Squadron had groups of 50 and

60; Evergreen Girl Guides 150; Lofgren family picnic.... I've got a

list here that runs about two pages. So I think it can be documented

quite readily how much traffic is generated not by the villagers

themselves but by groups visiting that very popular park.

That's the counterargument to the fact that it can't be declared a

secondary highway because it doesn't go anywhere. This is the

representation made on behalf of the village of Belcarra. They say:

"Well, look, this isn't going to be a major amount, but it's probably a

little too heavy for some of the residents." I readily admit that there

are some pretty highly assessed homes in that area, too. I can probably

be convinced as well that whether they should qualify for a village or

be part of another one is another question. But it's not for us to

debate that at this time, because that matter was settled some years

ago.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of the cost associated with the

projects, the village hired Associated Engineering, and they came up

with a capital cost of something like $136,000 to upgrade the road. A

50 percent share in that would be $68,000 with the province, and if you

amortize that over 10 years it would be approximately $7,000 a year.

The maintenance is $25,000 a year estimated, and the province's share

would be roughly $10,000. So what we're talking about here is a total

project costing the province perhaps $15,000 to $20,000 — let's say

$17,000 a year. So I don't think it's a great one. But borne locally on

a very limited tax base among relatively few taxpayers it's a pretty

hefty burden.

Mayor Drew and the planning consultant with Associated Engineering

would like approval for this project, Mr. Minister, but if you're not

able to give us that assurance today for one reason or another, then we

certainly request an early meeting with you to discuss it in greater

detail.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's

bringing this subject up. As the member says, we've had discussions and

letters about this.... I guess we'd call it an aggravating problem for

a small community. I'd like to inform the House that rightly or

wrongly, they were incorporated as a village on August 22, 1979. Their

1981 population was 430, and the 1983 municipal estimate of population

was 450. The length of the road we're talking about here is seven

kilometres; that statistic is taken from municipal statistics of 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When the village was incorporated, the government, through our

ministry, entered into a sharing arrangement for upgrading and

maintenance, which is government policy for all municipalities that are

newly incorporated or the extension of boundaries and so on. There is a

formula in place. For the information of the member, we started on that

agreement in 1979-80. On maintenance in the '79-80 year we spent

$17,560; in 1980, $36,000; in 1981, $36,000; in 1982, $36,000; in 1983,

$36,000; in 1984, $18,440; for a total of $180,000. On the capital side

under the agreement, in 1980 we spent $19,415; in 1981, $60,585; 1982,

$40,000; 1983, $37,860; 1984, $37,525; and 1985, $4,615. This is a

total of $200,000, and a grand total, as you can see, of $380,000. So

it isn't a case of us forgetting them. The problem, as the member

pointed out, is that the agreement has come to an end, and this small

community finds it costly.

I'd just like to make the observation that it's my understanding it

is the regional park that attracts this traffic. I'm not sure whether

Belcarra is a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but I

assume they are. I have written to them and said that in view of the

fact that it is a regional park,

[ Page 5821 ]

maybe they can get some financial assistance from that source.

The problem we have is policy. Because of traffic counts, it doesn't

qualify to be upgraded to a secondary road. In other words, what I'm

saying is that if we did declare this a secondary road in a

municipality, then of course we'd probably have 150 requests for the

same thing.

I understand that the member said they've had consultants. I don't

want to take a negative position on it. I would suggest that they have

those consultants get in touch with our senior engineers. Usually when

the senior engineers in our ministry get a consultant's report, the

first thing they do is drop the consultant's estimates in half right

off the bat to achieve the same thing. In other words, there might be a

lot of things in the consultant's report that are not necessary, but

you can achieve the same results.

So I would start off with the offer that the member have the

consultants contact our people — if you want to use my office, that's

fine — to see what the consultants are recommending to that village.

Our senior people can have a look at it, and we'll take it from there.

Up until this present time, I think we've been quite fair with the

community.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to indicate that the

village and the residents therein are not grateful for the efforts and

the money that's been invested in this village. That's not the point at

all. The point in terms of traffic counts is that if they're spread

over the whole year, they perhaps don't amount to large enough numbers,

but it's the intensity of traffic between June and August that is a

very serious problem.

The fact is that much of that road is highly mountainous, tortuous,

twisty and narrow. Because of all those combined things, it is a fairly

costly thing to maintain. They want shoulders and ditches, and all that

kind of normal road maintenance.

The minister is very encouraging when he says that a consultant's

report is probably overblown by at least twice. Then we're not even

asking for as much as we thought we were. So I would think that we're

not asking the minister for $17,000 at all; maybe we're only asking for

a piddling little $10,000 a year. I'm quite sure he could find that;

he's got all kinds of highway money for Coquihalla and all the rest of

it — and bridges and that sort of thing. I do appreciate his offer for

the mayor and engineers to contact his senior engineers. They'll be

contacting your office, if not concurrently, at least subsequently —

within the next month or two.

[10:45]

CANADIAN DISARMAMENT

MR. STUPICH: Tomorrow, some millions of people all over the

world will be participating in peace marches, and I wish them well.

They've been doing this for several years; it's an annual event. But in

the meantime we go on spending for war. It has been estimated that the

money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and

housing for everyone in the world would be $17 billion a year — the

amount that the world is spending on the arms race in less than two

weeks.

There's a quotation from a paper to the effect that when President

Reagan took office the United States was spending $18 million an hour

on defence. By 1988, if the president has his way with his programs,

the U.S. will be spending $44 million an hour on defence.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a pacifist. I served in the Air Force for five

years, and by the time I joined the Air Force that was the only answer;

we had to go to war then. The mistakes had been made prior to that.

Nevertheless, I was at that time, still am, and have been ever since a

high-school teacher of mine won a prize for writing a letter on the

subject, a strong supporter of unilateral Canadian disarmament, without

any strings at all, without any conditions — total abandonment of our

spending on national defence. Canada is one of the participants in this

$18 billion every two weeks. We're proud of our record.

I have a quotation from the Province

just yesterday: "Canada is in the arms business, and its newest product

is a success; so successful it ruined a test." A new rocket was tested

on an old tramp trawler off Halifax Harbour. "It worked. It blew a hole

in the trawler and sunk it almost immediately. And, the test showed, it

would have killed everybody aboard." Mr. Speaker, aren't we great?

That's our contribution. If we withdrew completely from the arms race,

it would make little difference to the total that is being spent by the

world.

But I'm not suggesting that we wait for everyone to agree to a

disarmament plan. I'm not suggesting that any other single nation in

the world can do what we can do. Canada is in a unique position. We are

large enough to make a difference. We are large enough that if we put

our effort into other works — into trying to serve people's needs

rather than trying to destroy people — we would be noticed.

We are a very large nation with large industrial capacity, a nation

that is sandwiched between the two strongest nations in the world.

Neither one of them will attack us. We are a great no-man's-land: in

the event that there is a war between them, they would use us to fight

over. We cannot pretend to defend ourselves from either the nation to

the north or the nation to the south. We are the one nation in the

world that is in the position where we could abandon defence totally —

because it's accomplishing nothing for us — and say that we were going

to do something different: spend everything that we are currently

spending on national defence — so-called national defence — in programs

to help needy nations of the world, and invite other nations to join

us. But we are not going to wait for that to happen; let's prove to

them that it can work. There's no nation as large as Canada that is in

the unique position we are in and that can do it — that could dare do

it. But we could in Canada. And as I say, we are important enough and

big enough that we could make a real difference.

We could pick those countries in the world that are not engaged in

wars right now. Every day, people are dying in wars, in spite of the

peace march that will take place tomorrow. In spite of all these peace

marches, the world is spending all of this money and all of this effort

on war, and Canada is developing new weapons of war.

We could really make a name for ourselves in the world community of

nations if we said that from here on in Canada is no longer going to

participate in the race to see who can destroy each other first, and we

are no longer going to participate in this mad arms race in which, if

it does result in a nuclear war — which it is almost certain to do if

we keep it up — the total species will be destroyed. That may happen.

It may happen regardless of what Canada does. It will certainly happen,

in all likelihood, if we continue to participate in the arms race. But

if only one nation in the world big enough and

[ Page 5822 ]

important enough to make a difference were to say:

''From here on in, we're no longer part of it; from here on in,

whatever the rest of the world does, we are going to do everything we

can do in Canada to show that there is a way for people to live

together rather than to die together."

I urge people to think seriously about the tremendous contribution

that Canada, due to its uniqueness, could make to world peace. I wish

the peace marchers well, but, Mr. Speaker, it isn't working. It isn't

enough. I hope they continue to march. But there is something that

Canada can do that no other nation in the world can do with real effect.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 1982, this assembly

recorded its unanimous views concerning nuclear arms reduction, and

there was a motion passed that the assembly recognized the horrors of

nuclear war and holocaust and urged all world governments to increase

their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally

eliminate all nuclear weaponry.

It was illustrated at that point in time — and it is as true today

as it was then — that the people of the world are essentially divided

into three camps or some combination of them: those people who are

convinced that everyone eventually will be destroyed through the use of

nuclear weapons; those who believe that no one would ever be insane

enough to initiate a thermonuclear conflict; and finally those who

believe that every effort — every effort — has to be expended to end

the nuclear arms race and reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear

weaponry.

The statistics are absolutely horrifying. Over 44 nations have what

is called the mad technology. Fifty thousand nuclear weapons — I

suppose as a minimum — are estimated to be fused and ready in countries

of the world. That amounts to about three tonnes of TNT for every man,

woman and child. That is madness, and there has to be an end to the

proliferation of nuclear arms and an end to nuclear arms. Until all

those devices of war are dismantled, there has to be a most carefully

and precisely developed and meticulously monitored balance of nuclear

power; but most of all, Mr. Speaker, the sabre has to be sheathed as

soon as possible and eliminated finally and forever.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one or two words, and that would be on credibility.

The member for Nanaimo talks about our leadership in the world. As

long as we are doing what other nations are doing vis-à-vis armaments

and so on, we lose credibility. The very small nation of Switzerland

has, throughout my lifetime, shown leadership in this whole area: that

is, they will not get involved regardless, and they've been respected

for it. We on the other hand could, by virtue of our geographic and

economic relationships, show some real leadership in the world by

renouncing this madness for ourselves. We could provide that leadership

for the rest of the world. I congratulate the member for Nanaimo for

his position.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I said I wasn't a pacifist, and I'm

not. As a matter of fact, when I saw the amusement generated among the

government members by the serious questions put to the government by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), I couldn't help but

have a fleeting thought that if there were to be a nuclear explosion,

wouldn't it be poetic justice if it were to hit them first. But Mr.

Speaker, you and I would be here too. So that won't work.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations told us what we did in

1982. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you: did anybody notice? Those of us

who were here at the time and took

part in it realized that it

happened, and that was it. We went on to further business that day, and

it was forgotten even in this House. The minister had to read it off a

piece of paper. He didn't remember it.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way we can really make an impression

upon the world community of nations, and that is to do something

different. We're not doing anything different by saying we'd rather be

blown up by a Canadian-made rocket, or murdered by the shrapnel that it

distributes, than be burned by a nuclear bomb. I suppose if we have to

make that choice, I don't know what difference it really makes to the

people who are killed.

Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. If we're going to make any

progress, as a nation we have to do something different. B.C. passed

that resolution. Has B.C. tried to influence the federal government in

any way at all with respect to any of this? That's what I'm asking for.

I'm asking the B.C. government to support this idea, to take it to

Ottawa and try to convince Canada that there is a different way. None

of the other things has worked. All of the efforts to promote peace, to

curb the arms race, to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons,

have accomplished nothing, because the race goes on faster and faster.

It's just not working.

There is one way that could work. We're important enough. We're

unique in that we can afford to do it where other nations can't. We are

big enough. If we were to renounce completely all spending on national

defence and were to spend an equivalent amount of money, it would be

great for our economy — better than the arms race — and great for the

world. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we could through time persuade other

world nations to join with us in a move that would make a real

contribution to world peace.

IMMIGRATION

MR. DAVIS: I want to talk briefly on a tender topic:

immigration. We are all of us, to one degree or another, immigrants.

Less than 5 percent of the population of British Columbia can trace

their origin back more than several generations in this province. We

live also in a world of increasing mobility. People are able to move

around much more readily than they could a few decades ago, indeed a

few years ago. When my parents came to western Canada from Europe it

took them several weeks. The same journey nowadays takes less than ten

hours by jet. It's readily financed today. It called for the savings of

a lifetime to make that kind of move 50 years ago.

So people are moving about. They're moving about increasingly. We

have in this country — the northern half of this continent — one of the

few relatively uninhabited parts of the world remaining on the surface

of this globe. We have in Canada, and particularly in this province,

habitable areas, areas which, in terms of temperature, climate,

resources, certainly cultural and other amenities, are a few of the

most attractive spots on earth.

We have a tiny population in this province — less than three million

souls. In the world there are more than 4,000 million people. Across

the Pacific there are more than 2,000 million people. There are at

least 500 people across the

[ Page 5823 ]

Pacific for every one in this province. Most of

those people — certainly up to half of them — would move to North

America if they had the opportunity, to here, to what is admittedly one

of the most desirable places not only in Canada but on the entire

earth, to live and to live well.

[11:00]

We're going to see more people here. We're going to see not three

million, as we have now, but possibly six million by or shortly after

the turn of the century, and a multiple of that by the year 2020.

Certainly by 2050 we could have 20 million or 30 million people living

in British Columbia, and if current trends continue, the bulk of them

will be living in the lower mainland or in certain favoured areas on

Vancouver Island.

Assuming the existing lack of policy, we'll have wall-to-wall people

throughout the area from the Georgia Strait through to Hope, the

mountain people on the agricultural lands of the province crowded in

certain areas — I hope not also crowded in certain racial ghettos. But

that is a prospect which we must face.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would argue that this has to be a matter of concern, not just to

British Columbia. We should have an immigration policy — at least views

on immigration — as well as a labour policy. We should have a manpower

and immigration policy. We should be concerned with the rate at which

people from outside this province, and certainly from outside Canada,

arrive here, and try to ensure that there are jobs for most of them and

ensure that they don't underbid those who are here, taking jobs from

those who, as a result of our educational system, their family

background and so on, are not prepared to take some jobs. Through the

elimination of base rates of pay and so on, the recent arrival is

exploited but nevertheless becomes part of the mosaic which will be the

British Columbia of the future.

I'm arguing that we shouldn't leave immigration policy totally to

the federal government. We shouldn't leave it to a Prime Minister, Mr.

Brian Mulroney, who comes from Baie-Comeau, because immigrants by and

large aren't headed for Baie-Comeau in Quebec. People, on balance, are

leaving Baie-Comeau. He doesn't experience immigration in his

constituency firsthand.

The Minister of Labour in Ottawa, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, comes

from Kingston, Ontario. The population of Kingston is declining, if

anything, and not rising. Their firsthand experience, especially in

many parts of eastern Canada, and I'm talking about parts of Canada

outside of the southern extremes of Ontario.... They aren't faced with

large numbers of immigrants arriving, the consequent impact on the

labour market, the problems of assimilation, the jarring effect of

large numbers arriving in few places where there are few enough job

openings already.

Under our constitution, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have concurrent

jurisdiction. It's spelled out in the British North America Act. While

the nation controls immigration, having the absolute veto, a province

has a concurrent veto on immigration. Naturally the nation must control

it, but the provinces, by and large, are responsible for meeting many

of the costs — particularly of education, health and so on — which

relate to immigration, rising populations, highly localized

unemployment and so on.

Quebec has entered into a formal agreement with the government of

Canada. Quebec exerts a veto over immigrants. Quebec has its own

immigration officers at Canadian embassies abroad to screen immigrants.

I suggest that British Columbia, with its much greater exposure to

immigration, in future years should consider doing likewise: having a

ministry or at least a portion of a ministry concerned with

immigration, to have a plan as to how in the long term we're going to

deal with rising numbers of immigrants, and particularly to concern

itself with assimilation, employment and so on.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I thought that that was quite a

thoughtful statement that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour made.

There are, of course, some problems in the whole area of the province

becoming involved in immigration. A province on its own has some

difficulty, because when a person immigrates, let's say here,

conforming to our rules and then can move elsewhere where there are no

rules — that is, immigrate into a province where there are no rules and

vice versa.... That I see as one of the roadblocks. But it would be, I

think. excellent if the federal government would cooperate with all the

jurisdictions in the country and at the same time try to populate the

areas the member for North Vancouver-Seymour outlined.

In B.C. we have a very sensitive area. We have some areas in the

lower mainland that are as densely populated as Holland. Yet we have

other areas in the province, possibly now because of lack of amenities

and so on, equally hospitable if in fact we could only get things

moving in these general directions.

As a government, however, I think that this government has to look at relocating

or encouraging relocation of industry and commerce to other areas in the province

of British Columbia. To some extent that has been done, but not in a major way.

I noted with some glee that the lottery operation was moved to an interior city

— Kamloops. Frankly that is a good move. But I think it has to be done to a

far larger extent. The area around Prince George, and all of the northwest,

is an area that I think could be encouraged to grow. But we can't encourage

it to grow unless we have some form of policy.

Governments that say, "Well, we have to keep out of business; we

have to keep out of planning because that's just another socialist

wedge in the scheme of things," are crazy, in my opinion. I think that

the world is so complex today that government must involve itself in

the planning of the future of its economy. That's probably the best way

that we can go, along with, as the member points out, some kind of

policy that will involve all jurisdictions in this country and let us

all be partners to the extent that we can be partners with a senior

government overlooking that particular area.

I'm glad that there are people who are worried and who are thinking

in terms of the future, because there is no question about it, we are a

very attractive place — paradise by comparison to much of the world.

MR. BARNES: I really wasn't prepared to participate in this

debate. Unfortunately, had I checked the orders of the day I would have

had a chance to get some notes. But what I wanted the speaker to

address in his closing remarks.... With respect to multiculturalism,

the member has in the past made references to the impropriety.... At

least, he has not been impressed with the expending of funds for

multicultural agencies and societies. In light of the multicultural

mosaic in Canada and the trends, as we well know, in British Columbia,

[ Page 5824 ]

second language.... This is a trend that seems to be increasing. I

would hope that he would just refer to his statements which have been

quoted in the paper, calling the idea of funding multicultural programs

the "multicultural mess" — I believe that's the term. Perhaps he could

remark on that.

MR. DAVIS: As a free-enterpriser and free-trader, I naturally

have some difficulty with the word "planning." But I think governments

have an obligation at least to lay out the broad parameters for the

long term. At least let us know what the likely projections are and

what the consequences would be of certain events occurring. I'm asking

for parameters and some long-term projections — something about a very

large influx of people to this part of the world over the next few

decades.

I'm restive about a program which would direct people once they're

in Canada, once they're citizens, to any part of the country. I agree

with the charter where it says that Canadians should have full

mobility. I have some problems with a prospective bill to direct

doctors to different parts of the province. I want people to be as

individually free as they possibly can in this country.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) asks why I

am against government funding of multiculturalism. I am against

anything that divides people into categories. I'm against directing

them. But I'm very much against funding policies which identify groups

for religious, ethnic or background reasons and encourages them to

preserve their differences — in fact, pays them to preserve their

differences, even maintain historic animosities, and so on. I think

that is contrary to the spirit of this country, to a basic attitude

which says that each and every one of us should be judged on our own

merits, on our own accomplishments and on our own personality, and not

on the race we apparently belong to, on our historic background and so

on. Government funding of these different religious, ethnic — whatever

— groups is at best backward- looking, and certainly divisive. I would

like to see us all viewed for ourselves and on our own performance and

attitudes, rather than perpetuate those Old World problems, problems we

may inherit but should do our best to dispose of. We should have within

our country a community which is not characterized by ghettos, by

separate groupings easily identified, but is democratic in essence and

essentially individualist in outlook.

PEACE MARCH

MRS. DAILLY: Tomorrow, April 27, thousands of Canadians will

be walking or marching for peace, and that is why I too have chosen

today to talk about walking for peace. Mr. Speaker, I have before me

what I consider a rather disconcerting survey that was taken in the

lower mainland. It was a poll done on disarmament by United

Communications. I don't want to spend my whole time reading you the

whole poll, but I want to make a couple of points here and relate it to

my remarks coming up.

The question, "Have you ever participated in a peace walk?" was

asked — 12.6 percent said yes. "Do you intend to go this year?" — 19.8

percent. "Do you believe that Canada should participate in Star Wars?"

— 18.5 percent were strongly in support; 22 percent, somewhat; 18

percent were somewhat opposed: 29.5 percent were strongly opposed; 12

percent were neutral. But it is the next one which I find very

discouraging.

[11:15]

"If new jobs were guaranteed for Canadians, should Canada participate

in Star Wars?" — 27 percent strongly in support; 23 percent, somewhat;

12 percent were somewhat opposed; 29 percent were strongly opposed; and 8 percent

were neutral. So what is this poll telling us? The most significant thing about

it is that it uncovered that support for participation in Star Wars increases

if there is an assurance of job creation in Canada as a direct result of Canadian

participation.

That is why I wanted to devote my next couple of minutes to Star

Wars. When we walk for peace tomorrow — and I sincerely hope that all

the members of this Legislature will be doing so; after all there is no

more important issue facing us in the world today.... When we walk for

peace tomorrow, I think it is important to try to get across to the

people who are perhaps somewhat neutral about this whole area of taking

part in peace walks that it is becoming even more important to march

today than ever before. One of the reasons that is so is because of

President Reagan's obsession with Star Wars.

Unfortunately most people have not had an opportunity to analyze the

Star Wars concept. President Reagan of the United States has very

cleverly, and with his usual folksy rhetoric, lulled people in his

country — many of them; not all, fortunately — into believing that Star

Wars means peace. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if Star Wars

takes off the way the President wishes it to, we are going to have the

opposite.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to give you a few points on Star Wars. It was already pointed

out by one of our members that the five-year program for research for

Star Wars is going to cost $30 billion. That makes me react to the

questionnaire which shows that people unemployed today are so desperate

for jobs that they're willing to take on and participate in something

that can bring about their ultimate destruction. It's a tragedy. The

irony of the whole matter is that people are out of work, many of them

because of the billions of dollars that are spent on so-called defence,

which is ultimately simply going to lead to complete annihilation of

all.

Back to the Star Wars. What the president's defence initiative

reflects is just a fantasy that nuclear danger can be eliminated

through some wonderful new invention. It's purely a mechanistic

approach that denies the reality that the world will never be free from

nuclear threat until there is some reconciliation of interest, some

agreement on coexistence between the nuclear powers. That is the

answer, not Star Wars. Star Wars will not be purchasing security for

the world and for the American citizens, but it will be purchasing

nuclear escalation. By building space-based defences, and thus

foreshortening the response times, the United States would be forced to

entrust to computers rather than the human mind decisions that could

threaten the whole survival of mankind. Star Wars means an increased

reliance on computers.

Pursuing Star Wars will turn outer space into a major new

battlefield. It will increase the risk of conflict and it will enlarge

man's ability to destroy civilization. There's no way that anyone can

expect the Russians to sit back and say:

[ Page 5825 ]

"That's it, the ball game is over." They are going to be at risk

now by this new initiative and will have to retaliate.

Let me remind everyone here that winning a nuclear war is simply

like saying: "Your end of the boat is sinking." The goal of peace can

no longer — and I'm going to say this as a politician, Mr. Speaker — be

left to politicians. It must become the demand of every citizen in the

world. Peace is neither the absence of war nor the presence of a

disarmament agreement. Peace is a change of heart. Remember, if we take

vengeance on vengeance, vengeance will never end. Remember also that

the front line of nuclear war is every person's backyard.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with a statement which I heard the

other day made by a retired Canadian general. I think we must give

great credit and credence to the fact that people who have been

involved in the military are now coming out and speaking out strongly

against nuclear warfare. This retired general said something that I

think we should all reflect on. I'm just quoting it as closely as I

can. He said: "I am 65 years old, but I want to tell you that my

lifespan and the lifespan of a newly born baby are exactly the same if

the inevitable march to nuclear warfare is not stopped." I say to

everyone: let us therefore march for peace.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Throughout the whole of the world, Mr.

Speaker, in every continent, every country, every city, municipality,

town, village and hamlet, people must be able to express their views

and express their dissent, freely and openly, without fear or without

favour. The hon. member across is talking about Ottawa; I'm talking

about certain areas of the world where you could be shot for speaking

dissent to the government. This is what distresses me. That fundamental

right of freedom of expression and lawful opposition and dissent is not

practised or permitted in huge areas of the world today.

I call upon the people who live in those areas of the world, and the

governments in those areas of the world, to permit that to happen.

Peace marches, Mr. Speaker, should certainly not be the private reserve

of democratic society. I'd like to say that everyone must — not should,

but must — hear the cries of the men, women and children of peace, all

of whom demand that entitlement for all of society and all of mankind.

That level of dedication and good will has to be attained, because only

that kind of a course will ever be able to save the day. I would like

to see that dissent, which the opposition that the hon. members in this

assembly are talking about and that they have supported unanimously in

earlier resolutions in this House, permitted in areas of the world

where today it is not permitted.

MR. MACDONALD: I think I have one or two minutes. Following

the eloquent remarks of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), I just want to make one more

serious point about Star Wars, in the very brief time that I have.

In 1963 the anti-ballistic treaty was signed, which allowed

ballistic defence on a very limited scale among the national capitals

of the two powers. That's all. That antiballistic treaty was approved

by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon — and of course by the Russians too

— and they did it for the sake of stability. They knew that once you

start building up defences, the other side builds up defences, and then

both sides begin to build the new offences that will overcome the new

defences. The idea that you can catch all the possible nuclear missiles

descending on a country was, they realized, ultimately absurd.

Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson; not just these two hon. members who

spoke so eloquently. That's what's being destabilized in a furious

triggering of an acceleration of the nuclear arms race. This

Legislature should be thronged with members, and everybody in British

Columbia and in Canada should be taking cognizance of what is being

said here.

MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) should be congratulated for raising the

topic of Star Wars. I'd like her to tell us what really is involved:

very few people seem to know. I wonder whether nuclear weapons are

directly involved, whether these platforms in space will be firing

laser beams, rockets, whatever, that include nuclear warheads. I doubt

very much if that's the case, but there was an inference in her

statements that that was so.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't think that is the issue. The issue is

that this is a false security. That's the point I'm trying to make. It

is irrelevant whether nuclear weapons were being used in the defence

system. The point is that there is a false security, that a new weapon

is being created which is going to forever stop any further warfare.

But it will not. All it will do is increase the Russians' insecurity.

They will be then forced to go ahead and create more weapons themselves.

I would like to say to that member, who has the kind of mind that would enjoy reading this, that there is an

article in Science and Technology

— which I'll send across to him — which analyzes Star Wars in detail. I

can't give him that here in the short time that I have. It explains,

from the economists'.... I'll send it across to him.

I would like to reply to the House Leader, and say that I respect

him and his sincerity when he says that he also, as do we in the

official opposition, wants peace. But I must say that the kind of

statement that he made in response to mine is the very kind of

statement that prevents us all from getting together to create peace.

When that member stands up here and asks if we can trust the other side

— are they able to speak out.... Is he unaware that Russian, American

and European scientists — scientists from all over the world, including

the communist countries — meet together with the same concerns that we

have, and that the physicians meet together? Did he not see a program

emanating from Russia in which they were having a debate on nuclear

warfare with the citizens of Russia, with American citizens involved —

on public television?

HON. MR. GARDOM: How many peace marches will you find there tomorrow?

MRS. DAILLY: You'll find peace marches. The people there are

parents; they have children. I agree with him that it's the politicians

who may mess up the whole thing — on both sides. But the point is that

if you say that, and continue to say that, you are creating an aura of

cynicism which we can no longer put up with. I'm saying to all of us:

let us stretch out our hands to the people, the citizens, of all

countries so that we can all march together.

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. That concludes private members' statements.

[ Page 5826 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper, which is now in my name.

On the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not doing it on behalf of anybody, because

then it would be out of order. I have an amendment that is in my name.

It's the same amendment that you'll find on the order paper; however,

it's now in my name. Mr. Chairman, that amendment is that in lines 3

and 4 "shall be $15 " be struck out and "shall be $1" inserted; and

strike out "$30" and insert "$1."

Speaking to this amendment, I have no hostility whatever toward....

I'm not making any value judgment in terms of what's entailed in this

bill, or the previous Bill 46. I'm not going to make any value

judgments with respect to that, because, as I outlined yesterday in

second reading, we should no longer be making these decisions in this

assembly — period, amen. The public has no real perception of what's

happening here. If they felt that an arm's-length tribunal — again, as

I said yesterday, not specific people but positions — should be

appointed to oversee legislative allowances, expenses, etc, then at

long last the Legislature could get away from the charge: "There they

go again." Three years ago there was not one word about us taking a 10

percent decrease. Nobody gave us any criticism on that — or thanks, or

anything else. A capital city allowance comes along, which depends

on...whether we're on Bill 46 or 26, and all hell breaks loose. It's

time for an independent tribunal. We've called for it before; we're

calling for it again. That is the implicit reason for this amendment.

So we are just saying, let's get rid of it as an obligation of this

assembly and give that obligation to an outside tribunal.

MR. R. FRASER: Speaking against the amendment, I would

suggest that there isn't a member in the House or a member of the

general public who wouldn't rather have more instead of less. I would

also suggest that the money that is earned here by the MLAs is not

overly undue. In fact, it is not undue; it is completely due. I do not

feel that we are overpaid at all. In fact, as a new member to the

assembly from 1983, I have been astonished at how much it actually

costs one to be an MLA when you travel around the community, going from

one function to another. It really is incredible.

I happen to believe that using a tribunal is a smokescreen, unless you are

going to transmit to that tribunal absolute power of authority, and take none

for yourself. If you put together a totally blue-chip committee to come down

with suggestions for either increases or decreases and then have to make the

decision yourself, you might as well just make it for starters and get it over

with and face up to the fact that you have to make the decision and take credit

or otherwise for the decisions that you have made. So I would vote against the

amendment so far. I believe that every cent we make is earned, and more would

not be a problem for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, hon. members, the last two

speakers were not directly relevant to the

section in committee. When

dealing

section by section, comments should be relevant to the

appropriate section. The Chair from time to time allows certain leeway

at the opening for members to develop their comments, but when they

rise they should be cognizant of the

section under debate.

MR. COCKE: I'm not going to speak any more about the

tribunal. I talked about it yesterday; if the member wants to read the

Blues, I suggested that we give them absolute authority. But aside from

that, this does not call for more; it calls for less. The member

somehow or another is begging the question when he suggests that a

reduction from 15 to 1 is more; it's less.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially what this

section addresses is

the capital city allowance. It's one which addresses or reduces the

allocation for the capital city allowance provided under Bill 46. The

amendment that is put forward further reduces the capital city

allowance contained in this bill. I have some difficulty in accepting

the opposition's amendment on this particular section, and I have some

difficulty understanding their position on this issue, because they

voted for Bill 46. After it had been reviewed by the compensation

stabilization chairman, it has been reduced, and it reflects what he

considers as an appropriate capital city allowance. Mr. Speaker, I just

can't understand why Bill 46 would be supported and then an amendment

would come in on Bill 26.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS 21

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Strachan

Veitch

Section 1 approved on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The

division we just had on a proposed amendment leaves me bewildered. This

is an amendment that's been proposed from the floor, and attempts

to.... No, this is a different one. Sorry.

[11:45]

Section 2 approved on division.

[ Page 5827 ]

section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I submit an amendment to

section 3 (a), which is to strike out $2,000 on line one and insert $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on division.

MR. COCKE: I amend

section 3 (

b) by striking out $1,500 and inserting $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Once again, I am bewildered by the

opposition's position on this proposed amendment. Is their position

because they can't get all of what was under Bill 46? Is that why they

are prepared to reduce it to $1 ?

MR. COCKE: I outlined our position very clearly yesterday,

and I outlined our position again today. An independent commission is

the only way we can take this whole mess outside of the Legislative

Assembly. If the government doesn't recognize that, then they have

overlooked what has been going on in this province for a long time. Mr.

Chairman, it's justified, and it should be reduced until such time as

the independent tribunal have an opportunity to take a look at what's

going on here. The minister really knows that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm surprised that the opposition have

taken such radically different positions. First of all, they are

bringing into question the ability of one of their own members to make

a recommendation after he sat on a committee of this Legislature. They

are also suggesting that in fact an independent commission would be

better. That committee made a recommendation. However, during these

times in this province we've had a compensation stabilization

commissioner who has tried to deal equally and fairly in rates of

compensation increase for all those who are paid by the public. Even

though the capital city allowance deals with costs, it also is

calculated as compensation. Therefore any compensation changes in the

Legislature quite properly should have been subject to the review. The

extent of the amendments, of course, follow the recommendations from

the commissioner, Mr. Peck. I find it inconsistent that when I saw

reports in the media of members of the New Democratic Party saying they

wanted and were justified to have all of the raise.... Now, in what

appears to be just a political tactic, they say if they can't have it

all, they'd only want a dollar.

I think there's been a rational approach to this going through the

CSP. It has been equitable, it is fair, and it's understood by the

public. Therefore I quite frankly am having great difficulty in

watching what is just a foolish political tactic of the NDP, who

already have looked extremely bad on this issue. I don't think it will

regain you any political credibility; it will take away what shred of

credibility you have left. It will take away the last vestiges of

credibility that you may have. Quite frankly, you've looked very bad on

this issue, and today you're looking worse.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this legislation, when it was first

passed. received the unanimous support of this House. Was there a

member of this House, the first time we took a vote, who voted against

something they believed in, or did they vote for something that they

thought was proper and fair? If they voted for something that they

thought was wrong, then they have no business being in this House. I

voted for it because I believe it was justified, and I'm now not going

to go around this province snivelling and saying: "Oh, I've changed my

mind." We voted for this bill the first time unanimously, saying that

we thought it was justified that the raises and the positions be put in

place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. At the moment, Mr. Member, we

are really talking amounts, and debate should be relevant to that.

We're dealing with the amendment, not the overall bill.

MR. LEA: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I will say something

about this particular one, and I want to echo some thoughts by the

member for North Vancouver- Seymour (Mr. Davis).

I wish I'd had more time to think before I voted, or maybe I should

have thought more before I voted. It's not the amount of money; it's

the positions themselves. Part of the livelihood of everybody in this

Legislature at the moment, with the exception of one back-bencher, is

dependent upon the whim of government. That takes away from the

independence of private members of this Legislature. I agree with the

member for North Vancouver- Seymour that from a democratic point of

view we are treading on dangerous ground. I believe that. I wish I

could go back and take back my vote — not on the amount of money, but

on the positions themselves.

I think it is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, that with the exception of

one government back-bencher, part of members' income is reliant on

government. From a democratic point of view, I think that is

fundamentally wrong. I think it leads us down the wrong trail. How can

those people who are parliamentary secretaries and getting money from

government, at the whim of government, be totally independent as

private members of this Legislature? It's one of those times where you

vote for something and you wish you could.... It's like saying

something sometimes; you wish you could bite your tongue afterwards and

take it back. I wish I could take back my vote on that particular

aspect of the legislation that we voted, but I voted the one way when I

voted.

In terms of the money, though, for all of these amendments, I think

we stood up in this House and voted for what we thought was proper,

what we thought was fair. We should stick to our guns on that or we're

all going to look foolish. We voted on principle. We voted on what we

thought was proper, and to take it back now in terms of the money I

find incredible.

MR. COCKE: I can't believe what I'm hearing. The Premier gets

up, having never read the amendment, and gives a speech on an entirely

different subject. That subject went by some little time ago. This is

purely dealing with whips, house leaders and so on; it has nothing to

do with anybody else, and we haven't come to an amendment yet on the

parliament secretaries, which I propose to put forward very shortly.

I'm not going to answer all the irrelevancies, because those are irrelevancies and totally out of order, and I don't

[ Page 5828 ]

understand how they ever got to the floor in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the poor minister from

New Westminster.... The whips' salary was covered under the CSP

commissioner's report. It was one of the areas under review and I

understand that.... I would hope he understands that those areas were

under review by the CSP commission.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, if we're going to get into that kind

of a debate, as far as I'm concerned this House unanimously adopted 46

because of a committee that was not at arm's length but at any event

was a committee of this House. The Premier arbitrarily sent it to this

magic-maker, Mr. Peck, and changed the rules. As far as I'm concerned,

it just shows you can't even trust yourselves. But aside from that, it

gets back to where....

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't trust the Premier.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

It gets back to a point, Mr. Chairman, where our position on an

independent tribunal vested with the authority to make the rules should

be the way to go.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member again is

incorrect when he says I arbitrarily sent it to the CSP commissioner. I

invited the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the United Party

to join me in what I thought and believed very strongly to be a fair

review that all others who work in the public sector come under, and

that is a review by the CSP commissioner. I met with both the leaders,

and the leader of the United Party, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), agreed with me that it be sent. The leader of the New Democratic

Party (Mr. Skelly) did not. So it wasn't a unitary action. It was an

opportunity to try to see if we could work together in this

Legislature, inviting them together to send that review. And I was very

pleased to have the acquiescence and support of the member for Prince

Rupert. I was surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party

wants one rule for public servants and a different rule for his party.

But that's between him and the people.

Amendment negatived on division.

section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I put forward the following

amendment.

Section 3 is amended to add: (

c) in subsection (6.1) by

striking out "$6,000" and substituting "$1." The reason for that is

that the parliamentary secretaries placed....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, they weren't in the bill. I'm adding them. Is

that okay? It was interesting to me that they weren't in the bill. It

was interesting to me that their stipends were reduced from $6,000 to

$3,000, and it wasn't done in this Legislature; it was done in contrast

with and in opposition to a bill that this Legislature had approved,

whether right or wrong. I rather share my colleague from Prince

Rupert's position; I believe that was what he was talking about when he

was talking in terms of a previous amendment.

In any event, as far as I'm concerned this is really the area of

discrimination. Imagine a legislative assembly where all but one person

on the government side is in the direct employ of the government. Need

I say more?

We put this forward. It could be that an independent tribunal would

say: "Yes, they're worth it; yes, the position should be there." But

not under these circumstances.

[12:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

Dailly

Cocke

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 21

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Mowat

Reid

Strachan

Veitch

Lea

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved on division.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Amendment Act,

1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed

on division.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand this business of "on division."

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. The member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) wasn't here for the last division. He just meandered in.

How do you count him? Present or absent?

MR. SPEAKER: He's not counted in either case, hon. member, but possibly....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Doesn't count? He's a member of this House; he has a right to be counted.

[ Page 5829 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the member....

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to support the member.

MR. SPEAKER: I would commend to members the reading of the

specific practice recommendation. It simply indicates; it doesn't

actually specify.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL

TRADE AND INVESTMENT ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This government is committed to the

renewal of the British Columbia economy. If we are to be successful in

meeting this challenge we must increase the export of goods and

services abroad and create a receptive environment to attract

investment. That is the key to job creation in this province now and in

the future. I take considerable pride in introducing the Ministry of

International Trade and Investment Act. It is further evidence of this

government's leadership and indeed boldness in furthering the economic

interests of British Columbia around the world,

There are three aspects to the mandate of this new ministry: international marketing, investment promotion and trade policy.

The vitality of the British Columbia economy is directly linked to

our ability to export goods and services. One quarter of world

production is now exported, double the proportion of a decade ago. Over

the past 20 years exports increased from less than a fifth of Canada's

output to almost a third. British Columbia is one of the leading

trading provinces, with export reliance being double that of Canada as

a whole. The nature of British Columbia and our aspirations for

economic diversification demand enormous amounts of investment capital.

Much of this must come from outside of Canada. With an improved

business environment as a result of our new budget, my new ministry

intends to bring to the attention of the world businesses and

investment community the opportunities for investment in British

Columbia.

British Columbia wants to be an active partner with Ottawa and the

other provinces in ensuring that the trade policy environment in Canada

reflects the aims, aspirations and interests of all regions of this

country. The British Columbia government cannot do the job alone. My

new ministry will intensify its interactions and consultation with the

private sector to ensure that all of its programs and activities

reflect their interests and are geared to opportunities that they can

address.

We will also increase and enhance our relations with the federal

trade and investment people at home and abroad to make them effective

marketers on our behalf. This small, lean sales ministry located in

Vancouver, in concert with the private sector, will aggressively market

our province and its products and services around the world. When we

are successful, all of our citizens will share the reward. I take great

pleasure in moving second reading.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: It makes you think about the army, doesn't it?

What happens when you are incompetent in the military? Why, what do

they do if you are a corporal is they make you a sergeant, and they

move you up the ladder. And when you are incompetent in this cabinet,

what do they do? They do it just like the army. They move you up the

ladder so you can tour the world, fly around with your credit cards and

the works, and be the top of the pyramid.

Well, it's just like the army and the Peter principle. I guess it's

not just the army; it's the Peter principle as well. This has to be the

original Peter, almost, in terms of being promoted to one's level of

incompetence, and that's clearly what's been happening. What are the

qualifications? The qualifications are there for all of us to see and

review. What's the biggest project this minister's ever dealt with?

Why, it's northeast coal. They used to bellow and talk about it and

say: "The greatest industrial project in the history of the nation."

And it's failed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member who's speaking on

the principle of this bill knows the rules and regulations of this

House. He's been here before. He wasn't here very long, but he was here

before. Aside from the fact that he would like to talk about my

abilities in this Legislature, I do think that he should speak to the

principle of the bill and save my personality and the great successes I

have had in the international marketplace for another day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, Mr. Minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was certainly dealing with the principle, Mr.

Speaker — the Peter principle. That's what's involved in this bill.

It's a principle indeed, There have been many books sold on the subject

of people in the higher levels of our society moving to their level of

incompetence. Boy, some move quite a bit above it, and this is

certainly the classic example.

But let's talk about what the bill does. It establishes yet another

ministry for this government. How many have we got? There are rows and

rows of empty chairs there — all of them sometimes, maybe once a day or

every other day, occupied by ministers. We're not a big province in

British Columbia. Two and a half million people — that's all. And look

at all those rows of ministries, with the perks of office, with the

credit cards, the travel accounts, the fine offices, the chandeliers,

all that stuff.

[12:15]

We're adding one more — not to mention the junior ministries, the

parliamentary secretaries, of whom a couple are around today. Clearly

what this administration sees in terms of developing wealth and growth

in British Columbia.... They see it as a simple selling job. Put old

Don on the 747, and everything will turn up roses in British Columbia.

The world doesn't work that way.

We are dealing with the most sophisticated people in the world in

terms of our various trading partners on the Pacific Rim, the most

sophisticated people in the world. And who do we throw into the breach

to deal with these super-competent people? The member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). A while ago Nakasone said, in effect, that

he was not

[ Page 5830 ]

impressed by the western world sending

less-than-competent salesmen who don't even speak their language. I'm

not surprised. But that's our decision. The way we build wealth in

British Columbia under this administration is not through dealing with

what's really important in terms of our natural resource base, nor

through developing sophisticated analytical management and marketing

techniques and the rest. We just hire a fancy traveling salesman.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is abundant material around from our top university people.

Now one of the top scholars in Sweden, a scholar whom the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) dismissed with his juvenile comment

yesterday, has said that our major industry is in for a catastrophe

unless they smarten up on the other side. Who did the Minister of

Forests dismiss with respect to our major basic industry? The man was

Prof. Nilsson, who is a professor of economic planning at Sweden's

Royal College of Forestry, with at least a decade of forest industry

consultation around the world under his belt, and who spent two years

studying our basic industry in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point, hon. member, I'll remind the

assembly that we are debating Bill 20, Ministry of International Trade

and Investment Act. We are not debating ministerial estimates, nor are

we debating a bill to do with the Ministry of Forests. I will also

remind the member that standing order 40 reminds us that we shall not

be irrelevant in debate. To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the question is

establishing another ministry which is presumably geared toward

improving the status of British Columbians, increasing wealth in

British Columbia, and the like. The question is: is this the way to do

it? It's a very relevant question indeed. I think the point has been

made by Prof. Nilsson from Stockholm, who studied here for two years,

that this is not the way to do it. Not only the Swedes would tell us

that, but also our trading partners on the Pacific Rim. There is a

level of sophistication required that is far beyond the capability of

this administration, let alone this minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That offends the rule of personal reflection on a member of this House. To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ministry of International Trade and Investment.

It sounds great when it rolls off the tongue. What is it? It's an $8

million department — $4 million of it taken from the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development, $4 million in new money. Yet

in this same budget we have cut $4 million out of silviculture, the

very stuff Prof. Nilsson is talking about. That shows where our values

are. Our values are in that glittery stuff, in traveling in 747s, and

not in getting our feet in the soil and changing the nature of British

Columbia right here at home. It tells us about the sense of values in

this administration.

What are they anticipating in terms of this ministry? How much are they going

to spend on travel? They're going to spend 13 percent of their budget on

just travelling around — over a million dollars on just travelling around. They're

going to spend 30 percent on professional services and consulting — not building

up a research staff here in British Columbia, not building up long-term strength

and credibility in terms of analytical capabilities with respect to our resources

and international marketing, which is especially complex; but 30 percent on

consultants and short-term consulting fees, and only 30 percent on regular staff.

So it's pretty clear what kind of department we're going to have here:

not very significant. It's simply a booting upstairs for the minister.

It seems clear that the ministry will be weak in terms of capability

with respect to targeted marketing. What we need desperately in British

Columbia is targeted marketing. We turn out products in British

Columbia that are bottom-of-the-line products. It's kind of sad. From

the great forest resources of British Columbia we turn out

bottom-of-the-line products. We turn that out in each sector. We turn

out bottom-of-the-line two-by-fours in lumber instead of sophisticated

dimension stuff, which is what the Japanese and our Pacific Rim trading

partners are primarily interested in. They're interested in stress

capabilities and strength of product, and we turn out two-by-fours and

bottom-of-the-line lumber. The job has to be done in terms of

sophisticated analysis and retooling of plants in British Columbia.

That's what Prof. Nilsson, Peter Woodbridge, the experts — Peter Pearse

and the others — along with Prof. Reed, have been saying for some time

now: that we've got to change in these areas. We can't really develop

sophisticated marketing capabilities unless we first have here at home

the kinds of changes that would respond to the realities out there in

the international trading world. So it isn't just a simple thing of

putting on a kimono and drinking a bit of sake when you hop off the

jet. It's a matter of retooling in British Columbia, after you've

understood the detailed requirements in terms of those markets out

there.

Most of our industries in British Columbia during this period of

cutbacks and restraint — so-called — have cut back on their marketing

capabilities. They've cut back in those departments. They've cut back

in research. That's where we have to do it all. The Swedes foresaw

these problems decades ago, when they had problems with high-cost wood

in Scandinavia. They concluded that the only answer was to use their

brains and develop technologies at home so that there would be

higher-value products that they could sell abroad. We have not done

that in British Columbia, either in the public sector with these birds,

or unfortunately, I'm afraid, in the private sector either. Prof.

Nilsson says that. We do not have competence in this area. We are now

generations behind. The last major technology in our pulp industry was

acquired by H.R. MacMillan himself — would you believe that? — when he

built Harmac; 1950 technology, acquired from the Swedes, that has now

been reproduced like cookie-cutters around the province in terms of all

our pulp mills. But that is 1950 technology — 35 years old already.

Look at our newsprint industry in terms of marketing papers abroad.

Where do we stand there, Mr. Speaker? If we're going to become

sophisticated international marketers, then we have to be able to

compete, and we have to have the technologies and products. But what do

we produce? Again, like two-by-fours, we produce the bottom-of-the-line

product. We turn out market pulp and newsprint, not very sophisticated

stuff in today's world. It may be sophisticated to this minister, but

not to the outside world.

Let's look at the age of our newsprint machinery in British

Columbia. Fifty-eight percent of our newsprint machines are pre-1950.

[ Page 5831 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

realize that the member opposite thinks he knows something about the

forest industry. I would suggest that he save his comments with regard

to the state of the forest industry in this province until such time as

the forestry estimates are before the Legislature, and that we stick to

the principle of international marketing, which I realize he doesn't

know much about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The bill,

even in principle, is quite specific as to its intent. I would ask the

member now taking his place in debate to relate his remarks to the bill

in front of us and not to debate what might be better considered under

another minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of question falls between the stools. These birds think that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I'll ask you to avoid language such as that. It is unparliamentary.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Birds" is unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a personal reference to other members of the House. Clearly that's what the Chair is hearing.

Perhaps I'll just take a moment to remind the second member for Vancouver East of standing order 19, contained on page 5 of our Standing Orders , which states:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

shall order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately

from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and

the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair

in pursuance of this Order."

It does pertain to irrelevance in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Irrelevance?

MR. WILLIAMS: Using the term "birds" is disorderly, Mr.

Speaker, and comments by the Minister of Forests yesterday are fine.

Well, if "birds" offends the Chair, then so be it. I'll withdraw the

term "birds."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. It offends the parliamentary process.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope that the Speaker could check this

out, because I can't believe there is any parliament in the British

Commonwealth, or the republics that have survived thereafter, where

"birds" is termed unparliamentary. Could the Speaker give the House

some assurance that he will check the various sources and report back

on this very important question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The source I will cite, hon. member, is that

I find that reference to another hon. member or members of this House

to be unparliamentary. Will the member continue on Bill 20.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

If we're going to be marketing in the international sphere, Mr.

Speaker, then we have to have the products of the day that do well in

the new world of international economics. Our problem in British

Columbia is that we don't have those products anymore. That's our

problem. It's because our technology has not kept up; we don't have the

products. We have not added the value to our basic products so that we

can have a more sophisticated product for marketing. That is the kind

of dilemma we face.

We have, in fact, almost run a generation and a half behind in terms

of developing products for international marketing. When you've got

machinery most of which — in newsprint — is 58 percent pre-1950, and

when the Scandinavians have only 7 percent pre-1950, it gives you a

dimension in terms of our inability to compete. Now the Scandinavians

are competing in traditional British Columbia markets; they're

competing in the Pacific Rim, which we in forest-rich British Columbia

thought was our pond in terms of this kind of thing. But the

Scandinavians are beating us even in our own marketing area. Now,

they're even intervening in the American market, which we have

traditionally considered our market in terms of international marketing.

[12:30]

It's because of the lack of sophistication, competence and

capability in terms of developing technology and product. That simply

hasn't happened under this so-called business administration. They're

too busy playing politics and not spending enough time thinking

long-term. As Professor Nilsson says, unfortunately the industry itself

has not spent the time long-term. You can't say that about the

Scandinavians. That's why they're whipping the backsides off us around

the world. They don't have people like this minister doing the

high-flying number. They do the work at home first. They do the

thinking, they do the analysis, they do the research, they develop the

products, so then they can market, and that isn't happening in British

Columbia at all.

What's the minister's budget for research in this new ministry? The

Scans have shown us that research and technology is the way. But what's

the minister's budget for research? It's 0.1 percent. That will impress

the Japanese to no end. The people that have developed robotics and all

the rest of it are sure going to be impressed by 0.1 percent of $8

million as our budget for the new, important Ministry of International

Trade and Investment. It'll impress them in the Pacific Rim, indeed.

In terms of where his staff is going to operate, it will not be in

the capital city. They're all getting their orders to move to

Vancouver. In terms of their data base, where's that going to stay?

Well, if you don't worry too much about research, I guess it doesn't

really matter where the data base is — where the library and all the

material is. Why, it's still in the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business. But where are they located? They're over here in Victoria, so

that will make for an efficient operation, just in case there is the

odd person that's interested in research. They'll spend half their time

going back and forth to Victoria to check out the data.

So it's pretty clear. You know, there's a similar name that exists,

and I suspect that somebody in the Ministry of Industry and Small

Business or one of the bureaucrats working for the minister was

impressed by that. In Japan they too have a Ministry of Industry and

Small Business. I think it would be worth looking at what the Ministry

of Industry and Small Business is responsible for in Japan. Maybe there

are some lessons there in terms of how they do it. Ministry of Industry

[ Page 5832 ]

and Small Business in Japan — oh sorry, Ministry of

International Trade and Industry, MITI. What does it do? Firstly, it

coordinates trade policy for Japan. Well, that makes sense. Secondly,

it coordinates trade policy with the economic planning agency. Economic

planning agency — interesting idea. Do we have an economic planning

agency in British Columbia? There's a minor spinoff in MISB, which this

minister was responsible for, and that was northeast coal. We've

discussed how that has done, haven't we? It's a mammoth, blundering

failure.

They coordinate with the ministry of agriculture, the ministry of

forestry, the ministry of fisheries and the ministry of transportation.

Well, it looks like they take it seriously. They carry out joint work

with the ministries of post, telecommunications, health and welfare as

well. They're not only responsible for imports and exports, but they're

also responsible for all domestic industries. It looks like quite a

significant agency.

MITI acts as a coordinating agency in terms of dealing with

conflicting policies between various major elements of both the

corporate sector and the public sector within Japan. So it's clearly

been a major instrument in the evolution of Japan as a great trading

nation.

MITI's major foreign trade operates smoothly and efficiently,

according to various sources. What else do they do? It mainly develops

a consensus among the industries receiving its advice, it has power to

grant a range of licences and it influences the Japan development bank

as well. It facilitated the early development in nearly all major

industries in the country by providing protection from import

competition. They also provided a base in terms of technological

intelligence for the country; technological intelligence as well is a

major factor for MITI in Japan.

But our technology is now almost two generations behind in our major

industry, Mr. Speaker. In the pulp sector, we have only one new pulp

mill in the Cariboo that is using state-of the-art technology. What do

they achieve there? They achieve the same production with half the

wood. Just think of that. If we had had technological capability as a

function within this ministry, or some other ministry of government, we

might have been on top of these things. We needn't have been two

generations behind. Imagine doubling all of our pulp capacity in the

province. That is wealth creation. We're not doing it. They're all

telling us we're going to run out of trees. There's new

state-of-the-art technology that tells us we can double our production,

and it isn't happening. So there isn't that kind of technological

intelligence proposed for this ministry at all. Only 0.1 percent;

that's the budget.

It's clear: we still haven't learned the lessons of the

international marketplace, which is what we get parroted from these

hon. members — not birds but hon. members. But you know, we're dealing

in a sophisticated world, and we're not in their league. The people

from BCRIC said it, as I mentioned this morning: we end up victims

because of our naivety and our rural view of the world. There's no way

in the world that we can deal with those major players to the extent

that we benefit and create genuine increases in wealth in this province.

Scandinavians produce four times the wealth out of an acre of forest

land what we do. In the last decade, in terms of new products for

market, they've increased the value added on all of their

forest-related products by over 80 percent. What's it been from Canada?

It's been 16 percent, and the bulk of that is eastern Canada, not

British Columbia. We tend to think that we're at the head of it, that

we're in the state-of the-art business. We're not. Quebec and Ontario

are significantly ahead of us in terms of producing finer market

products for more sophisticated markets. Check the numbers out. They

are there. They'll be in your library, which you're abandoning for

Vancouver. The data is there.

High-value product is the name of the game. Value added is the name

of the game. Specific market targeting is the name of the game. We do

none of that at the government level, and hardly any of it at the

corporate level. Ironically, the ones who have been innovative in this

province are the smaller-scale industries. They have had to go out and

hustle. They are genuine entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, as Professor

Nilsson says, the big corporations tend to become like bureaucrats:

they're not really out to maximize profits; they work toward some sort

of target, as bureaucrats do. That's not the real world. So we're not

coming anywhere near what even eastern Canada has achieved.

Historically, we were always ahead of them when we had genuine

entrepreneurial capabilities and governments that let it go and let the

free markets work. We don't have a government here that lets free

markets work. It's the last thing they try to encourage within our

basic industries in British Columbia. And so we get inefficiencies

within the corporate sector, as Prof. Nilsson says.

You know, if you really believe the parroted stuff about free

enterprise, you would be transforming our basic industries so that they

were genuinely competitive and turning out new product. That is not

happening in British Columbia. That is not happening from our major

companies at all. There are some significant minor exceptions. M&B

has done some retooling, but began a generation late, after most of the

funds were frittered away in failures abroad.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep rising

on points of order, but I do wish that the member opposite would talk

about the principles of the bill which is before the Legislature and

not keep trying to tell us how much he knows about the forest industry,

which isn't too much, I realize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill, hon. members, does specifically

deal with international trade and investment and marketing, and I am

sure the member speaking can relate his remarks to that principle and

avoid discussing debate that might be better considered in another

minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it might well be discussed in countless

ministries estimates because it's endemic. It's a problem that's

endemic to this blessed land of British Columbia, and it shouldn't ever

have happened if there was a level of competence over there in terms of

dealing with the real world, the international world and the

competitive world, which they only pay lip service to.

So you see, the Japanese know how to do this. They've shown through

generations now, since the Second World War, that there are lessons to

be learned from them. We have not learned those lessons, and it shows

in the form of this legislation. Even in the old world, in Europe, they

too have learned these lessons. They've had to because they've had

similar problems that they've dealt with over generations, in terms of

their land base, in terms of their technology and training. That's

where the real modern world is at. We're still cutting back in terms of

technology.

[ Page 5833 ]

I should note, Mr. Speaker, that I'm the designated speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll also point out to the hon. member that

it is a courtesy to give notice that one will be designated prior to

taking their place in debate. That's just a recommendation. Please

proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was unaware of that in terms of the new rules, and in the future will make a point of that.

So there we are. More and more experts are telling us that we are

not doing our work at home, that we're falling down in terms of our

basic products. There aren't the entrepreneurial skills, there isn't

the technological capability, there isn't the marketing capability.

What we need is some kind of new grand alliance, because we've fallen a

couple of generations behind. We need an administration that

understands these things. We need an administration that does not think

some simplistic flying about will solve our problems — some simplistic

flying around the world asking others to solve our problems. That's

what's really embodied in the principle of this bill — the idea that

somebody else can solve our problems. It doesn't work that way. Ask any

average citizens in this province: "Do you really think the answer is

to get somebody else to solve your own individual problems?" The answer

will almost universally be no. Given the opportunity, most citizens

would like to do it themselves for themselves and get the satisfaction

of using their minds and their arms and their skills.

You'd think we might have a government that would reflect that. They

parrot that stuff, but they don't mean it. The opportunity is here in

this blessed province to do it all. Instead we've moved down into the

basement with Newfoundland. Doesn't that shock you? We have a Premier

running around trying to tell us that we're a poor province. The only

problem is we're a poorly managed province. That's the problem in

British Columbia. Nothing epitomizes it more than this ministry and

this minister.

[12:45]

The greatest lemon salesman in the world wants to carry it further.

Northeast coal, the biggest lemon ever produced in British Columbia,

was sold to the sophisticated Japanese; sold to 56 bankers, who are now

running around in secret meetings trying to patch the mess up; and sold

to a bunch in the cabinet who clearly didn't understand what they were

getting into. They sold a $700 million bill to the taxpayers of British

Columbia. What an achievement. Every used car salesman in the world

would like the chance to sell a lemon that big, and this one had the

opportunity. And he did it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's with some concern that we look at this

legislation. We do need sophisticated capability. We do need

competence. We do need new technologies: we're now two generations

behind. We do need fine marketing. Indeed, we have all of the

opportunities in this wonderful landscape of British Columbia — if they

were competently managed. It hasn't been happening, and by putting this

minister in charge of this ministry we can be assured we will get more

of the same, and we will remain behind for these two generations and

longer, I'm afraid. So it is with concern that we see this appointment

and this ministry, designed in this manner, so that it is a signal to

the sophisticated marketers, traders, technologists and academics

around the world that we're still going to be rubes in this tough

territory. We've got a long way to go. It's a very expensive education

that we've been paying for at the hands of this minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the assembly is advised that the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's very difficult to close a debate and

talk to the principle of the bill and answer the questions that the

member opposite raised, because he really didn't speak to the principle

of the bill. Of course, that's about all you could expect. I suppose,

from a socialist retread.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With regard to discussions on the budget, those will be discussed.

And the budget for travel — there will be lots of opportunity to

discuss that when the estimates for the ministry are on the floor of

the House. But I do want to point out to the member that he should do

his homework before he talks about the budget for travel. and have an

understanding. I'll be pleased to enlighten him during the debate.

With regard to his long dissertation on the state of the forest

industry, it's always nice to bring in a piece of paper that some

professor from another country has written; he spent most of his time

on that.

What we are doing here is we are moving ahead and we are getting

ourselves into a position to do more for the small manufacturer in

British Columbia, to get out there and to invite investment into this

country. The members opposite have been against bringing new money and

new ideas into this province. They have chastised this minister, when I

was Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, about foreign

money coming into this province. They've been against that. They

supported Ottawa against it. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have to go

out in this ministry and tell the world that British Columbia is indeed

open for business, and that we want investment, we want people and we

want new ideas. That man over there stands and chastises us for not

having new ideas and new investment in the forest industry, and it's

those socialists opposite who were against it. I'll tell you, if our

forest industry is in any difficulty today, it's because all that

member did was run around and buy up losers; and he precluded people

from coming into the province and investing.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 20, Ministry of International Trade and Investment Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave for a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the government

House Leader recognized the departure of Charlie LaVertu from the press

gallery. Today also marks the

[ Page 5834 ]

last day on the job for a member of the gallery who

is a former president of the press gallery. I would ask the House to

wish Ron Thompson, CBC cameraman, well in his endeavours after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I see by notice that there's a proposed

meeting of the Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services Committee

on Monday at 3 o'clock, and I'd ask leave that the committee may sit

while the House is in session.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

7 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

During the fiscal year 1983/84 —

1. What pesticides did the

Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities and at what cost?

2. What quantities of each

pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose and what was the

total cost of each program?

3. What amount of each pesticide

remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of each year?

4. What pesticides, in what

quantities, are presently in the possession of the Ministry?

The Hon. F.C.A. Pelton replied as follows:

"The Ministry of Environment has utilized pesticides

for two purposes in the 1984/85 fiscal year. Rotenone is used for

coarse fish control in fisheries enhancement projects and 1080 is used

for reactive predator control."

" Fisheries Enhancement Program

"1.

In 1984/85, 2,135 U.S. gallons (8 080 litres) Noxfish Fish Toxicant,

unsynergized rotenone, emulfiable liquid. Active ingredients: Rotenone,

5%, other cubé extractives, 10%. Inert ingredients, 85%. This product

fully registered for use as a pesticide in Canada: Pest Control Products Act ,

Registration No. 14558. Obtained from Penick Corporation, Lyndhurst,

New Jersey. Cost (including customs and freight): $51,838.08.

"2. In 1984/85, the only piscicide application was on

Cherry Lake in the Kootenay Region (Cranbrook area), in which

approximately 990 U.S. gallons (3 700 litres) of Noxfish was used. The

purpose was to improve the sport fishing on the lake by eradicating

successfully competitive sucker and shiner populations and then

managing the lake as a rainbow trout monoculture. The treatment was

funded by the Habitat Conservation Fund, and cost a total of $37,544.59.

"3. Piscicide inventory in storage in Kamloops at end

of 1984/85 fiscal year same as indicated in April 17, 1984, response to

Mrs. Wallace with the

addition of the following: 1,145 U.S. gallons (approximately 4 335

litres) of Noxfish. (935 U.S. gallons/3 539 litres of this total was

acquired in 1984/85 for the proposed treatment in 1985 of the Champion

Lakes, near Trail, under the Habitat Conservation Fund.)

"4. Same as for No. 3.

"Predator Control Wildlife Program

"1. No chemicals purchased in the 1984/85 fiscal year.

"2. 4. 1 grams of 1080 used in reactive control of

wolf and coyote problem animals in the 1984/85 fiscal year. The baiting

program was conducted by regular Ministry staff. There was no

additional cost in excess of normal wages and normal support costs.

[ Page

5835 ]

"3. Stored at this time are 50 grams of sodium cyanide and approximately 2.5 pounds of 1080.

"4. As in No. 3.

"Water Management Program

"1. No pesticides were purchased in fiscal year 1984/85.

"2. No pesticides were used in fiscal year 1984/85.

"3. Approximately 45.2 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen®

(containing 2, 4-D butoxyethanol ester) from two broken bags were

placed in the 'Hazardous Waste Material Storage Site' in Kamloops for

disposal; approximately 3 929.8 kilograms of AquaKleen® remained in

storage.

"4. Approximately 3 929.8 kilograms of Aqua-Kleen® are presently in the possession of the Ministry.

"The Ministry of Environment has utilized pesticides

for two purposes in the 1983/84 fiscal year. Rotenone is used for

coarse fish control in fisheries enhancement projects and 1080 is used

for reactive predator control.

"Fisheries Enhancement Program

"1. In 1983/84, 375 U.S. gallons (1 420 litres)

Noxfish Fish Toxicant, unsynergized rotenone, emulfiable liquid. Active

ingredients: Rotenone, 5%; other cubé extractives, 10%. Inert

ingredients, 85%. This product fully registered for use as a pesticide

in Canada: Pest Control Products Act ,

Registration No. 14558. Obtained from Penick Corporation, Lyndhurst,

New Jersey. Cost (including customs and freight): $8,666.22.

"2. In 1983/84, the only piscicide applications were on

Kwtzil (gravel pit) Lake in the Omineca-Peace Region (Prince George area). This

lake was originally treated in June 1982 (outlined in previous response to Mrs.

Wallace , July 18, 1983). Unfortunately, groundwater spring activity in this

lake hampered the effectiveness of the treatment, and retreatment was scheduled

in 1983/84.

"A. September 19, 1983 — Kwtzil Lake (located 40 kilometres

west of Prince George) was retreated. Five U.S. gallons (approximately 19 litres)

of Noxfish were used to remove remaining redside shiners and lake chub so that

a pure culture rainbow trout fishery could be restored. Post-treatment results

indicated that a further application was required.

"B. October 24-27, 1983 — Final treatment of Kwtzil Lake.

Eighteen U.S. gallons (approximately 68 litres) of Noxfish were applied. A complete

kill was confirmed following this treatment.

"Summary: Total chemical applied to Kwtzil Lake in

1983/84 — 23 U.S. gallons (87 litres). Product: Noxfish, 5% rotenone

unsynergized. Rationale for repeat treatments: Despite treatment

difficulties (necessitating repeated applications), the decisions to

retreat were based on (1) the relatively low cost of the treatments due

to the lake's small size (0.8 ha); (2) close proximity to Prince George

and excellent access; and (3) past success with trout production from

the lake. Total 1983/84 project cost (two treatments): Approximately

$2,000.

"3. Piscicide inventory in storage in Kamloops at end

of 1983/84 fiscal year. Same as indicated in July 18, 1983 response to

Mrs. Wallace , with the

addition of the following: 352 U.S. gallons (approximately 1 332

litres) of Noxfish, 55 U.S. gallons (approximately 208 litres) of

Chemfish (barrel of old chemical awaiting disposal).

"4. Same as for No. 3.

"Predator Control Program

"1. No chemicals purchased in the 1983/84 fiscal year.

[ Page

5836 ]

"2. 4.1 grams of 1080 used in reactive control of wolf

and coyote problem animals in the 1982/83 fiscal year. The baiting program was

conducted by regular Ministry staff. There was no additional cost in excess

of normal wages and normal support costs.

"3. Stored at this time are 50 grams of sodium cyanide and approximately 2.5 pounds of 1080.

"4. As in No. 3."

22 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

In relation to the Pemberton flooding which took place last October 1984 —

1. (

a) How many claims have been filed for damages resulting from

the flood, and (

b) what was the total of the claims filed under (a) ?

2. (

a) How many claims have been paid; (

b) what was the total amount

claimed under (a) ; and (

c) what was the total amount paid under (a)?

The Hon. F. C. A. Pelton replied as follows:

"1. (a) 400 claims have been filed, and (b) $3,643,829.89.

"2. (a) 277; (b) $3,203,829.89; and (c) $2,622,834.77."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada