1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Skelly –– 3235

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 3239

Mr. Parks –– 3243

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a

statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1983, as required under

section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. SKELLY: Have I been recognized, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's because I haven't said anything yet.

Mr. Speaker, if you did recognize me, I thank you very much. I do

appreciate this opportunity to lead off on the throne speech debate.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I thought I recognized the Speaker, but he's gone.

I appreciate the opportunity to lead off in this debate on behalf of

the official opposition. I've read through the speech a number of times

and, regrettably, I find little in the speech to nourish the hope of

British Columbians that 1984 will be better than 1983, or that the

government of this province has any long-term goals that will create a

future for our children that is better than the past. In fact, the

throne speech is more of the same — more corporate jargon, more

Orwellian newspeak and more cute clichés such as, "My government has

had to count every dollar to make every dollar count." That's clearly a

Doug Heal line. I like the one on page 2, which says."Hope is around

and confidence is about."

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It's certainly much better than the material in

the throne speech. "Hope is around and confidence is about." That's a

great line. But nobody knows where hope is around, and clearly the

other side doesn't know what confidence is about. My favourite Socred

line is the one that's used by every Socred member who speaks in the

House or in public....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good government.

MR. SKELLY: No, not that line. You're well coached. The line is: "On time and on budget."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKELLY: There's an example of what good training will do, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we please have order.

MR. SKELLY: On time and on budget — it appears to apply to

stadiums and coal developments but to very little else that the

government does.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the ALRT.

MR. SKELLY: The question on the ALRT is: which budget or

which projection? The projections seem to change every month. Granted,

it does apply to stadiums and coal developments.

The only creative act by the government in the throne speech is that

they seem to have created a new sector of the economy. For those of us

who have a little difficulty distinguishing between corporate and

government policy, it was hard to tell the difference between the

private sector and the public sector in British Columbia. The marginal

notes to the throne speech have a new sector called "the productive

sector." I have a question for the government: is this new sector a

sector of the private sector. a sector of the public sector, an

intersector between the public sector and the private sector, or is it

a sector created by Spector to describe something that hasn't been

previously explained to us? Perhaps I should save that question for Mr.

Spector, the deputy responsible for newspeak, who probably created the

sector in the first place. In any case, the government doesn't tell us

who the productive sector is and whether they are related to the public

sector, the private sector or whatever. In any case, it appeared in

marginal notes, and therefore I suppose we're not approving the new

productive sector as part of the throne speech and government policy.

The one thing about the throne speech that is typical, Mr. Speaker,

is that the government is quick to blame others for its obvious

failures in managing the provincial economy. First, there is the

federal government and then there are international debt problems and

the high interest rates caused by massive deficits, except of course

where those deficits go to help finance coal ports and rail facilities,

Canada's pavilion at Expo, the ALRT and other deficits that the

government likes. The government now has even spread the blame to

previous generations. This is a government that likes to spread the

blame everywhere. except to honestly admit that the blame lies with

itself. But the government seems more than willing to take credit for

those little things over which it has little control, or which produce

little direct benefit to the economy. For example, the government takes

credit for the decline in the inflation rate from 14.3 percent to 5.5

percent. The government virtually had no control over the change in the

inflation rate, Mr. Speaker; in fact. the reason it is as high as it is

— wherein in some Scandinavian countries now it’s down to 1.9 percent —

is because of the increased costs to the economy that add to the

consumer price index in this province. That's the reason why inflation

is still a problem in British Columbia, although not such a problem as

it was before. Certainly the government can take no credit for any of

the decline in that inflation rate.

The government also talks about the establishment of 14,000

businesses in British Columbia, but they're not very clear about how

those businesses were established. Are they talking about the

incorporation rate — which is their usual indicator of economic

activity in the province — and which means the creation of holding

companies and tax shelters, or the incorporation of existing

businesses? Who knows if it even is a positive figure or if there is

any reason to take credit for it?

[ Page 3236 ]

[10:15]

Then there's the 2.1 percent gain in employment over this same

period last year. Last year at this time we had one of the worst

economic depressions and employment situations we've ever had in the

history of this province since the 1930s. A 2.1 percent increase in

employment still leaves us in a negative position relative to where we

were before this recession began. So why does the government take

credit for that when it's an admission that their policies have failed?

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this throne speech is a contrivance to avoid an

honest admission that this government's economic and social policies

have been a disastrous failure. They simply don't have the common

decency to accept the blame themselves rather than scapegoating others,

and they don't have the honesty to admit what every economic indicator

clearly shows: that this province has not recovered, will not recover

under current policies and may never recover unless those policies are

changed, if they continue to be applied in the same brutal,

discriminatory and short-sighted manner as they have been in the past

year.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing the throne speech clearly shows is that

this is a government that has absolutely no vision of what the province

of British Columbia should be. They have absolutely no vision, beyond

their eyes downcast at the ledger, as to what the future in British

Columbia should be and what future we want for our children in this

province. They have absolutely no vision. The use of clichés, the use

of the hackneyed corporate lexicon, shows that this government really

is incapable of original thought in analysis of our economic situation

and the problems and issues facing the people of this province and that

they have no original ability to deal with those problems and none of

the vision that's necessary to deal with those problems.

When they talk about education, instead of talking about how

education can be improved or about how educational opportunities can be

expanded for our children or for students, these people talk about how

we can impose limits on education and how, through discipline and

through examinations, we can force those students to submit to an

educational regime which is basically hostile. Those examinations are

designed not to improve the quality or standard of education in this

province but only to select out those few who will be capable of going

on to institutions of higher education in the province of British

Columbia. They don't have a vision of what education in the province

should be.

When we look at all the changes that are facing us in the future —

changes in export markets, changes in technological developments,

changes that are coming with increasing succession, one after the other

— they don't seem to have the vision or the thoughtful analysis to deal

with those kinds of changes; rather they want to impose some kind of a

bookkeeping regime on students so that they'll know which ones have

succeeded or failed in final exams. They simply don't have a vision of

an educational future for the province.

The throne speech talks about a process of consultation, and it

deals with the consultation that took place behind the closed doors of

the Minister of Labour or of the Minister of Finance. That's the

government's attitude toward consultation. Why isn't this government

concerned about an expansion of the democratic opportunities for

citizens of this province — an expansion of the citizens' ability to

play a decisive role in how its community and province is developed?

This is not a government which has that kind of vision about the

expansion of democracy in British Columbia, and increased citizen

participation and involvement in the decision-making process with

respect to things that affect their day-to-day lives. This is not a

government with that kind of vision. Instead it talks about limiting

citizens' choices and involvement. Now the government is using a

newspeak term: "streamlining processes." They're talking about reducing

citizen involvement in the decision-making process with respect to land

use in municipalities. They're also talking about streamlining the

process of approving mining developments so that the citizen is totally

excluded from involvement and public participation in that development

process.

This throne speech is an indication to the citizens of British

Columbia that democratic opportunities for citizen involvement in

decision-making, which had been increasing during the sixties and

seventies, are now being decreased. The circle is now being drawn in;

the government is now centralizing that decision-making authority

behind the closed doors of ministers' offices in Victoria, and it is

excluding the citizens who will be affected by these processes and

developments from even decisions which are being made close to their

homes and properties, and close to their lives within their own

communities. This government is limiting democracy and citizen

involvement. It is an antidemocratic and anticitizen government. This

government does not ask the question: "How can we better improve the

stewardship of the resources of this province?"

The throne speech gives very few lines to the forest industry of

British Columbia, for example — maybe 12 lines out a speech that is 12

pages long are allocated to our most important industry, which plays a

greater role in the day-to-day lives of our citizens than any other

industry and any other activity in the province of British Columbia.

Yet this government gives that industry 12 lines out of 12 pages.

Everybody is now aware that that industry is facing serious problems in

the province of British Columbia. The minister bragged in his last

annual report about planting 105 million trees, yet everybody

recognizes that the commitment made by this government to

reforestation, to the replenishment and replacement of our forests, is

totally inadequate. Generations down the line, our children and our

grandchildren will be facing a shortage of natural resources, and that

industry will be deprived of them as a result of the inactivity of this

government today.

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the federal government was willing to

put up $130 million a year for the next few years to finance

replacement of forest resources throughout Canada. British Columbia's

share of that $130 million was $52 million. The reason we don't have

access to that $52 million of federal money this year is that the

provincial government was unwilling or unable to put up their share of

the money. It is an indication of what the priorities of this

government are, of their understanding of the future requirements of

this province.

In 1982-83, according to the last annual report of the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), we cut 61 million cubic metres of timber

in this province, and out of that timber we got an average of $1.76 per

cubic metre. Some small business people were paying as much as $38 to

$40, but the average amount we got per cubic metre of timber cut in

this province was $1.76. If you added 93 cents to every cubic metre of

timber cut, as a surcharge for replacing the forests, we could have

raised that $52 million this year, and we would

[ Page

3237 ]

have been able to embark on that increased intensive silvicultural program

that the federal government has already anted up the money for. Yet this government

failed to find the dollars. They failed to recognize the priority of the forests

of this province, which contribute 50 cents out of every dollar to our economy.

This government is willing to borrow money for stadiums and rapid transit systems,

and yet for a resource that is the basic underpinning of the provincial economy,

the forest resource, this government is not even willing to borrow the money

to provide for the replacement of that forest resource so that we and our children

and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the economic and other benefits that

resource provides. If we borrowed the $52 million this year and paid it back

over five years, it would result in a surcharge of 21 cents or 22 cents being

added to each metre of timber cut in the province; still we would be selling

our timber to the private forest companies for less than $2 a metre. There are

numerous ways the government, if they had that priority' vision and commitment,

could make the money available so that we could take advantage of the federal

program and be spending $104 million this year to replace our forests and make

sure, as good stewards, that those forests are passed on intact to future generations.

But the government simply does not have the vision, forethought or ability to

manage the economy beyond the day-to-day crises facing it, which in many cases

it creates itself.

Some of us have expressed concern about the government's discussion

in the throne speech of workers' compensation and the Labour Code.

Again, the government never seems to ask the question: what can we do

to improve labour management relations in the province of British

Columbia, and what can we do to improve the process so that working

people are not deprived of adequate incomes, adequate health and safety

provisions and adequate compensation for loss of income due to injury

or work-related illness? They don't look at how they can expand the

program and make it more efficient so that it covers more people. All

you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at countries like New Zealand, or

some of the studies done in this province and Saskatchewan and Manitoba

back in 1976, to know that the direction we must go in terms of

compensation programs is to expand the program. One way to limit the

number of appeals is to expand the program so that you don't have as

many appeals concerned with whether an accident occurred on the job or

whether an illness is work related, One of the main problems in

workers' compensation appeals is tying that accident or illness to the

workplace.

In New Zealand they've combined a number of government insurance schemes,

their automobile insurance scheme, a number of private and public accident insurance

schemes, and they've combined workers' compensation under one umbrella.

That umbrella is the Accident Compensation Commission. They've established

a premium system that covers small business people, housewives, workers on the

job and people involved in public and private transportation. That system is

working. It fills the gaps. It has lowered the premiums on employers. It has

eliminated a lot of the appeal processes which we face in this province, plus

it expands the coverage and makes it available to virtually everyone in the

country. Why does this government not have the kind of vision that says we should

be improving the benefits of accident compensation schemes? We should be taking

advantage of some of the institutions we currently have that offer insurance

schemes in British Columbia, such as ICBC, which is a proven success in its

field. It is recognized as a success around North America, and it provides automobile

and accident insurance at some of the lowest rates of any general insurance

company in North America. Why does the government not recognize the success

of that organization and attempt to duplicate that success with the accident

compensation system?

In Queensland, Australia, the state government insurance office also

administers workers' compensation. They are able to combine

administration and the expertise that's available through that

insurance corporation, and they're able to deliver claims services

through the outlets of that state government insurance office in

Queensland, Australia. They do a darned good job. They don't simply

cover workers on the job site; they cover workers going to and from

work. In New Zealand they cover workers whether they're at work or not,

because it doesn't matter to the worker whether his salary is lost as a

result of falling down on the plant site or falling down the stairs at

home. He's still deprived of that salary. He's still deprived of the

ability to support his family. He's still forced on the mercies of the

government to provide him welfare, or on the mercies of private

insurance schemes. What we should be doing is expanding our vision to

create more efficient coverage for the citizens of this province, not

simply cutting back on the appeals system and cutting back on the

opportunity to appeal as the government appears to be doing. They're

concerned about the costs that are being visited on employers, and they

have no other concern whatsoever in terms of occupational health and

safety of our workers or compensation for accidents in this province.

It's a shame, Mr. Speaker. that this government does not have the

vision, does not have the original analysis, or capability for original

analysis or original thought that's really required to deal with the

problems that are facing us today.

One of the concerns I have in the throne speech is the concern about

energy. The government is not talking about an energy surplus but an

energy advantage, as if all of those years of overbuilding, all those

years of debt and intensive construction programs that B.C. Hydro has

been involved in have resulted in some kind of energy advantage by

having surplus capacity and surplus energy produced in this province.

[10:30]

After calling it an energy advantage, the government is setting

about to destroy that advantage by exporting power at very low rates to

the United States so that jobs can be created in the United States. As

a result of those jobs, they can export those materials back to Canada

at higher rates, using cheap Canadian energy. What an insane system.

It's the same rationale that they applied to the Columbia River Treaty.

It's the same rationale that they applied to the Skagit Valley, the

same rationale they applied to the Alcan Kemano completion project. It

simply doesn't make sense, and over the long run it's damaging to the

citizens of British Columbia and to the economy of British Columbia.

What kind of vision does this government have, Mr. Speaker, if they

have any vision at all? We should be involved in an energy efficiency

program. We should be looking at how B.C.'s energy resources are

developed and how they're used. We should be examining the production

and the utilization of those energy resources and creating conditions

so that they can be used most effectively and most cheaply in the most

effective way.

[ Page 3238 ]

1 refer the Speaker to a study, called a community audit, that was

done for the city of Cranbrook by the energy information action centre

in the city of Cranbrook. They point out that in 1982 the total price

paid in Cranbrook for energy was $46,191,698. That works out to an

energy bill of $3,917.87 for each adult in town. But this tells only

part of the story, for almost all this energy is provided and purchased

from distant sources. Electricity generated elsewhere in the province

is supplied by Vancouver-based B.C. Hydro. Oil is marketed

predominantly by foreign-owned companies. Natural gas is imported from

Alberta and other parts of B.C. As a result, 82.4 percent or

$38,068,698 of Cranbrook's annual energy bill is money which is lost

from the local economy.

The energy audit determined that if Cranbrook was involved in saving

energy, in using energy more efficiently, they could save something

like 45 percent of the energy used in that community. That 45 percent

of energy saved would result in an increase in the amount of money

staying within the city of Cranbrook. It would result in an increase in

disposable income in the hands of consumers. It would result in an

increase in the transactions that take place in the economy of

Cranbrook and in an increase in local job creation. So rather than

exporting something like $38 million in local capital, they would be

recapturing a large part of that to invest in the local economy of

Cranbrook.

This is the direction in which the province should be going in terms

of energy management, not building new megaprojects which are

debt-intensive and costly and which destroy more jobs than they create.

What we should be doing is getting involved in an energy-efficiency

program which saves money for the consumers, restores disposable income

to local communities and uses that income to generate jobs and economic

activities in the local community. There is sufficient information in

the hands of the government and in the hands of those communities to

show that if the government made a small investment in energy

efficiency, then we could improve local economies all around the

province in a dramatic way. Yet the government goes the route of the

megaproject. They go the route of exporting our valuable energy

resources. They go the route of creating jobs in Japan and California

with our energy resources that we paid for here in this province, so

that competing jobs can be established in areas outside the province.

It's insane. It doesn't make sense from an economic point of view; it

doesn't make sense from a policy point of view. The government simply

does not have the vision that's required. It does not have the

capability to apply any kind of thoughtful analysis to the problems

facing the citizens of this province. As a result, we're in more

difficulty now after their policies have been in effect for one year

than we were when the policies were brought down in the middle of one

of the worst recessions ever experienced in this province in the last

half-century. That's the problem as I see it in the throne speech, Mr.

Speaker.

The government is mouthing the same old clichés. They're taking

credit for the very little that's been done in a positive way to our

economy. Most of the positive things that have happened in the economy

have happened in spite of the government's program rather than as a

result of it. They've lost a vision of the future in terms of the

stewardship of our resources. They've lost a vision of the future in

terms of the management of our energy. They've lost a vision of the

future in terms of protecting the lives, health and safety of the

people of this province and making sure that people who lose their

salaries as a result of accidents or illness on the job are not going

to end up on welfare. What we need is a government that's committed to

a decent standard of living and a decent quality of living for the

citizens of British Columbia. What we need is a government that's

concerned about equality of opportunity in this province, not a

government that says that human rights are now going back to the status

they enjoyed in Selma, Alabama, in 1955, when human rights were the

responsibility of the individual. We don't want a government whose only

vision of housing rights or tenants' rights in this province is that

landlords should be given more rights, depriving tenants of their

rights of free access to housing and a decent place to live. We don't

want a government without any vision altogether.

This government has fallen down, especially on the issue of

replacing our forests. They failed in their negotiations with the

federal government, because they failed to put up money and to attach

sufficient priority to the forest resources of British Columbia. It's a

shame, because we're not penalizing the people here today; we're

penalizing future generations who have a right to the resources which

we hold as stewards only. By spending virtually nothing and by

committing virtually nothing to intensive forest management, this

government has exhibited its priority to the forest resource. Not only

that, they've shown their commitment by making no demands on the

companies that reap very much of the benefit from that resource. They

sell the resource at the cheapest possible price. They demand no

surcharge from those companies. There is no direct charge against those

companies which will pay for the replacement of the resource. It's a

shame. Studies are now showing that if we don't begin that investment

process, if we don't begin that restocking process and if we don't take

the issues seriously now, then we're going to be losing 60,000 jobs in

this province by the year 2000. The government can take full

responsibility for that. We'd have to create 200 new northeast coal

projects in order to create that kind of employment; yet the government

doesn't see this as a priority.

The government says that the citizens of this province are now

having their hope and confidence restored in the economy. Nothing can

be further from the truth. Howard Wachtel, a professor of economics at

the American University in Washington, D.C., says there are two

political systems operating in North America: one is based on one

dollar, one vote; one is based on one citizen, one vote. The people of

this province have decided that they're going to exercise what little

power they have available to them in the one dollar, one vote system.

They're putting their money in the bank in amounts as they've never put

it away before; they're not spending it in this economy, because they

don't have the confidence that the Socreds are properly managing the

economy or that there is any hope for the economy in the way the

Socreds are currently managing it. So they're keeping their money in

the bank. They're voting with their dollars by not spending them, and

that exhibits an absolute lack of consumer confidence in what the

Socreds are doing in British Columbia. It's one of the opportunities

that the people in British Columbia have to vote in a confidence or

non-confidence way against this government. They didn't have that

opportunity at the last election, Mr. Speaker, because the government

didn't tell us what its economic program was going to be. It didn't

reveal the details of that program and how harshly it was going to be

implemented against the people of this province. So the people didn't

have a chance to vote against the government at that time, but the

consumers

[ Page

3239 ]

of this province are now voting — as never before — against the government's

economic policies by not participating in the provincial economy, by not increasing

consumer expenditures and getting this economy going at the local level.

ML Speaker, I would like to move a motion, seconded by the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), that this House regrets that

the speech of His Honour fails to recognize that policies of the

government have resulted in economic stagnation and, further, fails to

provide proposals for strengthening our economy and enhancing the

standard and quality of life of all our people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment is a reasoned

amendment and, as such, is in order. The Chair recognizes the seconder,

the second member for Vancouver Centre.

[10:45]

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I'm glad to second the motion by my hon. colleague

from Alberni and point out that, indeed, the opening speech of His

Honour is bereft of any positive programs to take us out of the

recession that British Columbia has been experiencing over the past two

and a half years. As a matter of fact, the only part of His Honour's

speech that I enjoyed — and I don't want anybody to accuse me of not

being positive in giving credit where credit is due.... I want to

express to the House my appreciation to His Honour for the following

words: "I extend greetings to you all on behalf of our Sovereign." I

appreciate those remarks, Mr. Speaker. I think we can all take comfort

in them and recognize that we are part of a worldwide system of

politics called the British parliamentary system, which has evolved

over 800 years, particularly since that year –– 1215 — when Magna Carta

was signed at Runnymede. Those principles in Magna Carta were written

There was trilingualism in those days. They had a little trouble

understanding it — the sovereigns from time to time had some trouble

and one or two lost their heads over the matter. It seems that in the

year 1984 the Social Credit government of British Columbia is embarking

upon the same course that Charles I embarked upon. And how have they

worded it? George Orwell would have great fun with this: something

about expeditious, smooth streamlining of the parliamentary system.

We've heard that before, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it before in the

history books. We've seen it repeated. It's the same as Charles I

ushering in the yeomen of the guard and his personal guard to surround

all of the members of the House of Commons and escort them away, having

dissolved parliament at his whim and not recalling it, being upset with

the House of Commons when it didn't accept his view of the way things

should be and what laws should be enacted.

We will, of course, oppose any measures by this government that will curtail

the hard-fought-for and hard-won freedoms of individual members of this chamber

— not because the privileges and the freedoms of these individual members enhance

their personal position, but because each member represents a constituency and

people in the province, and that is the essence of the British parliamentary

system. There is no point in the government of the day throwing up its hands

and saying: "Oh, my goodness, the debate is too long. We were elected to

govern. We shall govern. We are impatient with the opposition that opposes our

legislative proposals and our programs." That's been said before, in

many ways, by those who wish to take the mandate to govern through the British

parliamentary system that one step too far, into a dictatorship. That kind of

streamlining of the British parliamentary system, that kind of expeditiousness

introduced to the parliamentary system, will be vigorously opposed.

We are disappointed with the throne speech as a whole, Mr. Speaker.

It is full of the kind of cliché and slogan that my hon. colleague from

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has referred to. There are the sentences that

read: "British Columbians have had to redefine who we are and what we

can expect. My government has had to count every dollar and to make

every dollar count." A rolling stone gathers no moss and a stitch in

time saves nine and an apple a day keeps the doctor away — and they

drone on and on and on. These are meaningless, insubstantial clichés

representing no policy, no imagination, just mediocrity — the kind of

dull mediocrity that kills initiative, that kills creativity, that

discourages the people of the province of British Columbia, be they

businessmen or workers. They are people who will grind society and its

economy to a halt even more than they've done already. They are

cliché-ridden. If there is a slogan or cliché to be found or to be used

it will be used in this throne speech and you'll see it.

They say that "our fundamental priorities and character as a people"

— what presumption! — "have been severely tested." Yes, they have, Mr.

Speaker. But by whom? Have they been severely tested by the

circumstances of our economy? No. The short-sighted and rather dumb

introduction of severe legislation last year by this government has

severely tested the people of the province of British Columbia. The

difficulties that we faced have been aggravated by this government's

policies. Confidence fell — they describe confidence falling — but

confidence fell in the government, and the economy lagged far behind

the economies of the other provinces of this country.

I'll go on: "British Columbians have met the challenge, have

overcome the most serious obstacles and ... face the future with a

renewed sense of confidence and its purpose." If they're doing that —

and I sincerely hope that they do — they do so in spite of this

government and its policies. They say: "British Columbians have made

progress in getting our house in order. Hope is around and confidence

about." It's like saying: may this House be safe from tigers. The

government has set up antagonistic laws and policies, and created a

situation of confrontation, division and polarization in our society

during bad economic times, when cooperation was the hallmark, then

turned around, stepped back from it and said: "You see, we've saved the

day." They create the problem, then appear to solve the problem, and

that, I suppose, is an appearance of progress. They say that they've

tried to minimize the burden on taxpayers. I think they've tried to

minimize the number of taxpayers.

Unemployment is up; business bankruptcies are soaring; foreclosures

are reaching record levels. The province which was once the second

richest in the country is now falling sadly behind the recovery in

other provinces. Why? They can no longer throw up their hands and blame

the international marketplace, or blame the metals prices or the

international recession — even though they still try to. The fact is,

British Columbia is lagging behind in its economic recovery as a direct

result of the negative and short-sighted policies of the government of

this province.

[ Page 3240 ]

They have the nerve to say in the throne speech: "Nearly 14,000 new

businesses were established in British Columbia." In the two years

previous to this session 36,000 old businesses, large and small, went

bankrupt in this province, so 14,000 is not far enough. You may ask

where they got the figure of 14,000. It's not new businesses, Mr.

Speaker; that's really a misrepresentation that they forced through the

mouth of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. The 14,000 are

incorporated businesses. Anybody knows that you can incorporate several

new companies for a variety of different purposes; very seldom do they

represent a going concern or a business where the business starts up

and people are hired. Corporate structures are formed every day through

the registrar of companies — it's true.

The throne speech states that by the end of last year, "the number

of persons employed in our province was 2.1 percent higher than a year

earlier." We've had staggering unemployment in British Columbia. When

unemployment was lowering in other provinces, ours was going up. They

have no excuse for the economic results of their policies. It was never

lower a year ago as far as employment was concerned. We've had the

highest deficit and increase in deficit in all of Canada, and they have

the nerve to say that interest and mortgage rates have been "kept high

by massive government deficits in North America." They should have

added: "led by the government of the province of British Columbia." And

even that is in itself a peculiar statement for His Honour to make on

behalf of the government: that our mortgage and interest rates are kept

high by massive government deficits. The recent Oxford group, which

contains Nobel laureates and distinguished economists, has totally

discredited that monetarist view of economic problems. They even proved

that Friedman, in his magnum opus on monetarist policy, manufactured

and fabricated the evidence to support his theories. When this was

raised, I saw someone on television say: "That's bad science, even for

an economist." It's fraud, and that kind of fraud has been accepted and

believed by simpleminded people throughout North America who support

that theory, and who support the kind of short-sighted right-wing

policies that have been introduced in the past year by this government.

Life savings are being snuffed out, and right now in the city of

Vancouver foreclosures have never been higher — either before, during

or after the great depression of the 1930s. Personal foreclosures —

houses — are on the block. Families are being thrown out on the streets

today, and there is no mention of any relief for them in the throne

speech; none. If people go down to the courthouse today, tomorrow or

the next day, they will see that the longest list in chambers is for

foreclosure actions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Bank of Commerce involved in any of those?

MR. LAUK: Lots of them.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems of the narrow-minded group — the

myopic group — supporting the government.... One of the problems with

not having an imagination is that you're unsympathetic. People with no

imagination can't put themselves in other people's shoes. So you hear

the yawns from the Pickwickian or the cavalier types sitting on the

back bench as you mention foreclosure. You hear: "Oh dear, here it goes

again — foreclosures. Oh, these people, let them eat cake," and so on.

You hear that all the time from the back bench, because they lack the

imagination to place themselves in the shoes of people who are going

bankrupt and having their houses and property foreclosed. They simply

do not understand, and therefore they're unsympathetic and can make

these flippant remarks as members of the opposition try to bring to the

attention of the House the plight of these citizens, many of whom

reside in the constituencies of the very hon. members who are making

light of their situation.

If I've ever heard this before.... Can you imagine this in a throne

speech, Mr. Speaker? "My government believes that expanded

international trade and private sector investment are the key elements

in fostering new hope for the unemployed." The NDP has been saying that

kind of thing since Pontius was Pilate. This government has been making

that kind of slogan and cliché since it formed the government in 1975,

and we see it once again trotted off the shelf — tired old nag that it

is — and placed in its position in the throne speech in 1984. You would

think they would have some sensitivity for the literary-minded of us

and have some workmanship in drafting this kind of a speech.

[11:00]

There is one relevation. It says: "My Minister of Finance has been assisted

in his efforts by extensive consultation with interested parties." That's

true. It is our view that the last budget and the programs mentioned in this

speech — the policies of this government — are pandering to special-interest

groups in the province of British Columbia. The government are pandering to

the kind of groups that support them financially in elections. They're pandering

to the kinds of groups that only they feel they have contact with, the small

group of people in this province that control the greater amount of wealth and

business enterprises in this province. They feel they represent them, and they

represent them solely. The direct result of the economic and fiscal policies

of this government are in support of that group — they think. But even that

group is being shortchanged by the kind of policies this government has. Here

is an admission, a candid confession, that they pander to the special-interest

groups of this province who have the ear of the government.

The speech says: "Most British Columbians are prepared to work

together and share in the pursuit of restraint and recovery." If

they're prepared to work together, it's in spite of this government, as

I've said before. They're not working together in cooperation with this

government; they're working together to survive the policies of this

government.

We said last year that if you raise the sales tax you're going to

lower even further the revenues to the government coffers. They looked

puzzled over there, as if that was a unique proposition. They didn't

quite understand it. They figured: "If you raise the sales tax, don't

you increase the revenue to the government?" We patiently stood in our

places on this side of the House and said that if you raise the sales

tax at a time when the recovery is just about to start, you're going to

discourage spending. When you discourage spending, you don't collect

revenue on any sales tax, let alone the increase you have imposed. What

has happened in the interim? Precisely what we predicted. Lower

revenues. The projected revenues by the budget have not been met. Up

until just a few weeks ago the government's revenue has fallen far

short of its expectation.

The throne speech says: "Settlements in the British Columbia public

sector are not substantially below those in other provinces" — so is

our economic recovery, by the way

[ Page

3241 ]

— "and those at the federal level. The scope for

productivity bargaining" — I love that phrase; it's another newspeak

phrase.... Productivity bargaining. Do you know what that is, Mr.

Speaker? That's the productivity of the labour force. You always hear

the monetarists, the Michael Walkers, the propagandists of the left and

the lie merchants arguing productivity for workers, labourers. Do they

argue productivity of administration? Do they argue productivity of

capital? Do you ever hear them talk about that? Do we ever go to the

financial institutions of the country and say: "You're not using our

money properly"? I heard the other day that a major financial

institution had made loans to a group of citizens so they could invest

in the Grand Cayman Islands. Our savings and our capital leaving the

province for some phoney-baloney kind of foreign investment in land

development, instead of right here in the province! Have we argued

about the productivity of capital, the productivity of interest rates

or where the profits are going? No, it's always the productivity of

labour. This government will never be taken seriously in its program of

recovery until it argues and considers all sides of the question.

That's why their policies are a failure. That's why we're lagging

behind the rest of the country in recovery.

They say: "... a new realism in the productive sector." My friend

from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has already pointed out the nonsense of

referring to "the productive sector." How would they know what the

productive sector is in the first place? Their idea of a productive

sector may be someone who has inherited $10 million and plays that on

the market to make up to $50 million. Who knows? That's productive? Did

anyone wash a window, bring in a crop, cut down a tree for that $40

million profit? Or the real-estate flipping artists — are they "the

productive sector" they're talking about?

You can see the contrast between myth and realism in this

government's approach by their doublespeak newspeak — their invention

of new language and buzzwords. We've seen a total redefinition of what

is the private sector and the public sector. We now know that

"privatization" is the buzzword of the current administration and that

the private sector now includes human rights, jail guards, schools,

hospitals, police, and whatever else. That's the private sector. The

public sector has become coal-mines in the northeast, housing, and

commercial office space in downtown Vancouver. That's now the public

sector, supported by public funds. You can see what has happened — the

madness being perpetrated by this government and sold to the people,

The other point made in the speech is that: "In contrast to other

jurisdictions, collective bargaining continues to operate in the public

sector of British Columbia." I'm just wondering what other jurisdiction

they're talking about. Poland? Is there a comparison to be drawn

between collective bargaining in this province and collective

bargaining elsewhere? They've failed miserably to live up to their

commitments every step along the way.

The throne speech talks about the economic outlook, as if the government of

the day is willing to look — really — at the future of the economy in North

America and the world as it will affect this province. His Honour said: "I'm

advised that the world economic situation remains uncertain because of international

debt problems." International debt problems? One of the public corporations

in North America that has the highest debt is B.C. Hydro. This government has

brought in the highest deficits and increases in deficits of any government

in the country. It's like my friend from Alberni points out, and quite correctly:

this government is willing to place the blame anywhere. They'll say any

outrageous thing to escape responsibility for their own incompetence, in the

hope that a few people will believe it.

His Honour went on to say: "As we enter 1984, I'm advised there is

substantial evidence that exports and international trade will lead the

economic recovery currently underway." Evidence? He was advised by

whom? Where is this evidence of an increase in international trade?

What kinds of projections? From the department of economic development?

No. What's he listening to? Ouija boards? Are they examining the

entrails of a chicken? Where are they getting the economic predictions

of an international trade recovery? Are they not responsible for what

they're putting in opening speeches these days, Mr. Speaker?

They say duty-free zones are the answer. Now that's the joke of the

century. The highest unemployment in the country, uncertainty among our

people, despair among many, education cutbacks — the future is closing,

narrowing like an ever-shrinking window, if you like, of the future for

our young people. They've cut off their future by increasing

unemployment, and are trying to pass on in a propaganda way the

acceptance of high unemployment for the long term in B.C. and

elsewhere. They're cutting off education to ordinary people in this

province, holding them, trapping them, imprisoning them in a situation

of chronic unemployment, of low self-esteem, and of a very discouraging

future for many of our young people. And what happens, Mr. Speaker?

Along comes Michael Walker, and this poor pathetic government accepts

what he says: duty-free zones are going to help us in our economy. I've

never heard such nonsense. The extremely limited beneficial factor in

duty-free zones is well documented around the world, and it's only the

very desperate, underdeveloped, Third World countries that have moved

in that direction as a last-ditch stand against their own recessions.

And this little banana republic government adopts it as part of their

panacea, part of their answer to the people of the province. It's

embarrassing. It's a joke.

International trade promotion is a hallmark of the speech. What's it

going to do? Well, it will increase tourism abroad, because most of the

ministers will be travelling, as I understand it. But it will take

money out of the province, because the taxpayer's going to pay the

expense of having them travel. What are they going to sell, and to

whom? The throne speech talks about our resources. This government has

not faced up to the reality that our resources are no longer in demand,

nor are they likely to be to the same extent as they were in the

fifties and sixties. We've got to readjust. We've got to restructure

our economy. We've got to look to the future. But they're hiding their

heads in the sand and ignoring the international trade realities of the

day. They're arguing that they're going to send their ministers out;

they're ill-equipped to run their own departments, let alone to

represent British Columbia industry. They're going to send our

ministers out to sell what to whom? Pie in the sky, smoke and mirrors

once again, Mr. Speaker. None of us can last very long on that kind of

nonsense, that kind of bafflegab.

A real analysis of the economy must be before the government as soon

as possible. The government must take bold action, and positive action,

instead of the regressive, frightened, negative policies they have been

introducing that scare the people of the province and frighten foreign

investment away because of the labour confrontation. They have got to

have a look at the future, and they're not. Their answer is to

[ Page 3242 ]

send the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to China again, or something. What on

earth is this doing in the throne speech?

They have the nerve to mention northeast coal in the throne speech

once again. My God, the new definition of public sector includes

massive public investment in the northeast coal project. New problems

are developing there, and it is no solace to the people of this side of

the House — the people of the province of British Columbia. Many of us

warned the government against foolish investment moves in the

northeast. Having been done, we hope it will succeed, but already there

are troubles up there. It is not just the electric shovels that are

breaking down all the time, and the lack of foresight in the use of

equipment and planning, but they are finding that the grade and the

type of coal being mined in the northeast now is of such a nature that

it will be more expensive to extract that coal than they had first

thought.

On one hand the Japanese are pressuring the government and Quintette

and others to lower the price of coal, and on the other hand it is

costing more to extract and ship the coal than we had thought, even

during low inflation in a recessionary time. We are very, very worried

indeed about the long-term effects of the people's investment in

northeast coal.

In the throne speech His Honour says: "I am pleased to report that

the Toyota Motor Corp. began construction in 1983 of an aluminium alloy

wheel manufacturing plant." They are going to open a Toyota plant in

1984 or 1985 at Tilbury Island, and it will employ 100 people. This is

the only medium manufacturer to open in the life of the Social Credit

administration in this province. Did you know that? The only

manufacturing company in British Columbia to open in the last eight to

nine years has been a Toyota plant that would employ 100 people. In the

meantime, Japanese manufacturers have been moving into California by

the dozens, employing thousands and tens of thousands of people — a

great capital investment in California.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It is absolutely correct; you just don't know what

you're talking about. The only manufacturer to open since the NDP

administration is a Toyota plant in Delta. I suppose one cannot blame

them for putting it in the throne speech. It's the only one; let's list

it.

Remember the tremendous hope that people had in the enterprises of

the New Democratic Party as we had embarked upon a joint-venture scope

of industrialization in this province that would have been a bulwark

against the recession. It may not have prevented the harmful effects in

its entirety, but it would have protected the people of British

Columbia in their jobs to a greater extent than this negative,

regressive, fearful attitude of the Social Credit right-wing

government. Now they are saying the same thing that the NDP have been

saying since the Flood: "We want to diversify our economy. We want to

go out into the international marketplace." Isn't it a little late for

that? Stimulating employment? And they are talking about the LIFT

initiatives and the other pathetic efforts that this government has

made to lower unemployment figures.

[11:15]

His Honour says: "Through this vehicle, my government and the private

sector have preserved over 3,000 jobs and have created almost 5,000 new permanent

jobs." I've tried to find the evidence for that; I must say, Mr. Speaker,

that it is completely unsubstantiated. There is no way that the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development can support that claim in the throne

speech. If you can't support a claim, don't put it in the throne speech,

Mr. Speaker. Don't force the Lieutenant-Governor, the vice-regal authority

in British Columbia, to make statements that are insupportable.

It says: "A co-ordinated strategy has been developed to market

available serviced industrial land, thus encouraging economic

development at the local level." We had started that program in 1974,

and it was shut down in 1976. Now it is going to be reactivated two and

a half years after we have been in the middle of a terrible depression.

The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, I'm getting too old. I can remember back further than May 5. It seems that most people can't.

Here is the great job-creating program in the 1984 throne speech —

student job support. This is a lovely turn of phrase. I want you all to

note this. This is very good. This is strictly from Madison Avenue. "My

ministers will seek to find new ways to facilitate the flow of private

risk capital, both foreign and domestic, to sectors that have the

potential to thrive, grow and create new employment opportunities." I

defy anyone to explain that to me. I'll bet you that if we had ten

people explaining that, we'd have 20 different explanations. I suppose

that because of the heading "Student job support," we're going to

loosen up that vast reservoir of savings and capital that's necessary

to start a few lawn-cutting companies in Point Grey, so the students

can make a few bucks to go back to school with. Or perhaps they'll

repair fences — a handyman type of operation. This is in the throne

speech of the province of British Columbia.

It talks about agriculture and says it's very strong. It is strong

because the New Democratic Party policies have made it strong. Because

this government has respected those polices, maintained them in place,

the agricultural industry in this province has been able to weather the

recession not too badly, which gives validity to my argument that had

the other policies of our government of the day been supported by this

government, the people of this province would have survived the

recession much better than they have.

Here's something on energy initiatives that I find rather amusing.

"My government is in the process of restructuring the industry's

institutional and financial framework in order to encourage a healthy

industry which can create and take full advantage of future market

opportunities." Can I translate that for everybody? That means more

profit-taking and fewer taxes for large multinational oil companies.

Stripped of all the nonsense, the buzzwords and the bafflegab, it's

another sellout of our natural resources to international companies —

more tax burden on ordinary families and less tax burden on the major

companies that are extracting our resources and selling them abroad.

They talk about the LNG plant. Now they're linking it up to support

from the governments of Alberta and Canada before we can proceed with

this project — further delays, more incompetence. The Vancouver Island

pipeline is mentioned as well. I knew we couldn't have a throne speech

without mentioning the Vancouver Island pipeline. Surely we had to get

that in there. I want you to imagine the year 2014, dateline Victoria,

long after I have left this chamber and indeed maybe even this grand

old globe itself: "Forty-nine year-old MLA Greg Lauk asked if the

Vancouver Island pipeline was going to proceed this year. There was

thumping

[ Page

3243 ]

of the desks as the opposition member once again pleaded for the completion of the Vancouver Island pipeline."

AN HON. MEMBER: To Parksville.

MR. LAUK: Over our land. Can you imagine? I can imagine the

chuckle of the former and aged member for Prince George South sitting

in his rocking chair and reading the item in the Prince George Citizen .

He chuckles and reaches for his nitroglycerine tablets and remembers

days gone by in this chamber, when the Vancouver Island pipeline was

just around the comer — one more study, one more supporter, one more

this, one more that. The public, I guess, has a collective leg that can

withstand an infinite amount of pulling.

We talk about energy advantages and selling our power to the south.

I have no objection to selling power. Maybe you've got it: sell it and

make it pay. I'll move along quickly. But it seems to me that when

inflation is less than 5 percent, there should be no thought of

increases to Hydro customers at any time in the next two or three years.

To comment on tourism, here is another pathetic remark. It's the

kind of remark that I find.... They're going to make British Columbia

attractive to international tourism. How? The way they do in the

Philippines or Mexico? We could all get our straw hats and stand and

bow at people and collect two pesos for carrying a bag. That's what's

happening in this province. The only thing we can look for is that kind

of tourism, which is directly related to the kind of policy this

government is imposing. We're a resource province that's falling by the

wayside. We're a resource province that is no longer needed in the

world. Our wealth that once kept us fat and sassy is going to lead us

to a complacency already endemic in the government. It will lead us to

being the kind of banana republic where tourism is our major industry.

Mr. Speaker, you and I will be standing beside our 1957 Plymouth taxis,

with our straw hats in our hands, waiting for the turistas to come, to

drive them to ancient monuments like the old and falling-apart stadium.

Privatization of hospitals, schools, guards and jails is going on.

Public control over our lives and centralization of control over land

zoning and other matters.... I know what this government is doing; it's

too bad that more people in the province did not.

A brief word about safety and inspection of buses.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.

MR. LAUK: May I have leave to finish one remark, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: I was going to mention public safety and automobile

inspections. I'll leave that for another time and just say that, as

yet, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) has

not assured the public of British Columbia that our kids and the public

in general are riding on buses that are safe. He has not given that

assurance. It's his responsibility to stand in this chamber or hold a

press conference and do so, and I invite him to do so.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to reject completely and out of hand the

rather narrow and simple-minded view that no-fault insurance in the

automobile area is a protection for the public.

It's a move deliberately in the long term to privatize ICBC to the

private insurance companies. Private insurance companies will not buy

ICBC unless there is no-fault, and you have to ask yourself why. To

argue that no-fault is a benefit to the public is to ignore the

tremendous hardship that has been brought to injured workers by the WCB

system, no matter what kind of a system we have introduced. To

privatize and to no-fault the automobile insurance system means that

people who are innocent victims will no longer be compensated as well —

sometimes not at all. People who are fault-ridden in causing accidents

may be compensated fully. I reject that concept entirely. It is a

negative, narrow concept.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to reconsider the speech from His Honour and to vote for our amendment.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my place this

morning, not in support of the amendment but rather in support of His

Honour's Speech From the Throne. Likewise, on behalf of the government,

I am pleased to take my place in debate following the most able and

eloquent speeches, as mover and seconder respectively, of the second

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Reid).

It's unfortunate, as we saw in yesterday's sitting when we had — as

I remarked — the eloquent speeches from the government members, at best

a paucity from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I note at this time, and

it's truly unfortunate, that there is but one member in the House

representing the opposition. I find it surprising that since the Speech

from the Throne was delivered we have yet to be blessed with the

attendance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I hope that,

once again, we will have his attendance in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a first for me. Having gone through the process

of a few recounts last summer, I didn't have the opportunity to partake

in a speech with respect to the throne speech, and I am pleased to have

that opportunity, particularly in light of the past two speakers'

comments. I found it amazing that the remarks of the hon. second member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) could be categorized as nothing more

than a cynical, sarcastic paraphrasing of the throne speech. Again, I

do understand the handicap that the hon. second member for Vancouver

Centre laboured under, since he was not in attendance when His Honour

addressed us on Monday afternoon. It became quite evident to the House

that the hon. member was merely reading the speech for the first time

and making some musings aloud.

[11:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What have we received in this address from the throne? I would

suggest an excellent strategy as to the long-term economic recovery of

this province. I would categorize it, Mr. Speaker, as that we have now

embarked on phase three. Phase one took place in early 1982 when our

Premier, without the tacit support or approval of any other level of

government supporting his bold moves, recognized the depths of the

economic recession that we were finding ourselves in. He took the

unprecedented step of discussing and implementing restraint measures.

Obviously before a problem can be solved, a problem must be recognized.

Phase one, Mr. Speaker, was recognizing that we had a very serious

problem:

[ Page 3244 ]

we had the most serious economic problem since the recession of the 1930s. The problem was recognized and addressed.

Phase two was the legislative program introduced last summer. It

obviously was some of the bitter pills that were required to bring

about the commencement of a recovery. Naturally there were some

measures taken that were not found to be palatable to certain segments

of our society. They were the necessary pills. Those pills have been

ingested, and their effects are now being shown throughout B.C., Canada

and, for that matter, the world. I think it's fair to conclude that the

program that this government embarked on last year is clearly setting a

framework for economic recovery.

We had, in the last two addresses from members of the opposition,

comments that B.C. was not recovering; the legislative program and the

scheme for economic recovery that this government has laid out have not

been successful and were not proving successful. But two days ago there

was a release from the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada.

These, of course, are the people who invest in this country. They're

not the public sector who don't actually create the wealth of this

country; they're the people who actually put their money to work, put

their money where their mouths are and ensure the ongoing capital

recovery. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada state

unequivocally that British Columbia is going to lead all other

provinces in economic recovery over the next decade. British Columbia

is going to have the largest increase in retail sales. British Columbia

is going to have the most advancement in the fight against

unemployment. Granted, unemployment is at an extremely high level. But

how is that going to be attacked? I believe we see the format for a

well-thought-out, constructive battle plan, if you will. The private

sector can take the lead offered by government and work hand in hand

utilizing the infrastructure to create jobs, create wealth.

Obviously the emphasis of the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, was to

have economic reform and the emphasis on ways of creating new jobs. The

hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pooh-poohed the

concept of duty-free zones. Duty-free zones are a fact of life in this

world. There are some 77 duty-free zones throughout the world, and the

closest thing we have to one in Canada is at Mirabel. I'm not

suggesting, and I don't believe this government is endorsing, that type

of duty-free zone, but surely what this government is envisaging is a

duty-free zone where we can have companies creating manufactured goods

and the raw material and parts utilized for that process brought into

our country on an interim basis duty-free. That, of course, will be

exported, not only creating jobs but of course creating some assistance

to balance of trade.

That type of an innovative approach I would expect, even from the

opposition, would have been supported. There is nothing negative about

that particular concept. You have no impact on provincial taxation

other than sales tax when those people acquire things for

intraprovincial use. You have jobs being created, you have personal

taxes being created, hence you have recovery for our province. There is

no negative aspect to the creation of a duty-free zone. However, some

of our hon. colleagues have seen fit to criticize that, I guess just

for the sake of criticizing.

I think the possibility of a duty free zone being created in the

vicinity of the Roberts Bank, for instance, would be an excellent step

to go part and parcel with the encouragement of economic development

with the Pacific Rim. Traditionally, I believe our economy has been

based on trade in Canada and, for that matter, to a limited extent with

the United States. The Pacific Rim is the future, in my opinion, for

the economic growth of not only the Pacific coast of Canada but the

Pacific coast of North America.

We were honoured to have Governor Spellman attend yesterday and

speak to us about ongoing good relationships between our two

jurisdictions. Not only do we need a recognition of the similarities

between the Pacific coast states and provinces; we have to acknowledge

that the future for economic growth is with new markets. New markets

means new jobs; and new jobs, of course, means new taxes and longterm

stability. I think it's excellent that we have been told we are going

to have members of our government attending in areas throughout the

Pacific Rim and encouraging new trade with British Columbia. If the

opposition expects that we are just going to sit back in British

Columbia and wait for the markets to come to us, then once again

they're exhibiting a total lack of reality. We must take the

initiative, and I'm very pleased to hear that we intend to take that

initiative, to expand the Pacific Rim.

Although His Honour did not refer to it specifically, this coming

May the Pacific Basin Economic Council will be meeting in Vancouver,

and there will be leaders of industry from throughout the Pacific Rim

attending at Vancouver. I know the hon. minister in charge of business

development and other members of our government will be taking a very

active role in that particular conference.

I believe the economic program for ongoing recovery was very clearly

set out. I was troubled to hear that the previous two speakers, members

of the opposition, were unable to read that in the very succinct and

clear words of His Honour's address. Perhaps a few comments on a few of

the areas set out by His Honour might well assist them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not here.

MR. PARKS: No, unfortunately the members of the opposition do

not see attendance in the House as part of their role in government.

Perhaps the two members who are good enough to be in attendance will go

back to their colleagues and stress how we all would appreciate their

attendance in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's their leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have they got a leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Their leader hasn't been here since the throne speech.

MR. PARKS: Reference has been once again made, Mr. Speaker,

to the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in

attendance. That is a strange fact, but it actually gives me a greater

level of comfort to be standing here with both my shoes on and not see

the Leader of the Opposition in attendance.

I think one of the most important areas specifically referred to in

the throne speech has to do with the area of health care. As His Honour

stated, all British Columbians "can rightly take pride and feel

confidence in the first-class quality of health care provided in our

province. Health is, and will continue to be, the number one priority

of our government."

[ Page

3245 ]

And here is one of the truly crucial features of this particular area: "It

accounts for nearly one-third of our provincial budget — the highest proportion

of any province in Canada."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a priority.

MR. PARKS: Not only is it a priority, but

whereas the Health

budget now exceeds $2.45 billion I think it is very relevant to note

that the entire revenue from personal tax in this province barely

exceeds $2 billion. In other words, our Health budget alone takes more

funds than this province receives from personal tax.

I'm sure we're going to hear more cynical comments from members of

the opposition, such as those we've already read from some of the

columnists. I was intrigued how Mr. Garr in particular saw fit to refer

in particular to the unnecessary....

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: I'll attempt to regain order in this House in a

moment. If my colleagues are prepared to give me a moment, I'll

continue with my speech.

As I say, I think it's important to keep in mind the other side of

some of these comments. We have Mr. Garr referring to something like

"the unnecessary duplication being eliminated." I guess one can

interpret that in different ways, but he has seen fit to interpret it

as meaning how many hospitals Vancouver needs. I think it's fairly easy

— certainly not constructive — to comment cynically that what we're

going to do in this government is see the privatization or the

elimination of hospitals. In my community the new Eagle Ridge Hospital

is coming on stream in two or three months. We are also blessed in our

community with the Royal Columbian Hospital and St. Mary's Hospital,

all in the same general geographic location. Rather than opening Eagle

Ridge Hospital on the same majestic scale as Royal Columbian or St.

Mary's, this government has taken the leadership to say: "We have

facilities and medical staff. Let's ensure that they are properly

coordinated and that the government is not just plowing money into

hospitals for the sake of saying we have hospitals."

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: That is correct, hon. colleague. We are insisting upon value for our money spent.

In my area we are going to see Royal Columbian Hospital and St.

Mary's Hospital pool their resources, and the people of Coquitlam, New

Westminster, Burnaby, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and thereabouts are

going to receive the most efficient medical service, and still the best

medical service.

There has been some melodrama carried out by the hon. member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) with respect to the so-called overcrowding at

Royal Columbian.

MR. REID: Not any more. Not with the new ideas.

MR. PARKS: That is correct: not with the new ideas. What you're

going to see there is one particular area handled by one hospital and another

particular area of expertise or specialization handled by the other hospitals,

a total revamping of the management and administration of those facilities,

and an effort to work together to ensure the highest standard of medical care.

That is how this government will continue to achieve what has to be achieved,

and certainly health care is one of those areas that I'm sure all of my

colleagues in government can take pride in associating with,

We also received some critical comment with respect to how we are

going to advance education. Why are we bringing about province-wide

exams? What are we trying to do? Reduce imagination? Reduce freedom of

thought? Why is it that the bulk of these negative comments are not

coming from the students, but the teachers — and for that matter, some

of the school trustees? One of my colleagues suggests it's enlightened

self-interest. May I suggest that it's only the insecure who are afraid

of provincial exams. Only the students who have what I would describe

as inflated marks, which do not represent their real ability, and only

the teachers who are easy markers and allow unprepared students to

pass, have reason to fear.

[11:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With the institution of these province-wide examinations, all

students will be assured of equal opportunity when applying to colleges

and universities. No longer will a more deserving student be overlooked

in favour of one whose marks may appear to be better. No longer will

there be pressure on teachers to boost grades, even if only to give

their students the same advantage that others may have. By introducing

this consistency, we've reduced the subjective discrimination that now

exists between schools and some teachers. No longer will it be said

that an A at one school is the equivalent to, say, a C at another

school. Consistency will once again be brought to our education system.

The schools with high standards will be given a chance to prove

themselves, while those with poor standards will be alerted to their

shortcomings and thus afford the opportunity to improve. Once again

teachers will be judged by how well they teach, not by the marks they

hand out.

I read with interest a recent opinion poll carried out by Mr.

Goldfarb. Apparently public schools in B.C. rank the lowest in terms of

performance among a list of ten local government services. While eight

of ten people think community colleges are doing a good job, only about

half feel that way about public schools. Clearly the public is saying

that there needs to be change. I would suggest that the program

implemented by the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is

the first step and a positive step that will bring about necessary

change.

I also understand the University of Victoria carried out a four-year

study that confirms that there is cause for concern. That study

concluded that the number of students failing first year university

mathematics has been on the increase consistently over the past decade.

It also became evident in that study that high school math grades are a

weak predictor of success. In fact, the relationship between successes

and failures appeared to be strongly influenced by which high schools

the students attended as opposed to their marks. Clearly

standardization and objective marking are a necessity.

There was further comment with respect to the introduction of

provincewide exams. It was said they would induce cramming and would

bring undue pressures on our students. Perhaps I'm already part of the

older generation. My recollection may not be accurate, but it seems to

me that life is filled with the necessity of testing oneself and judging

[ Page 3246 ]

oneself against one's peers. I do not believe there

is anything wrong with having our children learn at a very early age

about preparing themselves for a goal, be it by an exam or otherwise —

and hopefully achieving on that exam. If a student has to cram, that

clearly indicates that the correct values are not being taught by

either the home or the school. Teachers surely can motivate their

students so that they are learning throughout the school term, and the

necessity for cramming per se is surely an indictment of the teachers

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, a number of other areas are referred to in the throne speech which

I would also like to specifically mention. His Honour referred to environmental

enhancement. I was pleased to attend — yesterday, as a matter of fact — a special

briefing session given by the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet),

dealing with how this government has set up a procedure to take care of special

wastes. It is unfortunate that only two members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition

saw fit to attend, but it clearly showed that this government has set forth

a program to take care of an ever-increasing problem. I am sure that for those

of us in attendance the briefing gave some comfort that what heretofore may

well have been considered a difficult, unattended to problem has received this

government's attendance. Coming from Coquitlam we have another problem,

something of an odiferous problem. It's referred to as the Terra Nova garbage

dump. I'm pleased it is no longer in operation in a traditional sense, and

that this government, in conjunction with the GVRD, has seen fit to bring about

a modern method of dealing with solid waste disposal. In the past very short

number of years this government has addressed environmental concerns and clearly

has an excellent record for showing leadership in that area.

With respect to His Honour's comments pertaining to industrial

relations, I would hope that every member of this House would agree

that what is required is stability in labour management and good

working relations. It so happens that we have made a great deal of

progress in that area, thanks solely to the economy. The economy has

brought about a realization that has necessitated that both sides look

at labour management relations and, hopefully, work towards a more

amicable way of settling disputes.

Mr. Parks moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), in his insensitive way and the

government yesterday reported that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) is out of the House and indicated that it was frivolous. The

fact of the matter is that he has a very serious illness in his family,

and I don't want any more of this talk from the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in many of our references there

are numerous references to the fact that a member's presence or absence

from the House is not to be a matter of discussion in the House. I

would commend that reference to all members of the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada